http://www.securitynewsdaily.com/1438-suspects-decrypt-hard-drives.html

USA strikes again. Does your legal system really doesn't respect even such standard rules like

nemo se ipsum accusare tenetur ? (nobody is forced to accuse himself)

In civilized countries, no court can force a suspect to do ANYTHING , even as simple as providing a password to your computer.

The ruling determines that the Fifth Amendment, which protects people against self-incrimination, does not apply in this case.
What the hell?

Well that's simple, "Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live." And such wichcraft as modern electronics should not be allowed to cover crimes as serious as ... Ummm ... A mortage scam!

US judges prove once again that nobody can feel safe there :P And that a constitution is just an irrelevant piece of paper. (to wipe your ass, maybe?)

Only if we had a time machine to show people in 1776 what the USA would be come in 2012.

652178104637
147902089421
292049271046
450830341763

And I'm afraid (but my common law knowledge is limited) that this now is binding for all judges on the same level as that federal judge?

I don't know actually this isn't cut and dry. I disagree with the Smith fellow - a wall safe is a good example as after all such a one could contain and often did in the old days far more files than just the ones the police were after - someone's most personal communications and business. If a computer hard drive is reasonably suspected to contain evidence on it and the police obtain a court order to search it, the police should have the right to search the contents of the hard drive. However that is slightly different from ordering the person to aid in that search - that's not quite the same thing as self-incrimination by testimony, but could constitute unreasonable search and seizure to require the person themselves to aid in the seizure. It depends on what the rules were for safes and so forth if a person is required to open such a thing during a police investigation or if the police have to open it themselves. I don't *think* it's binding to the same level elsewhere. It would have to go up to the next level higher - which it should and probably will. This may be something that goes all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Well I suppose it's binding at least in Colorado to the extent that judges are able to make such orders. Hope that this gets reviewed.

court dismissing the safe analogy seems to me that you do not need to open the safe for police and they have to do the same. clearly judge is an asshole who doesn't understand what he is talking about.

It wasn't the court who dismissed the analogy but the security professional who was arguing against the court's decision who dismissed the analogy.

lulz. I think i should read it more carefully next time eh? :P

:)

However, I have no idea if the police can force you to open a safe that they have a warrant to search or if they have to open themselves. If they can't force you to open a safe, then "digital safes" should be treated the same way and the person shouldn't have to decrypt files for the police. If the police can force you to open a safe, then the court is in the right (barring a change in the law or Supreme Court decision).

because you are protected against accusing yourself. you do not have to do/say anything which may be used against you.

But surely if they've already got the court order to search your premises you have to let them in the house even if doing so would show the drugs that you keep in there. Surely a disk or safe is under the same laws - that you comply or they break their way in by force. The disk only being a special case then because in order to break in it would take considerable amounts of time and resources.