If I remember the case correctly the defendant has child porn on the computer.

While a court can compel you to give them a key in order to comply with a search warrant they can't make you produce one if it has been lost. If a physical key is lost then they hire a locksmith or use brute force to gain entry.

They can do that in this case, they can hire someone to break the encryption.

In either case sitting in jail for contempt is not as bad a sitting in there for child porn.

This is a cat and mouse game that can only lead to super-mice.

It's outrages like this that are causing more and more people to realize that there are measures that they can and should take to frustrate coerced assistance for fishing expeditions.

At one point I knew the birth years of my children, now I have to ask the wife. At one point I knew my home phone number, now I have to look it up on my cell. At one point I knew the address of the house I lived in years ago, now I have to look at my credit report.

If I have not had access to my computer for as long as this man has, I would quickly forget the password.

Tell them you forgot, when and if it goes to trial bring in a memory expert or just pose a question to any and all of the witnesses about something that you know they won't recall. Once you have two or three prosecution witnesses that can't remember their third grade math teacher's name, you are gold.

or give them the wrong password and have them ask you for it a second time. then give them "oh, i'm sorry, it must be this password (also wrong). when asked again, become flustered and say something like, "i;m sure that was it...no wait, it must be this one" (also wrong). you machine should lock up at that point and tell them that only the i/t folks at work can un-lock it.

The problem with saying you don't remember is that implicitly you are saying that at one time you did know the password, just like at one time you did know your children's birth years. Admitting that you knew it at one time can then tie you to what is contained on the drive, which can be considered self-incrimination.

This is a non-story. The defendant had already admitted to the authorities that he had kiddie porn hidden in an encrypted volume of the computer. So this case had nothing to do with whether travelers in general have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent if asked for a computer password by customs officers. The court reasoned that since the defendant had already admitted the incriminating nature of the data, giving the password would not have further incriminated him -- there was no self-incriminating information left for the Fifth Amendment to protect.

This is a great example of why you should not say anything.

Except, aren't you under obligation to answer the questions of CBP officers at the border?

No, no, a thousand times no! You do not have to answer any questions from any law enforcement officer in the U.S. at any time; and in the case of FLEOs, you had better keep your lip firmly zipped else they decide you lied to them, which is a felony. "Officer, one of the great things about being back in the U.S.A is I don't have to answer your questions. (big smile)"

Please search for, and view, the YouTube video, "Don't Talk To Cops."

There is one caveat - while you as a US citizen cannot be denied admission upon submitting proof of your citizenship, your luggage and other belongings don't enjoy the same right.

You may refuse to talk or answer questions during a secondary interview, but it's likely the following will happen:

1) your luggage will be inspected anyway, and might not be returned to you

2) if anything is found which could be interpreted as exceeding your duty free allowance or otherwise being contraband, you will be assessed a fine

3) you could go on a 'special' list and end up with a secondary ordeal every single time you re-enter the US

I'm certainly well known around these parts for wrapping myself in every punctuation mark of the Constitution, but fighting with Customs inspectors is low on my list of battles - I just want to get away from them as quickly as possible, with all my stuff, and not go on a list.

As for other law enforcement - well, my rights come first and I defend those rights quite ambitiously. The only exception to what I've written above is a surprise or spontanous search attempt while on US soil. There is no law requiring me to identify myself as a citizen while on US soil or be subject to a physical search, and I will not cooperate with any such attempt. Let the now famous Youtube video of one of our fellow patriots out in Arizona who fought back against such an unlawful search be our guide here.

There's an important distinction that we should make here between passwords for one's laptop and network/email passwords.

I agree with the court's decision when it comes to the passwords that protect data located on the hard drive itself. Any data (located on devices that you are carrying into the country) are subject to search by CBP without a warrant. You can provide the password, or type it yourself, or relinquish the device(s) for an indefinite period while the government technicians go to work on it.

BUT....I think that it's a TOTALLY different matter if a CBP officer says, "please type in your email password so I can poke around in your account." This kind of thing has happened where CBP officers (as well as CBSA officers in Canada) were looking for evidence of local connections/relatives/girlfriends that might give them reason to suspect that the traveler in question was intending to overstay his visa, or engage in smuggling, etc.

My objection is the following: I don't own the servers where the email or my FTP space is located. My employer does. And my employer specifically forbids me from giving anybody access to my account, either by handing over my password or typing it in and then letting somebody poke around. My institution takes data security very seriously and could fire and/or prosecute me for exposing the servers in this manner.

So, if a CBP officer were to ask me to type in my email password, I probably would say the following:

"Sorry, I can't do that. While you can search my laptop's hard drive, you cannot search my email server because it belongs to my employer, not to me. My employer does not allow me to give others access to the data that are stored on their servers. If you want access to those servers, you will need to contact my employer to request access to my account through the proper channels. But I do not have the authority to grant you access to my company's email or FTP servers."

So...lawyers out there....would the above be a legitimate way of responding?

I am not sure if these are the videos you are referencing. http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/07...-shouldnt.html

In any case they are well worth watching by the "I have nothing to hide" crowd.

The most disgusting parts of the videos is where the cop admits to lying to get a confession and where he admits to destroying tape so that the transcripts are the only record.

Though I realize you are responding to a different post, the ones bocastephen is referring to are located at checkpoint usa.

And while you are making a fool of yourself what about the rights of those who are in line behind you that you are preventing from exercising their rights?

Does that mean that you see understaffing of border checkpoints leading to long lines as a rights violation also? :D