[17257] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Encryption Software Infers Guilt
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James S. Tyre)
Wed May 25 12:18:50 2005
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:04:34 -0700
To: Arash Partow <arash@partow.net>, cryptography@metzdowd.com
From: "James S. Tyre" <jstyre@jstyre.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050524230756.06axqfpo0t8g00gg@partow.net>
The case itself is at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=3Dmn&vol=3Dapppub\050=
5\opa040381-0503&invol=3D1
"Finally, Schaub testified that, in a file entitled =93research,=94=
he=20
found the text of Minn. Stat. =A7 617.246, which included =93the definition=
of=20
minor sexual performance, sexual conduct, things of that nature.=94 He also=
=20
testified that he found an encryption program, PGP, on appellant=92s=20
computer; PGP =93can basically encrypt any file;=94 and, =93other than the=
=20
National Security Agency,=94 he was not aware of anyone who could break such=
=20
an encryption. But Schaub also admitted that the PGP program may be=20
included on every Macintosh computer that comes out today, and appellant=20
may have had the text of Minn. Stat. =A7 617.246 in his computer because of=
=20
prior allegations against him."
...
"Appellant first argues that he is entitled to a new trial because=
=20
the district court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence of his internet=20
usage and the existence of an encryption program on his computer. Rulings=
=20
involving the relevancy of evidence are generally left to the sound=20
discretion of the district court. State v. Swain, 269 N.W.2d 707, 714=20
(Minn. 1978). And rulings on relevancy will only be reversed when that=20
discretion has been clearly abused. Johnson v. Washington County, 518=20
N.W.2d 594, 601 (Minn. 1994). =93The party claiming error has the burden of=
=20
showing both the error and the prejudice.=94 State v. Horning, 535 N.W.2d=
=20
296, 298 (Minn. 1995).
Appellant argues that his =93internet use had nothing to do with=
the=20
issues in this case;=94 =93there was no evidence that there was anything=20
encrypted on the computer;=94 and that he =93was prejudiced because the=
court=20
specifically used this evidence in its findings of fact and in reaching its=
=20
verdict.=94 We are not persuaded by appellant=92s arguments. The record=
shows=20
that appellant took a large number of pictures of S.M. with a digital=20
camera, and that he would upload those pictures onto his computer soon=20
after taking them. We find that evidence of appellant=92s internet use and=
=20
the existence of an encryption program on his computer was at least=20
somewhat relevant to the state=92s 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@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@metzdowd.com
