kingoomieiii: Bunnyhat: Of course a safe is much easier to open without a key then an encrypted laptop.
It's no different then the police finding documents written in a different language that they don't understand. The judge can't order you to translate those documents to English for them.

If SCOTUS goes with this interpretation of the 5th amendment, running Truecrypt on a system drive will constitute complete protection from all computer searches. And the 5th amendment will need to be changed DRASTICALLY .

As well as being able to give the authorities the "duress" password, so they can decrypt away a nice vanilla install of Windows without touching any of the hard stuff buried underneath.

Decrypting it yourself? Good luck pounding out AES/Twofish/Serpent. Make sure you keep some extra images of the hard drive handy, there's going to be a few generations of your family that's going to be taking a whack at this.

The proper phrase is "I do not recall that".

/learn from the pros

In the case of civil proceedings, the court can demand that you supply all the relevant documents. You could withhold documents, but that would be illegal and open you up to all sorts of problems if caught. Whether you've encrypted them or not is irrelevant- you can be compelled to supply them is a readable format.

Criminal cases are a little bit weirder, and I agree- in principle- that you shouldn't be compelled to decrypt encrypted files. However, I don't think that it falls under the 5th Amendment. The fact that you are known to possess the encrypted files is proof of ownership- so revealing that you know the password to those files does not incriminate you in any way. The contents of those files may incriminate you, but the act of revealing a password is not, itself, incriminatory. So in a pedantic, lawyerly reading, you could make an argument that the 5th Amendment doesn't apply.

However, the accused is under no obligation to make the state's job easy. No matter what a court says, the accused should never have to do anything except be present when required of them by the state to answer the charges against them. It is the state's duty to gather and display the evidence for the court.

downstairs: You cannot be compelled to answer questions on the crime.

Well, that's the real issue. The password to your computer is not a question about a crime, unless you're accused of a computer crime. Regardless, the real point is that the status of the law needs to be clarified and laws (from the Federal level) need to be put in place to do that clarification.

downstairs: The "right to remain silent" is a pretty damn simple thing to understand, with pretty much zero grey area.

The right to remain silent is not codified in the 5th Amendment, nor is it one of the Miranda rights. It's a common feature of most Miranda warnings, but the actual Miranda rights are:
the right to talk to a lawyer before deciding whether to talk to police,
if the defendant decides to talk to the police, the right to consult with a lawyer before being interrogated,
the right to answer police only through an attorney

Which, in any dealing with the law- use an attorney.

Well, she has two tings in her favor:
5^th amendment ...and
FARK YOU, ASSHOLE.

of course, not in her favor are Fascist judges.
So there's that.

9/!! AMERKKA! FARK YEAH!

/a nation of pussies.

If I ever make a password it is going to be a long tirade of curse words and insults. Just so I can scream them at the judge every time they ask for it.

you'd be hard pressed to find a way to prove a person has forgotten something, especially something as intangible as a password. and it's not like they can keep you in contempt forever. otherwise you'd have a real 5th amendment problem on your hands

tortilla burger: you'd be hard pressed to find a way to prove a person has forgotten something, especially something as intangible as a password. and it's not like they can keep you in contempt forever. otherwise you'd have a real 5th amendment problem on your hands

Actually, you can be held in contempt forever.

lets not forget that this vapid biatch screwed families out of their homes.

AmazinTim: Ah, this thread again. I'm glad this woman reads Fark and realized the "I forgot the password" defense was a viable option.

There was also the idea another Farker came up with by claiming that the password was 125 alphanumeric characters that incorporated upper and lower case letter and it was written down on a sickie not that seemed to have been lost when they raided her house.

I suggested it was on a usb stick that hasn't been seen since the raid.

"Well, officer it was right next to the computer when you were hauling stuff out and I haven't seen it since. Have you checked all the things you took"

kronicfeld: SilentStrider: Good. I don't care what the court said, ruling at she had to supply the password so the police could find evidence on the laptop to use against her was a clear violation of the 5th amendment.

Just like when you let them in your house to execute a search warrant.

yeah but they do the searching.. you don't have to tell them that they overlooked the drugs.

they what the pay out they do the leg work.

Comic Book Guy: kingoomieiii: Bunnyhat: Of course a safe is much easier to open without a key then an encrypted laptop.
It's no different then the police finding documents written in a different language that they don't understand. The judge can't order you to translate those documents to English for them.

If SCOTUS goes with this interpretation of the 5th amendment, running Truecrypt on a system drive will constitute complete protection from all computer searches. And the 5th amendment will need to be changed DRASTICALLY .

As well as being able to give the authorities the "duress" password, so they can decrypt away a nice vanilla install of Windows without touching any of the hard stuff buried underneath.

Decrypting it yourself? Good luck pounding out AES/Twofish/Serpent. Make sure you keep some extra images of the hard drive handy, there's going to be a few generations of your family that's going to be taking a whack at this.

Because the authorities are absolutely clueless of what TrueCrypt is? Surely if someone doesn't, say, maintain that Windows install, that would at least be suspicious...

TenUp: lets not forget that this vapid biatch screwed families out of their homes.

Let's not forget "presumed innocent until proven guilty", either.

"I don't recall"
"I don't recall"
"I don't recall"

over and over and over ....

Americans are innocent until proven guilty.

Good for her, that judge can go fark himself.

hilly and billy cilton used the i can't remember defence many times... course, they were attorneys...

downstairs: Its no different than saying we suspect you of murdering this girl. She's missing, so tell us where you buried her.

Assuming you did murder and bury her... keeping that secret is no different than keeping your files hidden. Its the state's job to find the evidence.

You have a right to say no. Or say nothing.

You have a right to remain silent during the entire legal process. You don't have to testify in court. You don't have to answer one question.

How is this so difficult to understand?

Exactly.

Rule number one when charged: Shut. The. Fark. Up.

It's a long code, no wonder she doesn't remember it...

Thisbymaster: If I ever make a password it is going to be a long tirade of curse words and insults. Just so I can scream them at the judge every time they ask for it.

Mine would be an admission to a different crime, so they couldn't get me to ever give it over because just being forced to say the password itself would be a violation of the 5th amendment.

t3knomanser: In the case of civil proceedings, the court can demand that you supply all the relevant documents. You could withhold documents, but that would be illegal and open you up to all sorts of problems if caught. Whether you've encrypted them or not is irrelevant- you can be compelled to supply them is a readable format.

Criminal cases are a little bit weirder, and I agree- in principle- that you shouldn't be compelled to decrypt encrypted files. However, I don't think that it falls under the 5th Amendment. The fact that you are known to possess the encrypted files is proof of ownership- so revealing that you know the password to those files does not incriminate you in any way. The contents of those files may incriminate you, but the act of revealing a password is not, itself, incriminatory. So in a pedantic, lawyerly reading, you could make an argument that the 5th Amendment doesn't apply.

However, the accused is under no obligation to make the state's job easy. No matter what a court says, the accused should never have to do anything except be present when required of them by the state to answer the charges against them. It is the state's duty to gather and display the evidence for the court.

Or they could haul you off to some nice private location and torture the info out of you.

What I'm wondering is why they used a stock photo of a chromebook.

/written on a chromebook

kronicfeld: Just like when you let them in your house to execute a search warrant.

I don't think you have to *let* the police in to execute a search. They can come in on their own, one way or another.

Same for a safe... you don't *have* to give them the combination, unless you intend to reuse the safe in the future.

Same should apply to an encrypted partition. It just happens to be much harder to brute-force than a front door or a steel safe.

Farnn: Thisbymaster: If I ever make a password it is going to be a long tirade of curse words and insults. Just so I can scream them at the judge every time they ask for it.

Mine would be an admission to a different crime, so they couldn't get me to ever give it over because just being forced to say the password itself would be a violation of the 5th amendment.

Win.

sithon:

I bet you could brute force it in a month or two.

Lulsec. Or a massively parallel array working nonstop trying every possible combination of letters, numbers and characters a US keyboard could manage.

G7ersBV*9%cO9op