The following article focuses on encryption and what is involved. First of all, what do you know about encryption and what comes to mind when you hear the word "encryption"? Also, read the article and share your opinions. Do you think Fricosu should be forced to provide an unecrypted hard drive to prosectors? What further legal implications do you see this ruling having?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/tech/web/judge-defendant-decrypt-laptop/index.html
I really have no idea what encryption is but I am sure it has something to do with computers. When I hear the word encryption I think of coding information or a message to keep it private. I think that if there is evidence dealing with Fricosu's case, on the hard drive, then she should have to produce it. If there is no evidence on it then she should not be afraid to hand it over to be looked at. I am sure if more cases like this start to be handled laws will be altered to say that hard drives can be unecrypted and searched.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhen I first thought of encryption I did not really know what it meant, but what comes to my mind when I hear the word is meaning that something is succured on a file.
ReplyDeleteI think that Fricosu should have to give up her computer's hard drive to the court. The court sent out a warrent for the hard drive and they should be able to retrieve what they need for the case. I do not think that it is going against her 5th amendment right, if she did not have anything to hind then she should have no problem letting the court look at her computer's hard drive.
I dont have any idea what encryption means but my idea is some sort of computer privacy, and as far as her case goes i believe she has the right to keep what she wants private.Even if she did have anything to hide its not the courts business.
DeleteI really do not know what encryption is exactly, but I think it has to do with protecting a computer. I think that she should be forced to provide an unencrypted hard drive, because if she thinks that she is innocent, then she should have nothing to hide. I do not know what further implications this will have.
ReplyDeleteOk here we go. I believe that she should have to open up her computer because they are trying to run an investigation and if she is innocent she should have no problem giiving them the password. Now i will go on to show that these people are idiots because incryption to us hackers is by far the easiest coding to break and i dont see how they can sit there and say it would take decades to break into her computer. If the computer has admin profile blocked even under safe mode do a regedit and unblock all admin profiles via command prompt. not all that hard
ReplyDeleteI actually had no idea what encryption means. I am not much of a computer person. I have heard the word, but never understood it. This article still doesn't clear it up entirely, but enough to give an oppinion. I agree with the lade that it would be stupid are her part to do something to her computer that will help the autorities gain evidence against her. If they think they have enough evidence to go after her, there is no way they should make her do this. By making her provide this information could be opening new cases that do not have enough evidence to even suspect a person, but they may be forced into prosecuting themselves.
ReplyDeleteAll I know of encryption is when people try to hide things in their computer. They are codes that are used to hide files or documents on a computer. I do not know the details behind encryption and whenever I hear the word, I feel like someone is hiding something or that people are looking for the hidden message. I also think of people who are incredible at computer science. Throughout the article, I couldn't help but think that there was an invasion of privacy... I mean, from what I have heard electronics cannot be used in court against a person. Whether it be an e-mail or text message to defend their case. So this entire issue makes me wonder why a judge is making this lady encrypt her own computer to go against herself and prove her guilty. I feel like it is very wrong thing to do, and poor judgement on the judges part. It is a violation of human rights, and if electronics cannot be used in court then that electronics should not be used in court for any reason, especially if it is to prove someone guilty.
ReplyDeleteEncryption is just like a fancy version of locking down a computer that takes years to break. Morally i think she should have to decrypt the computer, but legally i guess if she is protected by the 5th amendment their is not much they can do. If she is protected by the law, she should not have to produce a decrypted copy. Innocent until proven guilty, so far as we know she is doing this to prove a point. As more and more cases like these start showing up laws are going to have to start popping up otherwise people are going to be walking free.
ReplyDeleteI dont know what encryption is but by reading this article its about computers. when i hear encryption i think its a secret or private. dealing with Fricosu's case on the hard drive then she got to produce it. if there aint no evidence she shouldn't be worried.
ReplyDeleteEncryption is just protecting files on a device. Kinda like having to log on to a computer every time you use it. I feel that just because the police got the warrent for the laptop does not mean she should have to unencrypt the files. Yes, if she is innocent she should have nothing to hide but it is part of our Constitution. I think that forcing her to give up those files breaches the five amendment. You wouldn't go into a court room for a crime you possibly did and just admit to it, especially when they try and force you to say you did it.
ReplyDeleteFifth*
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI'm going to have to agree with Scott, if they think they have a case against they should just take her to court and be done with it. By opening up her computer it can potentially open up other things irrelevant to the case against her which they in no legal way should be able to know. I know as much about encryption as the next computer geek and it's just another safeguard for securing your privacy.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand of encryption, it is a way to lock away files with a password, which is what I think of when I hear the word. This case is tricky because in a way, by dencrypting the hard drive, she is testifying against herself, which is protected by the Fifth Amendment. However, the court did obtain a warrant for the computer, but not for the files. Under the Constitution, she shouldn't have to decrypt the hard drive. If she is forced to decrypt it, this would open up other cases dealing with an issue similar to this one.
ReplyDeleteWell i feel like this girl is probably guilty, but i dont think she should be required to decrypt her computer. I dont know a whole lot about encryption, but it seem like just a fancy password system. I feel like decrypting her computer would be against the fifth amendment though.
ReplyDeleteAll I really know about encryption is that is some sort of coding to lock ones computer or something. That's about all I know about that. I don't see why she can't hand over her computer if she feels that she is innocent. The obvious answer is that she has something to hide. Forcing her to hand over the computer seems breaks the fifth amendment's purpose.
ReplyDeleteFirst hearing the word Encryption I did not know what it meant, come to find out it’s a type of software/data that contains personal information. I feel like it’s your privacy and whatever you have in your laptop is yours and you shouldn’t have to give up any information if you do not want too. But with that case I think if Fricosu is innocent then she should just give the key to unlock whatever she is trying to keep from them, if she really is innocent. But she shouldn’t be forced too.
ReplyDeleteI think that if someone is in immediate danger, and protection of an individual or prosecution of a dangerous person, actions like forcing someone to decrypt their computer are a necessary evil. I think this ruling like ones in the future are for the most part judgment calls, every case is different.
ReplyDeleteI know that encryption has something to do with code for security. The fourth amendment guarantees our privacy and she has the right to keep it private if she wants.
ReplyDelete