[Asuko]

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/raskin/17573;_ylt=AigAuM7Z4m5cTif.syAyjWUhLpA5

Sebastein Boucher was going was to Vermont from Canada. At the border, he had to go through a second inspection where the border authorities found a laptop in the backseat and searched it. It was found to have a lot of pictures, some of them pr0nographic and others referencing to child pr0n. However, they were all stored in a partition Z and it was encrypted under PGP. Boucher had to enter the password for the "special agent" that was called in to search drive Z. Turns out there was child pr0n in there and Boucher was arrested, his laptop confiscated.

Now, Boucher won't enter the password when authorities ask to search drive Z again, saying that it would violate his Fifth Amendment.

There was also a ComputerWorld article referenced in the Yahoo article up top. A quote:

In explaining his decision, Niedermeier said that compelling Boucher to enter the password forces him to produce evidence that could be used to incriminate him. "By entering the password, Boucher would be disclosing the fact that he knows the password and has control over the files on drive Z," he said. "If Boucher does know the password, he would be faced with the forbidden trilemma; incriminate himself, lie under oath, or find himself in contempt of court," Niedermeir wrote.

This is a legal issue but deals on with cyber privacy. I personally don't find any way out for this guy.

[Flipside]

He's only delaying the inevitable.

[Hippo]

what was he pulled over slash searched for that gave them probable cause to look in the laptop?

[NGTM-1R]

If the Canadians pulled him over, they don't need probable cause.

[Prophet]

If the Canadians pulled him over, they don't need probable cause.

Do you mean they are assholes, or that they really have the right to do that over there? If it's the latter, then that sucks...

[karajorma]

He would have gone to jail in the UK for not providing his password. Not entirely sure that the breach of rights would be worth it even to get a paedophile off the streets.

[MP-Ryan]

If the Canadians pulled him over, they don't need probable cause.

Do you mean they are assholes, or that they really have the right to do that over there? If it's the latter, then that sucks...

Customs legislation on both sides of the border provide for examination of personal and all goods/baggage upon entry into Canada or the United States WITHOUT the necessity of probable cause - the fact that you're crossing the border provides enough in the way of indicators for an examination of baggage and people (though obviously for more intensive searches and officer needs to be able to articulate why they proceeded to a more intensive level).

Customs Act (Canada):  http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-52.6/index.html

See sections 11, 98, 99, 101, and 102 in particular.

In Canada, if the password were refused the laptop would be seized pending examination.  Now that prohibited material has been found, it would be sent to the RCMP for forensic analysis anyway - the guy's password is no longer necessary (they have recovery software that will blast through the encryption).  USCBP has much the same kind of backup infrastructure - all the guy is doing is shooting himself in the foot.  Not to mention, if he's a Canadian I imagine the Mounties are busy getting a search warrant for his home, if he still has property in Canada.

No matter what, he's just prolonging the inevitable and making it a great deal harder on himself in the process.

[NGTM-1R]

If the Canadians pulled him over, they don't need probable cause.

Do you mean they are assholes, or that they really have the right to do that over there? If it's the latter, then that sucks...

Canada's search-and-seizure laws take after the Brits, who take a considerably more "rights of the state" approach to things as opposed to the US "rights of the individual" bent.

[Bobboau]

I think some of you are underestimating modern encryption techniques, if he's got some huge RSA thing going on there it might be quite hard for the cops to crack it even with a cray, of course this is assuming he has 'good' encryption, I believe there are actually laws defining encryption as a munition and thus limiting the legally allowed encryption level to something the cops can trivially break..

[Mr. Vega]

I do think that is a legitimate use of the fifth amendment though.

[karajorma]

I think some of you are underestimating modern encryption techniques, if he's got some huge RSA thing going on there it might be quite hard for the cops to crack it even with a cray, of course this is assuming he has 'good' encryption, I believe there are actually laws defining encryption as a munition and thus limiting the legally allowed encryption level to something the cops can trivially break..

The data was encrypted using PGP. This is from the Wiki Entry for PGP.

To the best of publicly available information, there is no known method which will allow a person or group to break PGP encryption by cryptographic, or computational means. Early versions of PGP have been found to have theoretical vulnerabilities and so current versions are recommended. Indeed, in 1996, cryptographer Bruce Schneier characterized an early version as being "the closest you're likely to get to military-grade encryption.

[WMCoolmon]

What was the original intent behind the Fifth Amendment? 'Privacy' didn't arise as a serious issue until much later in US History, IIRC.

[Stealth]

you guys are underestimating modern encryption techniques... even with "lower-end" encryption, there's no 10 minute 'crack'.  if he knows what he's doing, the data's safe.  period.  they'll have to get him to unlock it, because they won't be able to themselves.

~Stealth
MCSE: Security

[Asuko]

Yeah, I did my looking up of PGP through Wikipedia as well. A brute-force password attack found to be most viable unless they could monitor the transfer of data within the laptop. In all likelihood though, this will turn into a legal battle involving the Fifth Amendment.

[karajorma]

If he's smart enough to PGP his HD he's probably added a lockout policy (hell XP and Vista might even have one by default) and used a strong password in which case a brute force attack is going to take a ridiculously long too.

[Asuko]

Exactly.

[Hippy]

Has he been detained under Canadian or US laws?

If Canadian, does the 5th even apply?

[MP-Ryan]

Has he been detained under Canadian or US laws?

If Canadian, does the 5th even apply?

He's in the US, so he's subject to US law, not Canadian.  That's why the case is going on in the States.

And while the 5th Amendment doesn't exist in Canada, section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

As for you fellows talking about underestimating encryption - I have yet to hear of a child porn case at the border, even where encryption is involved, in which previously displayed images were not recoverable using the forensic analysis tools which the RCMP contracts out to the CBSA.  That's on our side of the border.  Can't speak for the Americans.  This is likely wrangled up in the courts because they'd rather not go to the trouble if they don't have to.

[Hippo]

Entering the key once and then denying knowing it is contradictory evidence.

[WMCoolmon]

He's not denying knowledge, he's simply refusing to provide it on the basis that he cannot be compelled to.

Without the key, all they have is testimonial from an officer of some sort, and the circumstantial evidence of the 'links' on the hard drive. I don't think that's enough to prove possession, which is what they're really after.