DOJ: No comment on forcing encryption passphrases

Legal News Feed

[##_1L|1158682406.jpg|width="150" height="153" alt=""|_##]The U.S. Department of Justice won't say when it believes an American citizen should be forced to divulge his or her PGP passphrase. We've been trying for the last two days to get the DOJ to answer this question, which became an important one after last week's news about a judge ruling a criminal defendant can't be forced to divulge his passphrase on Fifth Amendment grounds. The Fifth Amendment, of course, protects the right to avoid self-incrimination.

In the case of U.S. v. Sebastien Boucher, federal prosecutors think that the defendant has child pornography encrypted with PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) on his Alienware laptop. They sent him a grand jury subpoena demanding the passphrase--which is what a judge rejected on Fifth Amendment grounds.

"I won't be able to provide anyone for an interview," said DOJ spokesman Jaclyn Lesch. "The point you raise is one that we would want to address in court. I hope you understand."

We had asked the DOJ this: "In the DOJ's view, under what circumstances can a person be legally compelled to turn over an encryption passphrase?"

In one view, which prosecutors tend to share, a passphrase is like a document or key that must be forcibly turned over. The civil libertarian view treats a passphrase as the contents of someone's mind, which a defendant cannot be compelled to divulge.

The distinctions between these views are important to Americans' privacy rights and law enforcement needs. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for future legal filings to find out what our public servants actually think.

Related listings

  • Bush administration: Back off CIA tape probe

    Bush administration: Back off CIA tape probe

    Legal News Feed 12/15/2007

    The controversy over destroyed CIA interrogation tapes is shaping up as a turf battle involving the courts, Congress and the White House, with the Bush administration telling its constitutional coequals to stay out of the investigation.The Justice De...

  • McDermott disappointed at Supreme Court rejection

    McDermott disappointed at Supreme Court rejection

    Legal News Feed 12/04/2007

    U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott says he's disappointed the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to consider his appeal.He says he believes he had a First Amendment free speech case.Today's decision leaves a federal appeals court ruling in place. The court said th...

  • Congress, Courts Examine 'State Secrets'

    Congress, Courts Examine 'State Secrets'

    Legal News Feed 11/26/2007

    In federal courts and on Capitol Hill, challenges are brewing to a key legal strategy President Bush is using to protect a secret surveillance program that monitors phone calls and e-mails inside the United States.Under grilling from lawmakers and at...

Is Now the Time to Really Call a Special Education Lawyer?

IDEA, FAPE, CHILD FIND and IEPs: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees all children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE starts with a school’s responsibility to identify that a child has a disability (Child Find) and create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to suit the needs of the child.

Forte Law Group is one of only a very few law firms within the state of Connecticut that is dedicated to exclusively representing families and children with special needs.

Parents need to be persistent, dedicated and above all else aware of the many services and accommodations that their child is entitled to under the law. As early as this point within your child’s special education, many parents will often find themselves in the situation asking, “is now the time to really call a special education lawyer?” Here are a few things to consider when asking yourself that question.

Business News

St Peters, MO Professional License Attorney Attorney John Lynch has been the go-to choice for many professionals facing administrative sanction. >> read