
TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court - dcevansiii
http://forums.truecrypt.org/viewtopic.php?t=23969
======
ChuckMcM
First, there isn't enough information to know what it is this person has (or
has not) done.

Secondly, the fifth amendment of the US Constitution allows you to refuse to
provide _testimony_ which you feel may incriminate you. Generally encryption
pass phrases do not count as testimony, the legal system treats them as keys.
And that would be covered under the fourth amendment which says the government
cannot compel to you to give access to your property for search unless they
have probable cause.

If they _do_ have probable cause, they get a _warrant_ which gives them the
power to do the search temporarily and only for what they think exists. So if
you get a warrant to search your hard drive for something, you are compelled
to give them the password just like you are compelled to let them into your
house if they have a warrant to search for something like drugs or guns or
counterfeit plush toys.

However sometimes the courts do see it as a fifth amendment issue [1] and that
has been under debate for a while. (As far as I can tell the legal theory is
similar to the police not being able to compel you to tell them where you left
the body in a capital crime.)

Disclaimer I am not a lawyer this isn't legal advice, and I've not followed up
the cited case to see if it made it to the supreme court or not. Any circuit
level decision would not be binding on different circuits.

[1] <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9854034-38.html>

Follow up on the Boucher case:
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/United_States...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher)

Where the fifth amendment defense was overturned.

~~~
runningdogx
What if your passphrase to your truecrypt container (let's say it contains,
for the purpose of this thought experiment, child pornography) is the true
statement: "I am [for this thought experiment] a child pornography collector."

Wouldn't it be a violation of the 5th amendment to be compelled to provide
that passphrase, because it is an admission against interest and therefore
would be admissible if you disclosed it? Wouldn't it also serve to waive 5th
amendment privilege, and possibly put you at risk of being forced to take the
stand?

If it were an admission of a different crime, a court could grant you immunity
on those unrelated charges, but if it is relevant to the crime the government
is investigating by asking you to reveal your passphrase... how can anyone,
luddite judge or not, separate "key" from "testimony" in that circumstance?

~~~
rjh29
I don't see how providing a passphrase is an admission of anything. You're not
stating a fact, you're just providing the passphrase, which could be anything
(true or false).

~~~
xijhing
5th amendment is the right against self-incrimination. The response could
provide self-incriminating evidence of an illegal act punishable by fines,
penalties or forfeiture. Giving a password to your encrypted database could
easily be interpreted as testifying against yourself as defined in the 5th
amendment.

Relevant: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik#at=950>

------
jordanb
Depending on what's on the drive, obstruction of justice might carry a much
less onerous penalty than what he'd otherwise be facing.

For instance, if it's child porn, he'd be labeled a sexual predator for life.
If it's state secrets, he'd be facing treason and espionage charges. If it's
mp3s.. financial ruin on top of the felony charge..

~~~
checker
Aren't there statutes against forced self-incrimination by the court? I am
definitely not a lawyer.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
That exists to prevent the state from coercing a wrongful confession out of
you. Compelling the truth out of you has no such moral hazard. I am not a
constitutional scholar.

~~~
runningdogx
The truth you can tell is only a fraction of a larger truth encompassing the
entire universe of facts for a case the government may be investigating. Even
if _your_ portion of that truth is completely free of any wrongdoing, when
combined with the rest of the facts that may include lies or mistakes by other
witnesses or incorrect analysis of physical evidence, you can end up getting
into trouble for telling the truth.

 _But we have never held, as the Supreme Court of Ohio did, that the privilege
is unavailable to those who claim innocence. To the contrary, we have
emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's "basic functions ... is to
protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous
circumstances.' " Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 421 (1957)
(quoting Slochower v. Board of Higher Ed. of New York City, 350 U. S. 551,
557-558 (1956)) (emphasis in original). In Grunewald, we recognized that
truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer,
may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own
mouth. 353 U. S., at 421-422._

\-- Supreme Court in Ohio v Matthew Reiner,
[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-
bin/getcase.pl?court=US...](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-
bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-1028)

------
geuis
So basically we have a guy in jail who is claiming something and making a
public appeal. However, we can find little or no independent information about
his case. He provides little information about his case. Indeed, the jail site
containing his photo says Charges Unknown.

Let's not jump to conclusions just yet. He was arrested on April 14th. Find
out the full case history, what was said, what he's accused of, etc.

It's entirely reasonable to assist anyone who's rights are being violated. But
keep that separate from what he's accused of.

~~~
qq66
With new laws giving more ability to charge people secretly, you'll see more
and more people in this situation. Not saying that this is what's going on
here, but the purpose of the secrecy provisions of the Patriot Act and similar
is to make it harder to identify when citizens are being abused.

------
burgerbrain
This is why you always have TrueCrypt use multiple volumes. This is _exactly_
what plausible deniability is for.

~~~
ajg1977
I've always wondered how people would answer the "Your volume is 512MB, but
this truecrypt file is 2GB. Explain please". question.

I guess they can't prove that there is a hidden volume, but I thought with
Truecrypt they could not prove whether a file was actually a Truecrypt volume
in the first place?

~~~
mahyarm
In truecrypt, the volume would report 2GB, not 512MB, and you have to be
careful not to put in more than the invisible limit, otherwise the hidden
portion will be corrupted/overwritten.

~~~
xelfer
Truecrypt can have hidden volumes, the truecrypt file may be split into 1.5gb
/ 0.5gb. The truecrypt file reports 2GB, but different passwords mount
different the different sized volumes, hence putting in the 512MB password
will mount a 512MB volume of a 2GB file.

~~~
Canada
It works the way the parent says, not the way you say.

~~~
xelfer
Oh, my bad then. I guess I should look at my volumes closer. :)

------
Aloisius
I have encrypted files/volumes that I don't remember the password for (it has
been far too long). Surely not remembering is a valid defense.

~~~
saulrh
The more interesting point is that he may not be using a password in the first
place; TrueCrypt can do arbitrary keyfiles. Someone found[1] a post elsewhere
on the forum citing a subpoena that required someone to "type the passwords or
pass phrases necessary to produce the encrypted contents of drives". If that
quote is from the same case, he may be physically incapable of carrying out
the subpoena as ordered.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2693754>

------
CWuestefeld
The author references a previous letter that describes what he's doing in
jail. Can anyone find that?

~~~
yllus
I can't find anything either, and the fact that he doesn't include that in the
letter sort of implies that it's something that'd immediately lose him any
sympathy or backing, doesn't it?

~~~
danielsoneg
Three things:

First, the guy could be accused of choking babies to death with child porn and
that wouldn't make a damn bit of difference as far as his, and the rest of
our, fundamental rights are concerned.

Second, accused (or even indicted) is absolutely different than convicted,
which itself bears an indirect relationship to 'true'.

Third, courts typically don't post private proceedings on the internet - you'd
be amazed how many things you wouldn't be able to "find anything" about via a
google search. If he's being held for contempt in relation to a case that he's
not actually a defendant in, I imagine it'd be really bloody difficult to find
a whole lot about that online, and in either case I can't imagine any sane
lawyer giving him the green light to post on the internet details about a case
for which he's already being held in contempt.

But by all means, don't let me stop you from impugning the integrity of a man
you admit to knowing nothing at all about.

~~~
tzs
> I imagine it'd be really bloody difficult to find a whole lot about that
> online, and in either case I can't imagine any sane lawyer giving him the
> green light to post on the internet details about a case for which he's
> already being held in contempt.

I can't imagine a lawyer giving him the green light to post on the internet
asking people who don't know anything about the case to spam the judge and
prosecutor, either.

In fact, he states that he doesn't have a lawyer.

If he expects people to write letters, he needs to explain WHY they need to
write letters. That requires telling us what the case is actually about.

~~~
danielsoneg
That's true. I've no strong opinons on the veracity of the man's claims, but
I'm certainly not intending to write any letters without extremely strong and
verifiable evidence that his story is as he claims. My point was just that the
nature of the charges in the case and our ability to find anything about them
have next to no bearing on principles in question, nor does the moral
composition of the author, and I think there's danger in the idea that they
would.

------
mdonahoe
Until the 5th amendment and encryption issues get worked out, these drives
should delete themselves upon unauthorized access.

~~~
jemfinch
Fifth amendment and encryption issues are already worked out. Just like you
can be compelled to open a safe, you can be compelled to decrypt a volume.

A self-destroying drive would likely get you a conviction for obstructing
justice, just like shredding the contents of a safe would.

~~~
speckledjim
A safe is obviously a safe. It obviously contains something.

Encrypted data isn't so clear cut. It's trivial to make a datastore that has
several encryption keys, so that you could give out one key, and it'd
"decrypt" to some boring stuff, whilst keeping the real data, and the
alternate key, secret.

It'd also be trivial to devise a decryption algorithm, and key, which
"decrypts" anyones hard drive to reveal illegal images even when none are
really there...

So I don't think it's a good analogy. It's quite obvious when you have
successfully got into a safe, but how do you know when you have successfully
decrypted something, to the real stuff that is important and being hidden in
it?

~~~
chc
Is it actually trivial to encrypt arbitrary text in such a way that it could
be decrypted to the source text _or_ a different but still meaningful
alternate text? That sounds really hard to do. Is this indeed a solved problem
and I just don't know about it?

~~~
lisper
It is trivial. Just encrypt the true plaintext and the alternate plaintext
with separate keys and place the results in a container. To decrypt, try both
ciphertexts and return the one that validly decrypts with the provided key.

~~~
dedward
It's trivial cryptographically, but from a security point of view, it's not
necessarily trivial at all.

If we assume the courts can order you to decrypt the drive (and without
debating that point) - one has to consider that the court may be fully aware
that the system has multiple hidden volumes, either by eyewitness testimony,
3rd party evidence (check out truecrypt's warnings on their site about full
system encryption and what to watch out for. Things like finding the same
windows installation doing every update twice. There are all kinds of
information leaks that COULD pop up.

I'm not saying it's impossible - just as strong cryptography, which is easy
and is all over, doesn't mean all our data is secure, neither would a more
complex system like this protect someone from the legal system.

------
coreyja
This may have been posted below as I did not read every comment but isn't
impossible to prove that the file is a TrueCrypt volume to begin with?
Couldn't you just claim it was a corrupt computer file that contained random
data? How can they ask you for something that they have no proof even exists?
There is no proof the file is a TrueCrypt volume so there is no way to prove
there is even a password to find.

~~~
Estragon
Evidence of it being mounted could exist, for instance in his shell history.

------
ajays
Contempt of Court is a serious business. You can be jailed indefinitely for
it. For example: this guy was jailed for 14 years because he couldn't (or
wouldn't) turn over information about missing assets during his divorce:
<http://www.judicialaccountability.org/articles/7year.htm>

------
AndyKelley
According to wikipedia, in order to prove contempt, the prosecutor must have:

    
    
      * Existence of a lawful order
      * The contemnor's knowledge of the order
      * The contemnor's ability to comply
      * The contemnor's failure to comply
    

It seems to me that the prosecutor cannot prove the contemnor's ability to
comply, in the case of a forgotten password.

------
dunmalg
"I changed the password every 3 days and never memorized it. Current password
was on a post-it on my monitor. Did you guys lose the post-it?"

Simple as that, right? They can't compel you to remember information you never
had in memory. It's probably too late, as he's likely admitted to remembering
the password. Dumb move.

~~~
cantbecool
They will probably request a lie detector test to be taken; ultimately, he
will probably fail it. Great idea though.

~~~
ryoshu
Polygraphs are pseudoscience. The judge /might/ rule a polygraph as admissible
evidence -- most will not, because of its inaccuracies -- but a "lie detector"
is a gimmick.

------
michael_dorfman
This is one of those stories where I wish we had a bat-signal to summon
grellas.

------
saalweachter
Just out of curiosity--

Does anyone know why it is important that a password can be more than 64
characters? Is he just saying "which makes it very hard to remember", or is
there some legal significance to very long passwords?

~~~
indrora
Because my encryption keys are 2048^2 characters long (They're images). Its
not just ``Very Hard to Remember'' but ``Damned hard to unfuck.''

(good point though, +reply, -op though.)

------
JacobIrwin
What is it with the long history treating inmates poorly in the south?

See: Cool Hand Luke <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061512/>

------
asciilifeform
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face
— forever."

------
mobiplayer
Another reason on why you need to hide your TrueCrypt volumes, too.

------
brendoncrawford
Text of the article since the page is loading slowly...

    
    
      To anyone reading this thread-if you want a quicker response to your
      comments or questions, send them to me at:
    
      Matthew Bumgardner
      Santa Rosa County Jail
      P.O. Box 7129
      Milton, FL 32572
    
      Right now it takes about 3 weeks for a post on this forum to get to me,
      receive an answer, then have the answer sent back to my sister so she can
      post it here.
    
      This is Matthew Bumgardner, the one in jail. I have given this note to my
      sister so that it can be posted. Obviously I have no access to email, so this
      is the best I can do. Eventually I will get a copy of the posts in this thread
      and I will respond when I can. My sister should have already posted the letter
      I wrote. Every word is true. There are a few things I would like to add. First,
      this jail could generate some serious money for a decent civil rights attorney.
      They are already being sued for their mail policy. Inmates can only write on
      postcards. They can only send letters to attorneys, members of the media and public
      officials. If you were in here and wanted to write a family member, all you could
      send was a post card.
    
      The jail also denies access to legal materials. Their policy states that
      "inmates will be afforded reasonable access to the courts. This is accomplished
      by way of your attorney or public defender." This is a joke, since some inmates
      wait 6 months or moe to see their public defender. The policy goes on to state
      that pro se inmates must obtain a court order granting them pro se status in
      order to get access to the Law Library.
    
      I am a pro se inmate. I have obtained a Court Order granting me pro status.
      I have provided that document to the jail staff, and I am still being denied access.
      I have filed a new motion requesting an Order to allow me access to the Law Library
      and I have also written the judge. I am waiting to see what happens there. I also
      ahe a problem getting copies made. When I give my documents to the person making copies,
      I inform them that I need them returned immediately. The past two times it has taken
      several days fro the copies to be made. This is intentional. Since I am a Federal
      inmate the Government pays the jail or me to be here. They make decent money off of
      so, so there is no incentive for them to assist in my release.
    
      Although it may seem unnecessary to complain about the jail, it is actually important.
      The US attorney and judge that put me here knew exactly what they were doing. They
      figured that the constraints imposed by the jail would allow them to maintain their
      secrecy. They are wrong. It certainly slows things down, but I will not remain
      silent about this.
    
      This issue is more important that you might realize. Right now, this US
      Attorney and US District Judge think that holding people in contempt is the way to
      deal with encryption. If you read this and still do nothing, then you are telling
      them that they are right. You are telling tem that the 5th Amendment is no longer
      needed, and that they can issue supoenas that compel acts which are oppressive,
      unreasonable and not possible.
    
      I am not asking for my own personal army to help fight this. If you think that
      you are my army, you misunderstand this situation. I am your army in this battle.
      If you use encryption, or any password protected file, then this issue affects you.
      You could be thrown in jail and denied civil rights at the whim of the government.
      I am fighting this battle on my own, and I am willing to continue to do so. The
      outcome is going to possibly affect many more people. To me, it seems like more
      people should be getting involved.
    
      At the very least write the attorney and judge and tell them that what they did
      was wrong. Tell them that True Crypt can use more than just a password. Tell them
      that a password can be 64 characters long. Tell them they have no right to hold
      someone in contempt for failing to produce documents they have never seen. Tell
      them that the precedent in US vs. Hubbell and In Boucher II proves that they
      are wrong.
    
      The addresses are:
    
      David L. Goldberg
      Assistant U.S. Attorney
      21 E. Garden Street, Suite 400
      Pensacola, FL 32502
    
      Lacey A. Collier
      Sr. U.S. District Judge
      United States Courthouse
      One NOrth Palafax Street
      Pensacola, FL 32502
    
      If you don't have time to write a letter, at the very least please forward this
      to everyone you now. E-mail it to any media outlet you can think of. If enough
      people e-mail tis, a major media outlet might pick up the story.
    
      The Government can only do this in secrecy. If more people know about this it
      never would have happened.
    
      Thanks i advance for any assistance you can provide.

------
lukejduncan
mirror?

~~~
blendergasket
It's on the wall next to the shower.

------
ThaddeusQuay
This may be a hoax. There are only two occurrences of his name on PACER, and
both are discharged bankruptcy cases. Also, the federal inmate locator
(<http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp>) shows no one by that name.

~~~
baisdl
Why would a guy facing federal charges be locked up in _county_ jail?

~~~
TallGuyShort
He said the federal government was paying the jail to keep him. To me that
implies that it's not a federal jail. If I remember correctly, I have visited
individuals held on federal charges in a county institution.

