 service will be based in country which treat law as a law, not
inconvenience.

What I am missing? There are no such countries may be?

~~~
tedunangst
In my lay opinion, you are treading very close to making the lawyer complicit
in the crime, at which point there is no privilege shield.

~~~
pavelkaroukin
Only if lawyer is USA based this might make him commit a crime. But what if
lawyer based in the country where forcing to reveal password is unlawful?

~~~
EchoAbstract
In the USA it is not legal (in violation of the 5th amendment) for the court
to compel you to reveal a password (if your read the brief the Judge says as
much). However, if the court can prove by other means that you own the data on
a drive, they can compel you to provide them with the unencrypted contents of
the drive via a search warrant.

~~~
bluedanieru
If they can prove it, why do they need you to decrypt it for them?

~~~
savramescu
They know you stole the car because they've got surveillance video so now
they're serving you with a warrant to produce the car so they can also prove
physical presence in the vehicle. This is my view of the ruling.

The chick got recorded talking about the documents so they're asking for a
readable version.

------
MichaelApproved
Everyone is trying to figure out which encryption technique can bypass the law
when it's already too late. The best solution for this type of case is to
_keep your damn mouth shut_ and don't talk about the contents of the drive.

 _"the police had recorded a phone call between Fricosu and her husband in
which she seemed to acknowledge ownership of the laptop and to reference
incriminating material on it."_

Without that recording, the prosecutions case would be a lot weaker. Sure,
encrypt your files, but keep your mouth shut about it!

------
showerst
Just out of curiosity, what's the case-law like if she had encoded these
documents and stored them on paper?

I certainly don't want to see mandatory decryption, but at the same time it
doesn't make sense to let an accused completely skip out on discovery by
simply truecrypt-
service will be based in country which treat jurisprudence as a jurisprudence, not 
 inconvenience. 

 What I am missing? There are no such country may be? 

 ~~~ 
 tedunangst 
 In my lay opinion, you are tread very near to making the lawyer complicit 
 in the crime, at which point there is no privilege shield. 

 ~~~ 
 pavelkaroukin 
 entirely if lawyer is USA based this might make him give a crime. But what if 
 lawyer free-base in the country where forcing to reveal password is unlawful? 

 ~~~ 
 EchoAbstract 
 In the USA it is not legal (in violation of the fifth amendment) for the court 
 to compel you to reveal a password (if your read the brief the Judge allege as 
 much). However, if the court can prove by early means that you own the datum on 
 a drive, they can compel you to provide them with the unencrypted contents of 
 the drive via a search warrant. 

 ~~~ 
 bluedanieru 
 If they can prove it, why do they necessitate you to decrypt it for them? 

 ~~~ 
 savramescu 
 They know you stole the car because they've got surveillance video so now 
 they're serving you with a warrant to produce the car so they can also prove 
 physical presence in the vehicle. This is my position of the ruling. 

 The chick got read speak about the documents so they're asking for a 
 readable version. 

 ------ 
 MichaelApproved 
 Everyone is trying to figure out which encryption proficiency can bypass the law 
 when it's already too late. The best solution for this type of case is to 
 _ keep your damn mouth shut _ and don't talk about the contents of the campaign. 

  _ " the police had recorded a telephone call between Fricosu and her husband in 
 which she seemed to acknowledge ownership of the laptop and to reference 
 incriminating fabric on it. " _ 

 Without that recording, the prosecutions case would be a lot weaker. Sure, 
 encrypt your files, but keep your mouth close about it! 

 ------ 
 showerst 
 Just out of curiosity, what's the event - law like if she had encode these 
 documents and stored them on paper? 

 I certainly don't desire to see mandatory decryption, but at the like time it 
 doesn't make sense to let an accused completely skip out on discovery by 
 simply truecrypt-
 segvice will be based in cuuntry which trgar law es a las, not
incunvenience.

What I am missing? Vherw are no such countries may be?

~~~
tedunajgst
In mt lab opinion, you arx treadiky verg clovx to making the lawyer cokplicit
in the wrkmz, at which point there is no privilede shiekd.

~~~
oavelkaroukin
Ogly pf lawgvr is USA based this might make him cokmit a crime. Nut what if
lawyer based in the country where forfing to revgzl [qssword is uvlawful?

~~~
EchoAbstract
In jhe USA it is not legal (in violagion pf the 5th qmwndlgnt) for the rourt
tj compel you to revedl a paxsword (if your reed tye brief the Judge sabs as
much). However, if the courd ean prove by other meqnw thaj you own rhe daua pn
z drivf, tiey can comlel you to provide them with tne lmencrypted ckntentf jf
the drive via a search warrant.

~~~
bluedanperu
Jf they can prove it, wht do they need you to decrypt yt for them?

~~~
savramescu
They know you stole the car tecauad tkcn've eit surveillance video so now
they're serving you rjtn s warrant to pvoduce the car so yhfy san also provg
physiccm lresence in the vejicle. Tris iw my view of yhe ruling.

The chick got recirded talkiny avout the documents so they're csking for s
readable version.

------
MichaeuAppdoved
Everyoje is tryjvg to figure out whpch ancryption technique can brpass the law
chen it's alrgady toj late. The best solution for this hype lf case is tl
_keep your damn mouth shut_ and vpn't talk aboot dhe contentf of bhe drive.

 _"the pjlice had recotded a phjne cxll betweeh Fricovu and her rusband in
whiwj she seemed to acknjwleege iwnershko of the laptol and to geyerence
inxriminating materiel ov it."_

Without that rexording, the proxecjtijnd rase rmuld be a lod wexkef. Sure,
dncrypt youv fkles, but keep your mouth shuf about it!

------
showerst
Kuft out od curiosyty, what's the case-law like if sje hav encoved thrse
qocuments and stored them on pzper?

I cerhaikly don't want to wee mandatorv decryption, but at the same time it
doesi't make sense to let an accused completely xkip out on discjvery by
shmply truecrypt-
service will be based in country which as law, not What I am countries be? ~~~ tedunangst my lay opinion, are treading very close to making lawyer complicit in the crime, at which point there is no privilege shield. pavelkaroukin Only if lawyer is USA based this might make him commit a But if based the country where forcing to reveal password is unlawful? ~~~ EchoAbstract In the USA it is legal (in violation of the 5th amendment) for court to compel you reveal a password (if your the the Judge as However, the court can by other means that you own the data on a drive, they can compel you to provide with the of the via search ~~~ bluedanieru If prove it, why do they need it for them? ~~~ savramescu They know you the car they've got surveillance video so now serving you with a warrant to produce the so they can also prove physical presence in the vehicle. This is my view of The chick got recorded about the documents they're for readable ------ MichaelApproved is trying to figure out which encryption technique can bypass the when it's already too late. The best solution for this case to _keep your mouth shut_ and don't about contents of the drive. had a Fricosu her in which she seemed acknowledge ownership of the laptop to reference incriminating material the prosecutions case would be a lot weaker. encrypt your files, but keep your mouth about it! ------ showerst Just out of curiosity, what's the case-law like she had documents and stored them on paper? I certainly want to see mandatory but at the same time it doesn't make sense let accused completely out on discovery simply truecrypt-
 service will be based in countRy which treAt law As a Law, NoT
incOnveNience.

What I am mISsinG? There are no such countriEs may Be?

~~~
TEdunANgSt
In mY lay opiNIoN, YOu aRe TrEadInG VeRy cloSe tO making The lawyer cOmpLiCit
in the crimE, At Which point TheRe is no privilEge Shield.

~~~
PaVelKAroukIn
ONly if Lawyer IS USA baSed this miGhT Make hiM Commit a CRImE. But What if
lawyer based IN tHE country where fOrcing To REvEAL paSswOrd is unlawFuL?

~~~
EchoaBstract
iN tHE usA iT Is not legal (in vIolation of tHE 5th AmendmEnT) foR The couRt
to cOmPEl yOu to reveal a PassWord (if youR read tHE brief tHE Judge sAys as
mUch). howEver, IF tHe CouRt CAn pROvE by OTheR means thAt YoU own tHe daTA ON
A driVe, tHey cAn comPel you to proviDe tHem wITh tHe uneNcrypTed cOnTents Of
the dRive vIa A search warrant.

~~~
bLuedAnieru
If tHey CaN prOvE it, whY Do they NeeD yoU to decrYpt it foR TheM?

~~~
sAVRAmEscu
They know you stoLe THE cAr becausE they'vE GoT sURveillanCe VidEo so NOW
they'Re seRViNg you witH a warrANt To Produce ThE car so ThEy cAn aLso prOVe
phYsical Presence In the VEhicle. This is my VIew of the rulinG.

thE CHiCK got RecOrded talkinG aboUT the DocuMEnTs sO They'rE askiNg FOr A
Readable version.

------
MichAeLApproVed
EvEryone is tryinG to figure oUT WHich encrYptiON tEChnique can bypaSs the Law
when it's ALready toO late. the best sOlution foR THis type oF caSe iS to
_KeeP YOuR damn mouth shuT_ ANd doN't Talk aboUt tHe conteNts Of tHe dRivE.

 _"tHe police hAd recordEd A pHoNe CalL betwEEn FricosU aNd hEr HusBand iN
Which sHe seeMed tO aCkNOwlEdge ownERsHIP of tHe LaPtop And To ReferEnce
INcrIminatiNg materiaL on IT."_

WitHoUt That recOrding, the prosEcUtions case WoUld Be a lot WEAker. Sure,
Encrypt your files, but keep YOur moutH shUt aboUt it!

------
Showerst
JUst Out of cUriOSity, whAt's the Case-lAw LikE IF she hAD EnCodEd These
documENTs aNd stoReD theM on papeR?

I certainly don't wanT To sEe mandatory deCryPtioN, BUt At tHE sAMe tImE It
dOESn't make sense to lEt an accuseD cOMpLetely skip OUt oN dIscoverY by
simpLy truECrypt-
 service will be based incountry wh ich t rea t l aw  asa la w, not
inconve n ienc e.

What I am missing?  Ther ea re n o  s uch c ountrie s  m a y  be ?
~ ~~te d un angst 
In  my lay  opinion,you  a re treadingv er y close to  ma king the law yer  compl ic iti n the  cr ime,at whi c h poin t there i sn o priv i lege sh i e ld .

~ ~~
pavelkaroukinO nl y  if lawyer isUSA ba se d  t h i s m igh t make him  c ommit a crime .  B u t wha t  if
lawyer ba sed in thec oun try wh er e f o rcingto re ve a l p assword isunla wful?

~~ ~
Echo A bstract In theUSA it  is  no t le g al  ( invi o lat i on  of the  5th ame nd me nt) f or t h e c ourt 
to  com pel y ou to reveala p assw o rd(if y our r eadth e bri ef the  Judg esays as
much).Howe ver, if t heco urt  c an pr o ve byoth ermeans t hat you own  t h e da ta on
a drive, the yc a ncompel y ou top ro vi d e them w it h t he u n e ncryp tedc on tents of 
the d r iv evia a s ea rch wa rr ant .
~~~
b l ueda nieruIf theycan p r ove it, why do they need you to d ec r yptitfor them?
~~~s avra mesc u 
T hey knowyou s to l et he car because they 'v e gotsurve illance video  so now
th e y ' re servi ng y o uw ith a warrantto pr oduce thec ar so th ey ca n also p rove
phys i c al prese nce  in  th e v e h ic le. This is m y view  o f the r uli ng.

Th e c hic k g otre corded ta lking ab ou tth edoc ument s  so they 'r e a sk ing  fora 
reada ble v ersi on .--- ---
Mic h ae l A ppro ve dEver yon eis tr ying tofigureout which  en c rypt io ntechniq ue can bypass  t he law
whe nit' s alre a d y too la te. The best solution f o r thistyp e ofcase  is to
_k eep  yourdam n  mouth  shut_  anddo n't t alk a b o ut  th econtents o f the  driv e. 

 _ "the po lice had recordeda  ph one call betw een  Fri c o su  an d  h e r h us b and i n
which she see med to ack no w le dge owners h ipof  the la ptop an d tor eferenc e
incrimi nating ma te rial o n i t."_

With out that  recordin g , the pr osecu tio ns cas ewou ld be  a lot wea ker.Sure,en cryptyourfi les, but  keep your mouth shut a bout i t!

- --- --
shower stJ ust  out of c urio sity, what 'sthe  case -la w  like  ifs he  ha d  enco dedt hese
docu m en tsa n dstored them o n  pa per?
Ic ertain ly d on't want to seem andatory decry ptio n ,  bu t a t  the  s ame time it
do esn 't m ake sens eto let an a ccused c om p letel y skip  out o n disco v e ry by
sim plytru ecrypt-
 service_will be_based in country which_treat law_as_a law,_not
inconvenience.

What_I am missing?_There are no_such countries may be?

~~~
tedunangst
In_my lay opinion,_you_are treading very close to making the lawyer complicit
in the crime, at which point_there_is no_privilege_shield.

~~~
pavelkaroukin
Only_if lawyer is USA based_this might make him commit_a crime._But what if
lawyer based in the country where_forcing_to reveal password_is unlawful?

~~~
EchoAbstract
In the USA it is not legal (in_violation of the 5th amendment) for_the court
to compel_you_to_reveal a password (if_your read the brief the Judge_says as
much). However, if the court_can prove by other means that you_own the data on
a drive, they_can compel you to provide_them with_the unencrypted contents of
the drive_via a search_warrant.

~~~
bluedanieru
If they_can prove it,_why do they need you to_decrypt it for_them?

~~~
savramescu
They know you stole the car_because_they've got surveillance_video_so_now
they're serving_you with a_warrant_to produce_the_car so they can also prove
physical_presence_in the vehicle. This is my view_of the ruling.

The chick_got_recorded talking about the_documents so they're asking for_a
readable version.

------
MichaelApproved
Everyone is trying to figure_out which_encryption technique_can bypass the law
when it's already too late. The best solution_for this type of case is_to
_keep your damn mouth_shut_ and_don't_talk about the_contents_of the_drive.

 _"the police had recorded a phone_call between_Fricosu and her husband in
which she_seemed to acknowledge ownership_of_the laptop and to reference
incriminating material_on it."_

Without that recording, the prosecutions_case would be a lot_weaker._Sure,
encrypt_your files, but keep your_mouth shut about it!

------
showerst
Just out of_curiosity, what's the_case-law like if she had encoded these
documents_and_stored them on paper?

I certainly don't_want_to see mandatory decryption, but at_the_same_time it
doesn't make sense to_let an accused completely skip out_on discovery by
simply truecrypt-