This happens in a lot of countries. It's unfortunate at best, malicious at worst.

Example: 2009 April FBI raid on Core IP Dallas data center

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=546067

> [Core IP CEO] Simpson added that there were 50 businesses without access to email and data due to the raid. "If you run a datacenter, please be aware that in our great country, the FBI can come into your place of business at any time and take whatever they want, with no reason," he wrote.

Bruce Sterling foreshadows "Data Havens"

"A data haven is a computer or a network that holds data protected from government action by both technical means (encryption) and location in a country that has either no laws, or poorly-enforced laws restricting use of data and no extradition treaties."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_haven

In case of encrypted data, can't the US government legally force one to disclose passwords following a raid? In other words they might raid a company, they find encrypted hard drives so they ask for passwords. Then does revealing passwords fall under "self-incriminating" or not revealing them fall under "obstructing justice"?

My understanding is that in the US, passwords fall under the 5th amendment. Here's an example where a subpoena ordering the defendant to enter in a password was quashed: http://www.eff.org/files/Boucher.pdf

The Wikipedia article has more info on that case.

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

In February of this year, the judge required him to provide unencrypted access to the drive.

A good read, thanks for posting.

In the US, it appears that you cannot be compelled to give up your password. Even if you could be, it is possible that the obstruction of justice charge would carry a lighter sentence than whatever is on the disk would get you.

(But of course, if you are at the point where your hardware is being seized, it's possible that the government already has enough evidence on you.)

Theoretically, a password is protected by the fifth amendment only in very limited circumstances, basically when the mere knowledge of it would be evidence against you. If your equipment is seized legally with a court issued warrant, you'd normally be expected to disclose it. However, if your defense is that your system was compromised and encrypted files were put there by an attacker, there is an issue of self-incrimination and fifth amendment protections may apply. It would then be up to the judge to rule on it.(corrections welcome, IANAL)

I wonder if stating that the password it's self is incriminating information would also allow it to fall under Fifth Amendment protection. AKA, the password is a sentence that contains incriminating information.

I it could be argued that pleading the fifth for every single question is allowed under the Fifth Amendment because what information you think might be incriminating is also incriminating information. AKA where on December 2, 1952 and you plead the fifth. But you are willing to say where you where on the December 1, 1952 and December 3, 1952.

This is a quick route to a contempt of court charge and the judge will let you spend some quality time with the folks in the local jail until you decide that being a smartass to someone who can send you directly to jail is a bad idea.

The password can be protected. The contents of what's protected by that password is not. So for instance, that you encrypted content with the password "ilikelittlechildren" can be protected. But that said content is thousands of instances of child pornography cannot be protected, and you can be required to (yourself) unencrypt the content even though you don't tell anyone your password.

The most correct answer in the U.S. is that the question of whether a defendant can be forced to give up his password is still undecided.

In the UK the government settled the question with a law making it a crime to withhold your password:

http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/encryption/faqs/

The issue hasn't really come up in Canada. Some authorities have recommended a law similar to the UK's.

Today CCP raided a datacenter in Shanghai and over 10k sites were offline.

http://www.otaku.net.cn/viewthread.php?tid=7339

I agree. What will the police even do with the computers? There should be laws against that kind of thing. Seriously disgusting.

Agreed though it might not be a completely fair view.

Siezed computers would need to be held on to till after any trial - which could be years away. Otherwise the defence can call any computer evidence into question.

Couldn't they just keep HDDs and give the rest back? Or would that be too logical.

yes possibly - though in my experience explaining that to a police office (with no disrespect meant - most are tech illiterate) could be difficult.

Then you have the huge issue of explaining that to the jury; the defence would probably still have a field day.

And finally, certainly here in the UK so this might not apply elsewhere, there is quite a strict mandate for handling evidence. Returning the computer and keeping the HDD's would almost certainly break those guidelines.

It's really illogical all round; the main problem being computer evidence is still treated with suspicion by Juries (probably due to technical misunderstanding) and greeted with delight by defense teams (who will take joy in asking obscure, mundane and irrelevant questions :D just to derail things)

Finally: complex investigations might really take months to complete (as in 8 or 10). And then going to trial can take upwards of 2 years.

EDIT: with all of that said I strongly disagree with the police actions in this case.

Not giving a list of seizures, even within a few hours, is definite grounds for massive legal action here. It would be unheard of, frankly.

Not giving computers back after, say, 5 months where the case was unproven or the computers irrelevant would also be wrong. In the case where information was found but no trial forthcoming stuff should be returned within 2 years.

I wont comment on the legality of the raid though; we are only getting one side of the story and it could be there is evidence to have raided them. We also haven't seen or heard about the warrant used; so we cant really speculate on the legality of the seizures.