Use PETs? You must have something to hide
posted by:Alex Cameron // 07:55 PM // June 02, 2005 // Digital Democracy: law, policy and politics
In this US case, evidence that the accused had PGP (pretty good privacy) technology on his computer was found to be relevant to proving criminal intent to attempt to make child pornography. This despite a finding that every Mac computer that comes out today may have PGP on it and that no encrypted files were present on the accused's computer.
This is a troubling finding because, as I see it, there is no win for privacy here.
On one hand, if ordinary emails and other online communications can be intercepted, they may not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy.
On the other hand, if we use privacy enhancing technology like PGP to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in our files and communications, then it must be because we have something to hide. Even where there is no clear evidence of our use of encryption for illegal purposes, the fact that we even have it on our computer can be used against us.
Though perhaps not surprising given that child pornography was alleged in this case, it seems troubling that the presence of PGP could be found by a court to be relevant to proving criminal intent, particularly in the absence of evidence about whether and how the PGP was specifically used.
Full text of US court decision: http://pub.bna.com/eclr/K203106.doc
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogonnymity.com/powerblog/mt-tb.cgi/55
