Encryption Software Infers Guilt

[James S. Tyre]

The case itself is at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=apppub\0505\opa040381-0503&invol=1

         "Finally, Schaub testified that, in a file entitled “research,” he 
found the text of Minn. Stat. § 617.246, which included “the definition of 
minor sexual performance, sexual conduct, things of that nature.”  He also 
testified that he found an encryption program, PGP, on appellant’s 
computer; PGP “can basically encrypt any file;” and, “other than the 
National Security Agency,” he was not aware of anyone who could break such 
an encryption.  But Schaub also admitted that the PGP program may be 
included on every Macintosh computer that comes out today, and appellant 
may have had the text of Minn. Stat. § 617.246 in his computer because of 
prior allegations against him."

...

         "Appellant first argues that he is entitled to a new trial because 
the district court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence of his internet 
usage and the existence of an encryption program on his computer.  Rulings 
involving the relevancy of evidence are generally left to the sound 
discretion of the district court.  State v. Swain, 269 N.W.2d 707, 714 
(Minn. 1978).  And rulings on relevancy will only be reversed when that 
discretion has been clearly abused.  Johnson v. Washington County, 518 
N.W.2d 594, 601 (Minn. 1994).  “The party claiming error has the burden of 
showing both the error and the prejudice.”  State v. Horning, 535 N.W.2d 
296, 298 (Minn. 1995).

         Appellant argues that his “internet use had nothing to do with the 
issues in this case;” “there was no evidence that there was anything 
encrypted on the computer;” and that he “was prejudiced because the court 
specifically used this evidence in its findings of fact and in reaching its 
verdict.”  We are not persuaded by appellant’s arguments.  The record shows 
that appellant took a large number of pictures of S.M. with a digital 
camera, and that he would upload those pictures onto his computer soon 
after taking them.  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.  See Minn. R. Evid. 401."

At 11:07 PM 5/24/2005 -0700, Arash Partow wrote:

>OK, the subject was a little exaggerated.
>
>But in anycase feel free to read the following article:
>
>http://news.com.com/Minnesota+court+takes+dim+view+of+encryption/2100-1030_3-5718978.html
>
>
>
>Regards
>
>
>Arash


--------------------------------------------------------------------
James S. Tyre                               mailto:jstyre at jstyre.com
Law Offices of James S. Tyre          310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512               Culver City, CA 90230-4969
Co-founder, The Censorware Project             http://censorware.net



---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com