Have PGP..Be considered a Criminal??

[nihil]

I think that the judge was wrong as it appears that the existence of PGP was irrelevant.

It is not a good idea to allow irrelevant evidence as there is always a danger that you might prejudice the rest of the case.

[Tedob1]

it was never mentioned in the article if photos, encyrpted or otherwise were found on his computer. they did mention that a search of his computer's history revealed a search for 'lolitas'. because of the mention of this 'find' im going to assume that no pics were found. if no pictures were found having PHP would really be a moot point. it would seem the only evidence that convicted him was the testimony of a nine year old girl.

[RoadClosed]

PHP - PGP - PCP - HUGE difference!

[gore]

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
PHP - PGP - PCP - HUGE difference!

Really, no. PCP makes everything encrypted looking

[RoadClosed]

With PCP you can decrypt the Matrix.

[gore]

With Opium you can build it

[jinxy]

With Opium you can build it

With MDMA you can fall in love with it.

[Goitz]

Err... excuse me.

Back to track... possession of an encryption program = criminal intent.

That's where the judgment flaw is. The program is designed to disable general access to data; and for any security-minded user, THAT POSSESSION is a must. Does the encryption of data or information, then, constitutes CRIMINAL ACT? Government security offices and services use encryption that will only be decrypted for an authorized user accessing it. Is there a criminal intent to that encryption process at all?

The possession of a gun DOES NOT automatically ascribe the intent to commit murder. If the gun is fired, was it in self-defense or in an act of manslaughter?

It defies reason that the definition of possession, in this case, must be equivocated to a intent which is not that easy to prove--a plan to commit anything malicious can never be proven unless the act is committed. Now, if the person encrypted those pornographic pictures, there still remains the issue of why the limited access procedure was instituted.

Oh, well... when the laws are not yet that proactive, expect judicial myopia.

[IKnowNot]

Minnesota court takes dim view of encryption

and

A Minnesota appeals court has ruled that the presence of encryption software on a computer may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent.

Personally, I find these misleading and inaccurate based on what I read. It sounds more like sensationalism rather then fact.

Although I did not find actual trial transcripts, in the Minnesota Court of Appeals Published Opinions I did find STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A04-381
( watch what browser yo use to view it. Some browsers don’t respond well to it. IE worked best for me. The WC3 says “ No Character Encoding Found!” I guess this speaks to their state employees’ computer savvy? )

Basically the Defendant ( Victim’s uncle ) alleged, among other things, that his conviction should be reversed because the fact that there was a PGP encryption program on his computer was allowed into testimony and was “irrelevant evidence”.


The person who testified to this, according to the above referenced site,

... admitted that the PGP program may be included on every Macintosh computer that comes out today, and appellant may have had the text of Minn. Stat. §§ 617.246 in his computer because of prior allegations against him.

Two things of note here:

1) The Appeals Court addressed this in the above cite with

Rulings involving the relevancy of evidence are generally left to the sound discretion of the district court. State v. Swain, 269 N.W.2d 707, 714 (Minn. 1978). And rulings on relevancy will only be reversed when that discretion has been clearly abused. Johnson v. Washington County, 518 N.W.2d 594, 601 (Minn. 1994). ““The party claiming error has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice.”” State v. Horning, 535 N.W.2d 296, 298 (Minn. 1995).

The Defendant apparently did not meet the burden of proof required under existing case law as evidenced by the statement

We find that evidence of appellant’’s internet use and the existence of an encryption program on his computer was at least somewhat relevant to the state’’s case against him.

Unfortunately I did not notice specific reference to “ the prejudice “ requirement, perhaps the Court did not feel it necessary.

2) More disturbing is the reference to the Minnesota Statute §§ 617.246 and that the Defendant had a copy of it on his computer because of
“...prior allegations against him "

I will go no further with that one.

In fact, I will not go further. Read it for yourself.

It is obvious that the Court was very careful to sanitize the opinion as much as practicable. But it seems very strange that the offenses charged dealt with someone paying a nine-year-old female child to straddle an adult male while nude so that he may take pictures of the child’s vagina on numerous occasions was not mentioned in the apparent appeal or the article which brought about this discussion, except in the precipitate of double jeopardy .

I do not think this case will be used in the future as the author of the article leads one to believe, that presence of encryption software implies criminal intent.

I’ll end this with this quote and for you to decide how it applies:

The record shows that appellant took a large number of pictures of S.M. with a digital camera, and that he would upload those pictures onto his computer soon after taking them

[zencoder]

Notice
This post will have little or nothing to do with the thread. I felt compelled to reply to Road_Closed, since we live in the same neck of the woods. Feel free to skip it.

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
...<snip> this is like drunk driving. If you do not submit to a blood test or breath test AND you have beed pulled over and given one of those tests where you walk the line AND the officer finds you as a high probabilty of having committed drunk driving or at least drinking, you then are in essence guilty of a crime by not submitting to a blood alchol test when directed according to law. Not the same, but a crime none the less.

Failing to divulge encryption keys could fall into the same presedence. Being you are not guilty of the crime, for lack of evidence but guilty of intent. Perhaps guilty of a lesser crime.

For the sake of this argument, you are correct...but technically, as far as the Model Traffic Code and the Colorado Revised Statutes, you are wrong.

Driving Under the Influence is determined by a checmical test of breath or blood alcohol content (BAC or BrAC). You are not legally obliged to take such tests, if you choose not to; don't quote me, but I believe it's akin to the 5th amendment...you right to refuse the tests (without a court order/warrant) is protected under the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

However, your Colorado drivers license (similar rules in most other of these United States) is issued to you by the Department of Revenue (in Colorado, anyway) with several understandings and agreements. Remember kids, driving is a PRIVILEDGE, not a RIGHT. (Please, PLEASE, some egotistical know-it-all-sumbitch argue this point with me.) When you requested a drivers license, you agreed to several binding conditions to the state. Colorado is known as an "Implied Consent" state. That phrase should have you freedom-libertarian-freaks quaking in your boots, if you don't know what it means. What the DOR's intent is that if you are driving a motor vehicle in the State of Colorado, by operating it on the public roads you have already consented to have your blood or breath tested by a Colorado Peace Officer, if s/he suspects you are under the influence. Now said officer still needs reasonable doubt/probably cause, depending on the circumstances (or you can whallop him with a whole ton of nastyness he doesn't want to deal with...slander...false arrest...etc.) However, if you refuse a chemical test, when legally directed to take one by a Colorado Peace Officer, you WILL be handed your ass, administratively: Automatic license revocation for 90 days to 3 years, depending on your history and the circumstances. They take the license away and staple it to the offense report, in most jurisdictions. And the State will tell you 'tough ****' when you whine about it.

So in truth Road_Closed, it's not a matter of your refusal to take the test being evidentiary of intoxication...but your argument is legitimate as a simple comparison. The existence of software with the purpose to obfuscate data can be shown to imply certain attitudes or positions in that manner, in a legal preceeding.

Ok, back to the normal thread.