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

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

Posted May 25, 2005 15:08 UTC (Wed) by gowen (guest, #23914)
In reply to: Minnesota court takes dim view of encryption (News.com) by huffd
Parent article: Minnesota court takes dim view of encryption (News.com)

I cannot believe the appeals court fell for the same drivel especially if the judge stated PGP as the deciding factor

Where did you get the idea the judge "stated PGP as the deciding factor." As the article says

Levie's conviction was based on the in-person testimony of the girl who said she was paid to pose nude, coupled with the history of searches for "Lolitas" in Levie's Web browser

to post comments

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

Posted May 25, 2005 15:42 UTC (Wed) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link] (4 responses)

"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," Judge R.A. Randall wrote in an opinion dated May 3.

And don't paraphrase me I said "IF" GET IT "IF"! It was the deciding factor.

The point being encryption is not a criminal tool and should not have been mentioned in the opinion. If the judge had omitted it whether or not he himself felt it substantiated the ruling there wouldn't have been an appeal on that basis. On the other hand if PGP did substantiate the evidence then they were WRONG because they NEVER EVER proved that it was used in a criminal enterprise! U knead a legal edumatation

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

Posted May 25, 2005 16:09 UTC (Wed) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (3 responses)

Hammers aren't criminal tools either. Yet if I was seen wandering down the high street with a hammer ten minutes before a shop window was smashed, then the hammer is signifcant, even if there's no evidence that a hammer smashed that window.

All the judge said is that, when deciding if someone's up to no good, encryption tools can be taken into account. In this case, the point is that there's other evidence that he was engaging in the manufacture of child pornography, and the presence of a tool that can be used to hide evidence could be significant.

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

Posted May 26, 2005 3:53 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] (1 responses)

the presence of a tool that can be used to hide evidence could be significant.

I have a flushing toilet, I guess that could be significant too.

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

Posted May 26, 2005 7:20 UTC (Thu) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]

It could well be; in this case, the prosecution were claiming that on top of all the other evidence, there was the possibility that he'd used PGP to hide images on his computer, or to hide communications with other paedophiles.

If they had evidence that you'd been dealing cocaine, and there were traces of cocaine in your bathroom, they could argue that the presence of a flush toilet was significant, as you could have used it to dispose of your stash when you were raided. Same principle applies.

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

Posted May 26, 2005 9:52 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Another example: there've been trials of murderers where one piece of evidence was the presence of knives in their kitchens.

I've got large sharp carving knives in my kitchen, but this does *not* make me a suspect in a murder case. But if someone was found in small pieces in my garden, the fact that I own large sharp carving knives would possibly become significant.

(Disclaimer: to the best of my knowledge the only things in small pieces in my garden were left there by cats and harriers. ;) )