While I don’t practice criminal law, I thought this story was worth a quick mention because of its far-reaching implications for both privacy rights and criminal law.  A federal judge in Vermont has ordered a criminal defendant, Sebastien Boucher, to decrypt his hard drive so prosecutors can view the unencrypted files.  Specifically, the judge wants Boucher to type in his “PGP” password.  (”PGP” stands for “Pretty Good Privacy,” which is encryption software).

Boucher, a canadian citizen who is a permanent resident in the United States, was coming back from Canada in December of 2006 when a customs agent—without needing the password—searched his laptop and allegedly found thousands of images of adult and child pornography. 

Boucher was arrested, was given and waived his Miranda rights, and allegedly told customs agents that he might have downloaded child pornography.  His laptop was then shut down after his arrest.  It wasn’t until later when law enforcement tried to access his computer again that they learned the drive was encrypted with PGP and couldn’t be accessed without Boucher’s password.

A federal magistrate originally ruled in November of 2007 that the Fifth Amendment prevented Boucher from being forced to disclose his password.  As I’m sure most of you know, the Fifth Amendment is a cornerstone of the American criminal justice system which  provides that:  “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . .”  In other words, given the criminal charges against him, Boucher had a Fifth Amendment right to keep the files encrypted.

The federal district court judge overruled the magistrate and found that Boucher doesn’t have such a Fifth Amendment right.  According to the judge, Boucher “has already admitted to possession of the computer, and provided the government with access to the Z drive. The government has submitted that it can link Boucher with the files on his computer without making use of his production of an unencrypted version of the Z drive, and that it will not use his act of production as evidence of authentication.”  

This case will be appealed to the Second Circuit.  And no matter who wins there, an appeal to the Supreme Court seems likely given the importance of the issue.  As noted in the article, Homeland Security claims that it has the right to seize anyone’s laptop at the border for an indefinite period of time, so issues such as this take on special significance (although this policy is now being closely scrutinized by lawmakers, outside interest groups, and those within Homeland Security).  Stay tuned!

I’m not sure whether to be amused or upset by this story, but I thought it was worth a quick post.  It seems that a petulant 19 year-old in Florida took the law into his own hands when he was told by a Starbucks customer that he couldn’t use the customer’s laptop to check his Facebook account. 

So what did this genius do?  What anyone would do, of course.  Wait a little while and check his account from home, you ask?  No, that would take too long.  And since we live in a society of instant gratification, he decided to snatch the laptop and run out of Starbucks.  Needless to say, he was apprehended in the parking lot and arrested.  Now he’s been charged with robbery (which is a felony). 

I guess when you need your hit, you need your hit.  And you won’t let something as trivial as the law stand in your way.  Just ask any drug addict.  Is Facebook really that addictive?  I haven’t yet experienced any tremors or nightmares from failing to check my various e-mail accounts, but maybe I’m just not hip enough.

While this guy is clearly an idiot, it does portend ominous things for the future.  Facebook junkies.  Social networking lifers.  Will they have entire wings in drug rehab centers or prisons for people like this?  I know it sounds ridiculous, but with social networking sites like Facebook growing by 4 to 5 million users a week, the power of the medium can’t be underestimated. 

Some people will obviously take it to the extreme.  Some always do, but it does make me wonder.  And I wonder what this guy will do when he can’t check Facebook from his prison cell.  The withdrawal pains may be incapacitating.

In today’s world, where fraud is just a mouse click away, it’s nice to know that every so often the good guys win.  Three international hackers were indicted by the Department of Justice (”DOJ”) last week for trying to steal and sell credit card information from customers of Dave & Buster’s, the popular restaurant/entertainment chain.

According to the indictment, the hackers were able to install “packet sniffers” on many of the company’s servers to copy credit card information as it traveled between restaurants and Dave & Buster’s corporate headquarters in Dallas.  The company detected the intrusion and alerted the authorities, but not before 5,000 credit/debit card numbers were stolen and sold to other criminals to make fraudulent purchases.

One of the foreign hackers was arrested in Miami.  No problem there.  The other two, however, were arrested in the Ukraine and in Germany by those countries’ authorities.  It’s certainly not a done deal yet.  The DOJ is seeking the extradition of the other two, but no word yet whether those efforts will be successful. 

While these sorts of arrests are still few and far between given the magnitude of data theft and online fraud, it’s a start.  The DOJ is obviously taking the problem seriously.  Hopefully, other countries will too and the cooperation will continue.  With any luck, if these hackers are extradited, tried, and found guilty, the court will make an example out of them. 

France once again reminds us how fortunate we are to live in a truly free country, where freedom of speech is often taken for granted.  Apparently, France is in the process of trying to pass a law to ban what it deems to be “pro-anorexia” websites and publications.  The new law would impose jail sentences of 2 to 3 years and impose fines of 30,000 euros ($47,400) to 45,000 euros ($71,100) on anyone who violates the law.  The legal standard is dubious (if not laughable):  ”Incitement to excessive thinness by publicising of any kind.”

According to the French health ministry, 90% of the country’s estimated 30,000 to 40,000 anorexics are young women, who are supposedly under constant pressure from the fashion, advertising, and movie industries to attain unhealthy weight levels.  No one will deny that encouraging young, impressionable girls to starve themselves, vomit, lie to doctors, and take appetite suppressants are bad things.  But the idea of trying to ban and fine websites—and jail the site operators—is a draconian cure that’s worse than the disease. 

And talk about a slippery slope.  What’s next?  How about sites that encourage excessive weight gain? Or consumption of fried foods?  Or excessive exercise (surely that’s killed quite a few people)?  And how does one even define “excessive thinness” anyway, let alone “incitement”?  The French ban doesn’t have quite the same urgency to it as the “incitement to imminent lawless action” standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio to ban certain speech in extraordinary situations.  While encouraging anorexia is appalling, it certainly doesn’t rise to the level of mandating censorship.  The French government may be asking the right questions, but it’s getting the wrong answers. 

Of course such a law could never be passed in America.  Or rather, it could never go into effect.  It would be struck down by the courts so quickly on content discrimination, overbreadth, and/or vagueness grounds that the ink wouldn’t have time to dry.  Our democracy subscribes to the “marketplace of ideas” concept which provides that a free exchange of ideas will allow for the creation of the best policies and practices.  Quite simply, the cure for bad speech is good speech—or at least, more speech.  (While our government can curtail advertising for things such as smoking and alcohol, “commercial speech” is subject to some restriction and regulation.)

This isn’t the first time that France has demonstrated its tendency towards censorship.  In November of 2000, a French court ordered Yahoo! to stop selling Nazi memorabilia to French internet shoppers on auction sites due to France’s law that banned incitement of racial hatred.  (The French do like that “incitement” standard, don’t they?) Of course, this is the same country that passed a law banning the use of foreign words on television shows, radio broadcasts, business communications, and public service announcements if the French language had a “suitable local equivalent” which could be used instead.  What chutzpah!  What cojones!  Oh well, c’est la vie . . . .