Law Question Canada - Security!

[waterloo]

Theoretically if you have set the supervisor, boot and windows 7 passwords would 1 subpoena force you to reveal all of the passwords or would they require 3 subpoenas?

Thanks

[bill bolton]

Theoretically if you have set the supervisor, boot and windows 7 passwords would 1 subpoena force you to reveal all of the passwords or would they require 3 subpoenas?

I can't answer explicitly for Canadian law, but under Australian law (which shares a common heritage/practice with Canadian law) one subponea could cover all the security information related to a system.

Other things to keep in mind.....

• The coverage of a subpoena may differ depending on whether the action arises from a civil or a criminal context.
  
  There maybe other provisions related to the area of national security which could also be enforceable, depending on what the interest was in the protected information.

Cheers,

Bill B.

[RealBlackStuff]

Are you about to meet yours?

[waterloo]

Are you about to meet yours?

I am not in trouble... I am just curious because it makes me wonder if it is worth the effort to lock up your notebook, network etc etc knowing it could all become USELESS with just one subpoena. It's a very depressing thought.

[craigmontHunter]

I would imagine that you would have to provide any passwords/keys required to access the system. The passwords are more to deter theft, and should the system be stolen, to prevent the thief from getting/using any data.

[RealBlackStuff]

Don't store critical data on a laptop, but on an encrypted USB-key instead.
If need be, you just 'lost' your USB-key ("Sorry Officer...).

[dsvochak]

If this case makes it to the Supreme Court the question could be resolved in the US
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20078 ... opStories2

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher

[ThinkRob]

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher

It's worth noting that this doesn't cover forced key surrender the way that most people think it does.

The decision there was based on the fact that Boucher had already shown law enforcement officers the contents of the encrypted container. It was only after he'd granted access and the laptop had later been shut off (and thus the encrypted container made inaccessible) that he then refused to grant subsequent access.

Moral of the story: if you want to preserve your privacy, don't give it up and then say the equivalent of "Oopsy! Forget you saw that, please..."

[waterloo]

It's worth noting that this doesn't cover forced key surrender the way that most people think it does.

The decision there was based on the fact that Boucher had already shown law enforcement officers the contents of the encrypted container. It was only after he'd granted access and the laptop had later been shut off (and thus the encrypted container made inaccessible) that he then refused to grant subsequent access.

Moral of the story: if you want to preserve your privacy, don't give it up and then say the equivalent of "Oopsy! Forget you saw that, please..."

Thanks for all the information, very confusing issue this is!