Man jailed for refusing to reveal passwords.

[Steven Schear]

Guess he never heard of hidden partitions and plausible deniability (e.g.,
via TrueCrypt)

Warrant Canary creator

On Feb 12, 2017 1:14 PM, "jim bell" <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/justice-naps-
> man-jailed-16-months-for-refusing-to-reveal-passwords/
>
>
> Francis Rawls, a former Philadelphia police sergeant, has been in the
> Philadelphia Federal Detention Center for more than 16 months. His crime:
> the fired police officer has been found in contempt of court for refusing a
> judge's order to unlock two hard drives the authorities believe contain
> child pornography. Theoretically, Rawls can remain jailed indefinitely
> until he complies.Francis Rawls
> The federal court system appears to be in no hurry to resolve an
> unresolved legal issue: does the Fifth Amendment protect the public from
> being forced to decrypt their digital belongings? Until this is answered,
> Rawls is likely to continue to languish behind bars. A federal appeals
> court heard oral arguments about Rawls' plight last September. So far,
> there's been no response from the US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, based in
> Philadelphia.
> Rawls was thrown in the slammer on September 30, 2015 "until such time
> that he fully complies" (PDF) with a court order to unlock his hard drives.
> A child-porn investigation focused on Rawls when prosecutors were
> monitoring the online network, Freenet. They executed a search warrant in
> 2015 at Rawls' home. The authorities say it's a "foregone conclusion" that
> illicit porn is on those drives. But they cannot know for sure unless Rawls
> hands them the alleged evidence that is encrypted with Apple's standard
> FileVault software.
> His plight is not garnering public sympathy. Men suspected of possessing
> child pornography never do. But his case highlights a vexing legal vacuum
> in this digital era, when encryption is becoming part of the national
> discussion. For years, both Apple and Microsoft have offered desktop users
> the ability to turn on full disk encryption. And data on Android and Apple
> mobile phones can easily be encrypted.
> Rawls' attorney, Federal Public Defender Keith Donoghue, declined comment
> for this story. But he has argued in court that his client is being "held
> without charges" (PDF) and that he should be released immediately.FURTHER
> READINGIndefinite prison for suspect who won’t decrypt hard drives, feds say
> In winning the contempt-of-court order, the authorities cited a 1789 law
> known as the All Writs Act to compel (PDF) Rawls to decrypt—and he refused.
> The All Writs Act was the same law the Justice Department asserted in its
> legal battle with Apple, in which a magistrate judge ordered Apple to
> produce code to enable the FBI to decrypt the iPhone used by one of two
> shooters who killed 14 people at a San Bernardino County government
> building. The government dropped the case when the authorities paid a
> reported $1 million for a hack.
> The reason why Rawls is idling behind bars without charges is twofold:
> first, the nation's appellate courts have no deadlines on when they must
> issue an opinion. And second, the Supreme Court has never addressed the
> compelled decryption issue.
> The Supreme Court in 2000, however, ruled that demanding too much
> assistance from a suspect is unconstitutional because it would be akin to
> "telling an inquisitor the combination of a wall safe." However, the
> closest federal appellate case on point was decided by the 10th US Circuit
> Court of Appeals in 2012. That court, based in Denver, said a bank-fraud
> defendant must decrypt her laptop. But that ruling wasn't enforced because
> prosecutors obtained the password elsewhere.
> At issue in the decryption battle is the Fifth Amendment. At its core, it
> says people cannot be compelled to testify against themselves. But that is
> the real-world view. When it comes to the virtual world, things change—at
> least insofar as the government is concerned. The government claims that
> Rawls isn't being ordered to testify against himself and that he isn't even
> being ordered to produce his passwords.FURTHER READINGChild porn suspect
> jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives
> Rawls, the government argues, (PDF) "repeatedly asserts that the All Writs
> Act order requires him to divulge his passcodes, but he is incorrect: the
> order requires no testimony from [Rawls], and he may keep his passcodes to
> himself. Instead, the order requires only that [Rawls] produce his computer
> and hard drives in an unencrypted state."
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation told the court in a friend-of-the-court
> brief (PDF) that "compelled decryption is inherently testimonial because it
> compels a suspect to use the contents of their mind to translate
> unintelligible evidence into a form that can be used against them. The
> Fifth Amendment provides an absolute privilege against such
> self-incriminating compelled decryption."
> When the appeals court finally rules on Rawls' plight, it won't be the
> final word on the topic. That's because the nation's circuit courts of
> appeal are not obligated to follow the decisions of their sister circuits.
> This means uncertainty over this issue could linger until the nation's
> highest court weighs in.
> All the while, a jailed man named Francis Rawls, who the authorities
> believe is hiding kid smut, remains the poster child surrounding the debate
> on forced decryption.
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 6038 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170212/89b902bd/attachment.txt>