From Bruce Schneier's blog (syndicated on LJ as 
bruce_schneier):
I don't know if I'm speechless or not, but I am more than a little concerned. I'll have to look into the specifics a little deeper, 'cause it might not be as troubling as it appears. For example, one of the comments on Bruce's blog entry attempts to put it in perspective:
bruce_schneier):Encryption as Evidence of Criminal IntentRead Bruce's blog entry and comments for more discussion on the topic.
An appeals court in Minnesota has ruled that the presence of encryption software on a computer may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent.
I am speechless.
I don't know if I'm speechless or not, but I am more than a little concerned. I'll have to look into the specifics a little deeper, 'cause it might not be as troubling as it appears. For example, one of the comments on Bruce's blog entry attempts to put it in perspective:
This really isn't that big of a deal. This is the same as finding a guy in a car, driving around a residential neighborhood slowly, and finding a ski mask, lock picking tools, and a flashlight in his car. Everything is legal, but may be admitted in court to try to prove criminal intent.Maybe. I can already see that it will be very easy to start down the slippery slope on either side of this argument.
One piece of evidence alone will not help a prosecutor very much, but if you can get enough pieces of the puzzle together, the picture becomes alot clearer. FWIW
Profile
drmellow- Greg Cohoon
- Knitting Daddy
Page Summary
- prester_scott : (no subject) [+5]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+3]
- partywhipple : (no subject) [+0]
- madkawa : (no subject) [+0]
Comments
The question we should be asking ourselves is how someone can be convicted of a felony on the basis of hearsay and circumstantial evidence alone, and that's considered a fair trial.
The court didn't say that police had unearthed any encrypted files or how it would view the use of standard software like OS X's FileVault. Rather, 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.
The "Lolitas" bit is circumstantial, yes, but it establishes motive, and we've got direct testimony here.
But if we're being told the whole story in this article, that means he was convicted on three pieces of evidence:
* a young girl's testimony
* circumstantial evidence: "Lolitas"
* circumstantial evidence: PGP
Had I been on the jury, I think I'd have voted to acquit.
And do I understand that the no actual pictures the guy allegedly took were found? That seems like a gaping hole in the evidence, for which I would expect a darn good explanation from the prosecution.
I'm with
Again, in conjunction with MANY other pieces of circumstantial evidence, the fact that he had PGP *could* establish intent. But the evidence in this case (again, if the news article is telling the whole story) was pretty weak.
But, yeah, that's one side of the slippery slope.
Or SSH that you use to connect to your servers.
Or SSL that you use to check your email (IMAP-SSL or POP-SSL).
You know locks on your doors is also evidence of criminal intent. What have you got to hide, eh???