Ruling: Encryption = evidence of criminal intent

Where do they find these judges?

Published on May 27, 2005 By Arquonzo In Current Events

Link

Not that I think or don't think this guy is guilty. I really have no opinion on that... What I DO want to discuss here, however, is the judges' thought that the presence of encryption software on someone's computer may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent. Do these guys have any experience with technology, or did someone just pick them up off the street after their fall from the turnip truck, and tell them to start making rulings on things they know nothing about? 'Cause this is asinine. Do I exhibit 'evidence of criminal intent' when I close my blinds at night so the neighbors don't see in? Do I exhibit 'evidence of criminal intent' when I whisper something to my wife in a crowded setting? Of course not. When has the desire for privacy EVER been viewed as 'evidence of criminal intent'? I had to ditch PGP when I changed my OS from 2K to XP, but I think I'll re-install it now, just 'cause I'm irritated.

Comments

Dr Guy

on May 27, 2005

if this decision is not kicked, we might as well all bend over and kiss our arses goodbye!

That is so effing lame! God! So a Safety deposit box is evidence of criminal intent as well?

Arrrrrrgggghhhhhhh!

Daiwa

on May 28, 2005

One hopes that ruling won't survive appeal - it's clearly stupid, considering the widespread problem we have with identity theft, not to mention the idiocy of its basic premise.

Cheers,
Daiwa

bakerstreet

on May 28, 2005

There's been a discussion on bittorrent down in the personal computing section, where we've been talking about how posting a simple hyperlink on your site can be 'facilitating' crime. You get your door kicked in, your servers taken, and a felony to boot.

This is just another symptom. People completely ignorant of technology are enforcing laws drafted by the entertainment industry, fearmongers, and moralists with extreme biases. A lot of injustice is in our future, I think.

Gene Nash

on May 29, 2005

"Evidence of appellant’s computer usage and the presence of an encryption program on his computer was relevant to the state’s case. We affirm the district court’s evidentiary rulings. "

This just looks like a case of a guy grasping at straws to have his case overturned, and a court saying, "Uh-uh."

Here is the ruling: http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0505/opa040381-0503.htm

Can anyone point out in that ruling where the justices say encryption software = intent?

Daiwa

on May 30, 2005

I don't believe it was "in" the appeals court ruling, but in the primary case, which the appeals court upheld. Part of the prosecution's "evidence" of intent was the mere presence of encryption software on the defendant's computer, not any specific use of that software (as I understand it). I suppose it could be considered as "circumstantial" evidence, but it seems wrong for the court to allow the presumption or inference of intent from the mere use of encryption software, something we should probably all be using routinely.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!