24/7 Newsfeed

Put Reason 24/7 on Your Site

RSS

Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter and via RSS

Feds Worry Defendant in Forced Decryption Case Will Forget Passwords

Federal prosecutors are urging a federal judge to demand a Wisconsin man immediately decrypt several hard drives they believe contain child pornography.

The authorities have been litigating the constitutionality of the decryption issue for months, and want the suspect, Jeffrey Feldman, to decrypt the drives before he forgets the passwords. Federal prosecutors say Feldman can, even after decrypting, continue litigating his claim that the Fifth Amendment protects him from having to unlock at least seven hard drives in the case.

“As more time passes, it is increasingly possible that Feldman could forget his passwords, and currently-encrypted evidence may be lost as a result,” federal prosecutor Karine Moreno-Taxman wrote in a brief filing  Friday. “The Court can reduce this risk by requiring Feldman to provide the Court with the decrypted contents of his hard drives now, ex parte and under seal, so that they can be securely retained pending the adjudication of the Fifth-Amendment question.”

The suspect’s attorney, Robin Shellow, scoffed at the government’s proposal, saying it was a backdoor attempt to get his client thrown in jail immediately. That’s because, she said, Feldman is not going to decrypt his drives, no matter what, meaning the government’s offer essentially hastens a potential contempt-of-court charge.

Source: Wired. Read full article. (link)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • crazyfingers||

    Did the government try "password"? How about "12345"?

  • Live Free or Diet||

    That’s because, she said, Feldman is not going to decrypt his drives, no matter what, meaning the government’s offer essentially hastens a potential contempt-of-court charge.

    The Fifth Amendment doesn't count somehow? (Clearing throat.) OK, the First Amendment freedom of speech logically includes not speaking. Any court that says otherwise has my contempt as well.

advertisement