- ‘Bachelor’ contestant apologizes for ‘White Lives Matter’ photo shoot Today 12:13 AM
- ‘Sonic The Hedgehog’ sets box office record for video game movies Sunday 8:15 PM
- Truck driver allegedly watching porn kills teen driver in a car crash Sunday 6:44 PM
- Is the Buttigieg campaign behind this pro-Pete Nigerian Twitter account? Sunday 4:58 PM
- Mask that has your face printed on it allows you to unlock your phone during viral epidemics Sunday 3:52 PM
- Justin Bieber slid into the DMs of someone who hated his new album Sunday 1:05 PM
- HQ Trivia host and co-founder in Twitter feud amid shutdown Sunday 12:10 PM
- YouTuber shamed for fake call with Caroline Flack after her death Sunday 10:59 AM
- This MAGA-loving Keanu Reeves imposter isn’t fooling anyone Sunday 10:16 AM
- How to watch ‘Outlander’ season 5 online Sunday 8:00 AM
- Kobe Bryant’s complicated online legacy isn’t buried with him Sunday 6:00 AM
- TikTok teen’s reaction to discovering boyfriend’s cheating goes viral Saturday 4:46 PM
- This may be the creepiest Amazon review you’ll ever read Saturday 3:58 PM
- Bill Maher booed on own show over defense of Bloomberg Saturday 3:37 PM
- The Sun allegedly deletes negative Caroline Flack story after her death Saturday 2:48 PM
Does being forced to decrypt a file violate the Fifth Amendment?
That’s the argument the Electronic Frontier Foundation is making in a new brief.
Does being forced to decrypt a file violate your Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination?
That’s the case made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in a new brief filed in the case of Leon Gelgatt. The 49-year-old Marblehead, Mass. attorney, was indicted in 2010 in a $1.3 million mortgage fraud scam. The judge denied the government’s attempt to compel Gelfgatt to decrypt the hard drive that law enforcement had seized.
The case is now in appeal before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The EFF, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, filed an amicus brief in the case.
“Our brief argues that the lower court got it right. The Fifth Amendment protects a person from being forced to reveal the ‘contents of his mind’ to the government, allowing law enforcement to learn facts it didn’t already know,” the brief, which we’ve copied below, reads.
“When it comes to compelled decryption, the Fifth Amendment clearly applies because the government would be learning new facts beyond simply the encryption key. By forcing Gelfgatt to translate the encrypted data it cannot read into a readable format, it would be learning what the unencrypted data was (and whether any data existed). Plus, the government would learn perhaps the most crucial of facts: that Gelfgatt had access to and dominion and control of files on the devices.”
The government, on the other hand, argues that providing file decryption is like providing a key to a safe, reports ThreatPost, and thus not constitutionally protected. The case will begin Monday, Nov. 5.
Patrick Howell O'Neill is a notable cybersecurity reporter whose work has focused on the dark net, national security, and law enforcement. A former senior writer at the Daily Dot, O'Neill joined CyberScoop in October 2016. I am a cybersecurity journalist at CyberScoop. I cover the security industry, national security and law enforcement.