The Shout: "The opinion is not explicit that the PGP evidence was used to show criminal intent or consciousness of guilt, but I think that is fairly implied, especially since the court is not clear or specific about the relevance of the PGP evidence to the problem of the missing child porn photos. Police did not find encrypted files on the defendant's machine, or evidence that the illegal pictures were encrypted or erased. The opinion references the defendant's 'encrypting capability' in the context of other evidence he expected the police to raid him, which could be read either as consciousness of guilt, or as reasn to believe he disposed of the photos. And the victim's testimony that defendant took digital photos of her is not corroborated by the encryption technology in the strict sens of that word. So there is reason to believe that the court drew a broad negative inference from the mere presence of encryption technologies, and this is the reason for concern.

Perhaps more worrisome isn't what this opinion says or doesn't say, but how it could be used by courts looking at this issue in the future. This is why its important for appellate courts to be more explicit about exactly what they are ruling. "

So while nobody likes kiddie-porn freaks, we can't let law enforcement use these indefensible cases to subvert the law to take away everyone's rights.

(Via Schneier on Security.)