"Using Encryption to conceal a crime" - Article

[streaker69]

Prosecutors charge ex-DNR official in data breach

http://www.twincities.com/minnesota/...wincities.com-

John Austin Hunt, 48, of Woodbury was charged with six counts, including misconduct by a public employee, unauthorized computer access, using encryption to conceal a crime and unlawful use of public data. The charges are misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors. The most serious counts carry a potential sentence of up to a year in jail and a $3,000 fine.

I thought this was a rather interesting charge and something I hadn't heard of before. Does anyone know when this kind of "crime" came onto the books and if there are any other states that have it?

I just see that this is a law that could potentially be abused, and it might have some interest to the Defcon community as a whole.

[Thorn]

Re: "Using Encryption to conceal a crime" - Article

Prosecutors charge ex-DNR official in data breach

http://www.twincities.com/minnesota/...wincities.com-



I thought this was a rather interesting charge and something I hadn't heard of before. Does anyone know when this kind of "crime" came onto the books and if there are any other states that have it?

I just see that this is a law that could potentially be abused, and it might have some interest to the Defcon community as a whole.

The Minnesota law is here:
http://statutes.laws.com/minnesota/609-624/609/609_8912

According to this 2009 blog, at least six states – Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada and Virginia – have statutes that make the “unlawful use of encryption” a crime. The statutes seem to range from 1999 to 2008, and there may be more since the blog was written.
http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2008/...ncryption.html

The intent of most legislatures is probably to discourage encryption of select file/folders of direct evidence (e.g. cooked spreadsheets or child porn), where such encryption that would be done in a direct attempt to thwart law enforcement investigations of a crime. That type of legislate intent would certainly seem to apply in the case cited in Minnesota.

However, as whole disk encryption becomes more widespread as people become more conscience of privacy issues, and they wish to avoid theft of their data, then such additional charges could become much more problematic. Such charges against someone who uses whole-disk encryption might be challenging. Proving that the intent was solely to hide evidence, and not over concerns of personal privacy or theft, would be difficult to prove at best.