Is Encryption Evidence of Criminal Intent?
By Ian Scott
On Nay 24, 2005, News.com published an article with the headline, “Minnesota court takes dim view of encryption.” I briefly read the article which reports that in a child sex abuse case, the Minnesota Appeals court ruled that “We find that evidence of appellant’s Internet use and the existence of an encryption program on his computer was at least somewhat relevant to the state’s case against him.”
At first glance, the article seems to be suggesting that having an encryption program is relevant to one’s guilt in computer related crime.
In fact, even Bruce Schneier stated on his blog, “I am speechless.”
A little more digging however reveals that sometimes first impressions may not be totally correct. Orin S. Kerr, Associate Professor of Law, has examined the ruling and his commentary suggests that most do not really understand what the Appeals Court ruling really meant, and why they ruled as they did”
“In sum, the court did not hold that encryption is a signal of criminal activity. All it did was say that in one case, where a crucial witness testified about the presence of a computer file on a computer, that the presence of encryption software on the computer in early 2003 was “at least somewhat relevant” to the question of whether the defendant was a skilled computer user who had intentionally removed any traces of that file from the hard drive.”
Read Mr. Kerr’s summary here.
Read more in: Encryption |