Minnesota court takes dim view of encryption (News.com) [LWN.net]

Minnesota court takes dim view of encryption (News.com)

Posted May 25, 2005 14:30 UTC (Wed) by chohman (guest, #5519)
Parent article: Minnesota court takes dim view of encryption (News.com)

In any case involving "kiddy porn", the authorities, and most others (perhaps understandably) tend to lose all sense of perspective.

My goal is to protect my files from access by others. I can encrypt them, or I can store them on removeable media in a locked box. Does this mean that the presence of a locked box near my floppy-drive-equiped computer can be considered evidence of criminal intent?

I didn't know that the NSA has admitted that they can break PGP?!?

to post comments

Minnesota court takes dim view of encryption (News.com)

Posted May 25, 2005 14:48 UTC (Wed) by gowen (guest, #23914) [Link] (2 responses)

As I understand it, all that's happened here is that the judge has ruled that the information can be presented as evidence, not that it is proof of bad or illegal intentions.

Similarly, here in the UK, walking down the street with a hammer can be considered "Going equipped for stealing" if (and in practice, only if) there's plenty of other evidence that you're up to no good. And that's all that happened here -- the Judge has ruled that use of encryption is not irrelevant when in conjunction with the other evidence.

Despite how it will inevitably be sold on slashdot, this is not the first step in outlawing encryption. Everyone is well aware that encryption (like my exemplary hammer) has an abundance of legal uses. Similarly, if I've hoard large amounts of ammonia-nitrate fertiliser for my garden, that's fine. But if I hoard that fertiliser along with some over-the-counter blasting caps and plans of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the jury would be wise to consider that I might be up to something other than horticulture, and the judge would be wise to allow them to make that judgement.

Minnesota court takes dim view of encryption (News.com)

Posted May 25, 2005 17:57 UTC (Wed) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]

Quite right. I'm not exactly seeing this as a huge threat. Indeed, I might almost call the News.com headline sensationalist.

Wait, what's this "almost"?

Minnesota court takes dim view of encryption (News.com)

Posted May 25, 2005 18:47 UTC (Wed) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link]

Everyone is well aware that encryption (like my exemplary hammer) has an abundance of legal uses.

Sadly, I don't think that's the case. Sure, you and I know that encrypting something is not inherently hiding criminal activity, but various US law enforcement and regulatory angencies have been implying otherwise for the last 10 or 15 years in their repeated attempts to limit the cryptographical tools available to "normal people", and requests for required key escrow, and innumerable press releases about how encrypted cellphones are used by druglords (pre 11/9/2001) and terrorists (since then).[1] Remember the flurry of stories a few years back about how terrorists were hiding their communications via steganography, despite the fact that no one had every actually found a single instance?

The difference is that pretty much everyone has used a hammer for a legal purpose, so the occasional "Thug Breaks Jewelery Store Window with Hammer" headline doesn't produce a "Oh my god, we must outlaw hammers" reaction. Handguns are legal too, but because the only news most people hear about guns tends to involve their use in illegal activities, we have a fairly strong anti-gun movement in this country. To a large part of the US populace, encryption is viewed in much the same way. Besides, it's associated with computers and the Internet, which everyone knows is used mostly for trading music, movies, and child pornography.

Steve

[1] Of course, people miss the obvious answer, which is to ban cellphones.