Man jailed for refusing to reveal passwords.

Ben Tasker ben at bentasker.co.uk
Tue Feb 14 07:10:43 PST 2017


I seem to remember reading somewhere that Rawls has maintained he's
"forgotten" the password since day one. Whilst they can't force you,
they'll still have a damn good try.

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:04 PM, John Newman <jnn at synfin.org> wrote:

> This is a good reminder to keep your phones locked with a PIN, not with
> biometrics. They can force you to give up a fingerprint, but they can't
> force you to remember a "forgotten" passcode.
>
> --
> John
>
> On Feb 12, 2017, at 5:28 PM, Steven Schear <schear.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>>
>


-- 
Ben Tasker
https://www.bentasker.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 7412 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170214/f325502f/attachment.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list