Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slashdot)   Is it too late to try and fool Republicans and the NRA into thinking TrueCrypt is a zombie apocalypse survival rifle?   (it.slashdot.org ) divider line
    More: Asinine, NRA, TrueCrypt, Republican, not proven  
•       •       •

2857 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 May 2013 at 9:17 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-05-30 09:20:37 AM  
A wrench is cheaper.
 
2013-05-30 09:21:02 AM  
...Wut?
 
2013-05-30 09:24:25 AM  
Why not Democrats and the NRA? Or independents? I must be missing a reference to something that makes this headline funny, or make sense.It's not like the Republicans are in charge of the FBI right now.
 
2013-05-30 09:25:59 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: A wrench is cheaper.


TrueCrypt has a duress password partition, if the guy installing it was smart enough to create one, install a dummy copy of Windows, and use it often enough to provide current file timestamps to make it look like that's the real thing.
 
2013-05-30 09:31:27 AM  

Big_Fat_Liar: Why not Democrats and the NRA? Or independents? I must be missing a reference to something that makes this headline funny, or make sense.It's not like the Republicans are in charge of the FBI right now.


The reference is that it would be nice for the NRA/Republicans, in their fervent protection of 2nd amendment rights, to remember that there are 26 other amendments (25, if you discount the Prohibition repeal) that also require the same fervent protection.  TrueCrypt is designed to protect your 5th amendment rights, which too often in this country is immediately perceived as an indirect admission of guilt.

Clear enough for you?
 
2013-05-30 09:39:09 AM  
People forget their passwords everyday - ask anyone that's worked at an IT desk.

"Sorry judge, I forgot it."

I mean, really, can they prove you didn't?
 
2013-05-30 09:41:02 AM  

Comic Book Guy: Big_Fat_Liar: Why not Democrats and the NRA? Or independents? I must be missing a reference to something that makes this headline funny, or make sense.It's not like the Republicans are in charge of the FBI right now.

The reference is that it would be nice for the NRA/Republicans, in their fervent protection of 2nd amendment rights, to remember that there are 26 other amendments (25, if you discount the Prohibition repeal) that also require the same fervent protection.  TrueCrypt is designed to protect your 5th amendment rights, which too often in this country is immediately perceived as an indirect admission of guilt.

Clear enough for you?


The NRA is a single-issue organization.  If the case doesn't somehow involve the legal ownership or use of firearms, there is no reason for them to be interested at all.

As for the Republicans, they probably aren't going to touch this one with a 10 foot pole for fear of being accused of siding with kiddy diddlers.  It sucks, but that's the reality.
 
2013-05-30 09:43:00 AM  

Comic Book Guy: Big_Fat_Liar: Why not Democrats and the NRA? Or independents? I must be missing a reference to something that makes this headline funny, or make sense.It's not like the Republicans are in charge of the FBI right now.

The reference is that it would be nice for the NRA/Republicans, in their fervent protection of 2nd amendment rights, to remember that there are 26 other amendments (25, if you discount the Prohibition repeal) that also require the same fervent protection.  TrueCrypt is designed to protect your 5th amendment rights, which too often in this country is immediately perceived as an indirect admission of guilt.

Clear enough for you?




Wouldn't that imply that, while the party of bad things is guilty of standing up for only one right, the party of goods things won't stand for any?
This runs across the fourth amendment as well as the fifth. This is more ACLU ground than NRA, since encryption isn't seen as a weapon.
 
2013-05-30 09:43:12 AM  

Comic Book Guy: Big_Fat_Liar: Why not Democrats and the NRA? Or independents? I must be missing a reference to something that makes this headline funny, or make sense.It's not like the Republicans are in charge of the FBI right now.

The reference is that it would be nice for the NRA/Republicans, in their fervent protection of 2nd amendment rights, to remember that there are 26 other amendments (25, if you discount the Prohibition repeal) that also require the same fervent protection.  TrueCrypt is designed to protect your 5th amendment rights, which too often in this country is immediately perceived as an indirect admission of guilt.

Clear enough for you?


No, but you did just clarify why the headline is retarded. Why not throw planned parenthood in there too for only focusing on reproductive freedom and ignoring 1st amendment freedom.  See how stupid that is? Clear enough for you yet?  Maybe chase after those "assholes" at the innocence project for only focusing on wrongful convictions.   Your explanation falls even flatter when you consider the Democratic party is in charge of the FBI right now.  Is that clear enough for you?  You may as well rail against the NRA and the Libertarian party for the actions of the Justice Department.
 
2013-05-30 09:46:01 AM  
Well, here's a thought:

How about not download illegal and sick content in the first place.
 
2013-05-30 09:46:27 AM  

way south: Comic Book Guy: Big_Fat_Liar: Why not Democrats and the NRA? Or independents? I must be missing a reference to something that makes this headline funny, or make sense.It's not like the Republicans are in charge of the FBI right now.

The reference is that it would be nice for the NRA/Republicans, in their fervent protection of 2nd amendment rights, to remember that there are 26 other amendments (25, if you discount the Prohibition repeal) that also require the same fervent protection.  TrueCrypt is designed to protect your 5th amendment rights, which too often in this country is immediately perceived as an indirect admission of guilt.

Clear enough for you?

Wouldn't that imply that, while the party of bad things is guilty of standing up for only one right, the party of goods things won't stand for any?
This runs across the fourth amendment as well as the fifth. This is more ACLU ground than NRA, since encryption isn't seen as a weapon.


media.salon.com
Yet.....
 
2013-05-30 09:48:41 AM  

Comic Book Guy: Big_Fat_Liar: Why not Democrats and the NRA? Or independents? I must be missing a reference to something that makes this headline funny, or make sense.It's not like the Republicans are in charge of the FBI right now.

The reference is that it would be nice for the NRA/Republicans, in their fervent protection of 2nd amendment rights, to remember that there are 26 other amendments (25, if you discount the Prohibition repeal) that also require the same fervent protection.  TrueCrypt is designed to protect your 5th amendment rights, which too often in this country is immediately perceived as an indirect admission of guilt.

Clear enough for you?


24 other amendments. It's perfectly reasonable to discount repealed amendments, but you have to discount them in pairs: an amendment that got repealed, and the amendment that repealed it.

But however many other amendments there are, they already have protectors that are every bit as staunch: protectors that, all too often, pointedly ignore the Second Amendment while defending the others. The NRA and their ilk exist to fill that hole.
 
2013-05-30 09:51:19 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: People forget their passwords everyday - ask anyone that's worked at an IT desk.

"Sorry judge, I forgot it."

I mean, really, can they prove you didn't?


It doesn't matter, from a legal standpoint.

If, however, you specifically encrypt something in a way that you can't decrypt, that's a different story.

For example, if Alice sends a message to Bob that is encrypted by a one-time pad, and the government somehow gets the encrypted message but it doesn't get the key because both Alice and Bob destroyed the key after they encrypted/decrypted the message, then there is no possible way for the courts to coerce Alice or Bob into decrypting the message:  They no longer have the key, as Alice destroyed her one copy after she encrypted the message, and Bob destroyed his copy of the key immediately after he decrypted the message.  Since the key is a long string of random numbers and/or letters that doesn't repeat or have a pattern, there is no way you can be expected to remember it.

In order to be in contempt, you have to actually be able to perform the action the court is asking you to do. If you can't perform the action the court is requesting by the very design of the system, you can't be held in contempt.  You will of course have to explain why you can't comply in court, and it's up to the judge to believe you or not, but if you have unused pads lying about, that's pretty strong evidence you're telling the truth to the judge.

That pretty much leaves them with asking you about the contents of the message(s) themselves, which would pretty clearly be a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
 
2013-05-30 09:52:00 AM  
Something something self incrimination?
 
2013-05-30 09:53:14 AM  

Codenamechaz: Well, here's a thought:

How about not download illegal and sick content in the first place.


Crazy talk.  It seems that in this particular case, the accused did turn out to be a perslon who does things that contribute to the harming of children.  But, there is also a real fifth amendment issue here.    And God Dammit, NARAL better fight for it or I'm calling them out!
 
2013-05-30 09:54:14 AM  
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-05-30 09:54:46 AM  
Hey subby....the R in NRA stands for Rifles....not Rights.
 
2013-05-30 09:55:48 AM  

Codenamechaz: Well, here's a thought:

How about not download illegal and sick content in the first place.


Who gets to decide what is illegal and sick content?  Does it just include kiddy porn, or does it also include things like how to make a gun, or how to make bombs, or how to avoid being monitored by the government, or  any number of other subjects that some might consider "illegal and sick"?
 
2013-05-30 10:08:06 AM  

ferretman: since encryption isn't seen as a weapon.


[quizzicaldog.jpg]

Strong encryption was long classified as a munition under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. I am no expert, however, I believe some of the restrictions have been lifted allowing reasonably strong encryption to be exported now. (It used to be anything strong than a 40-bit key was troublesome)

Remember Phil Zimmerman and PGP? Even though he was never charged it was still quite a hassle.
 
2013-05-30 10:08:08 AM  
Having actually read the article, I'm ok with this.

The FBI did their legwork and it's looking pretty likely that the accused was into kiddie pr0n.

The judge's order in this instance is more like, "Care to explain yourself or do you want us to explain it for you?"
 
2013-05-30 10:12:07 AM  
At one time the US Government considered encryption products with greater than 40-bit keys to be subject to export restrictions as munitions. Anyone who remembers the 40 and 128 bit service packs for Windows NT can tell you of the headaches that caused.

Amusingly enough, you couldn't legally transfer an electronic copy of PGP to an international server from the US. You *could* legally print out the source code, mail it to another country, and they could type it in and compile their own copy, which is what the PGPI project was all about.

This is typical of how governments have treated encryptions. Stupidly and arbitrarily.
 
2013-05-30 10:12:47 AM  

Millennium: Comic Book Guy: Big_Fat_Liar: Why not Democrats and the NRA? Or independents? I must be missing a reference to something that makes this headline funny, or make sense.It's not like the Republicans are in charge of the FBI right now.

The reference is that it would be nice for the NRA/Republicans, in their fervent protection of 2nd amendment rights, to remember that there are 26 other amendments (25, if you discount the Prohibition repeal) that also require the same fervent protection.  TrueCrypt is designed to protect your 5th amendment rights, which too often in this country is immediately perceived as an indirect admission of guilt.

Clear enough for you?

24 other amendments. It's perfectly reasonable to discount repealed amendments, but you have to discount them in pairs: an amendment that got repealed, and the amendment that repealed it.

But however many other amendments there are, they already have protectors that are every bit as staunch: protectors that, all too often, pointedly ignore the Second Amendment while defending the others. The NRA and their ilk exist to fill that hole.


"well-regulated"
 
2013-05-30 10:14:34 AM  

dittybopper: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: People forget their passwords everyday - ask anyone that's worked at an IT desk.

"Sorry judge, I forgot it."

I mean, really, can they prove you didn't?

It doesn't matter, from a legal standpoint.

If, however, you specifically encrypt something in a way that you can't decrypt, that's a different story.

For example, if Alice sends a message to Bob that is encrypted by a one-time pad, and the government somehow gets the encrypted message but it doesn't get the key because both Alice and Bob destroyed the key after they encrypted/decrypted the message, then there is no possible way for the courts to coerce Alice or Bob into decrypting the message:  They no longer have the key, as Alice destroyed her one copy after she encrypted the message, and Bob destroyed his copy of the key immediately after he decrypted the message.  Since the key is a long string of random numbers and/or letters that doesn't repeat or have a pattern, there is no way you can be expected to remember it.

In order to be in contempt, you have to actually be able to perform the action the court is asking you to do. If you can't perform the action the court is requesting by the very design of the system, you can't be held in contempt.  You will of course have to explain why you can't comply in court, and it's up to the judge to believe you or not, but if you have unused pads lying about, that's pretty strong evidence you're telling the truth to the judge.

That pretty much leaves them with asking you about the contents of the message(s) themselves, which would pretty clearly be a violation of the Fifth Amendment.


Is it Contempt by forcing someone to violate their 5th Amendment right?
 
2013-05-30 10:16:51 AM  
If I were one to engage in dubious activity I'd want an encryption that includes a self destruct password. Order me to give up my fifth amendment rights and I'll make your IT guys guilty of destruction of evidence. Evidence of what? I have no idea.
 
2013-05-30 10:18:01 AM  
This might be a fun case to watch, too.

I wonder how the FBI managed a "partial decryption" and what this fool was using. I'm thinking BitLocker.
 
2013-05-30 10:21:52 AM  

way south: This runs across the fourth amendment as well as the fifth. This is more ACLU ground than NRA, since encryption isn't seen as a weapon.


Actually, it is seen as a weapon (more specifically, it's seen as "munitions"). That was seen as the most expedient way to control its use: they still couldn't ban it inside the US (Second Amendment) but they could ban its export under ITAR. And that's what they did, for many years; it's why browsers used to come in a "US edition" with strong encryption and an "international edition" with encryption capped at 40 bits (the legal limit).

I'm not a hardcore cypherpunk or anything, but I do tend to stand strongly with them. But the more I look at this, I'm not sure this is a Fifth Amendment case. Court-ordered decryption is tantamount to ordering you to open the door to your house to let law enforcement conduct a search, and within certain limits (notably warrants, which are themselves limited to situations with probable cause), this is allowed. It's not considered self-incrimination even if something is found. What makes court-ordered decryption any different, provided that it is subject to exactly the same restrictions as any other law enforcement search?

This seems to be a case where the usual search limitations are all in order. Assuming it is, then as long as it's kept that way, I have no problem with ordering the man to decrypt his hard drive. In an age where the government has been playing fast and loose with the Fourth Amendment, I can understand the concerns people have, but perhaps by bringing this into the realm of the Fourth, we can bolster our case for ending those practices.
 
2013-05-30 10:22:44 AM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Millennium: Comic Book Guy: Big_Fat_Liar: Why not Democrats and the NRA? Or independents? I must be missing a reference to something that makes this headline funny, or make sense.It's not like the Republicans are in charge of the FBI right now.

The reference is that it would be nice for the NRA/Republicans, in their fervent protection of 2nd amendment rights, to remember that there are 26 other amendments (25, if you discount the Prohibition repeal) that also require the same fervent protection.  TrueCrypt is designed to protect your 5th amendment rights, which too often in this country is immediately perceived as an indirect admission of guilt.

Clear enough for you?

24 other amendments. It's perfectly reasonable to discount repealed amendments, but you have to discount them in pairs: an amendment that got repealed, and the amendment that repealed it.

But however many other amendments there are, they already have protectors that are every bit as staunch: protectors that, all too often, pointedly ignore the Second Amendment while defending the others. The NRA and their ilk exist to fill that hole.

"well-regulated"


"Shall not be infringed." Kindly keep your regulations within that scope.
 
2013-05-30 10:29:56 AM  

wildcardjack: If I were one to engage in dubious activity I'd want an encryption that includes a self destruct password. Order me to give up my fifth amendment rights and I'll make your IT guys guilty of destruction of evidence. Evidence of what? I have no idea.


IronKey USB drives offer this right now, and have been since 2007.  If you enter the password in wrong 10 times (and you have to unplug/replug after every 3 attempts for safety), the thumbdrive deletes the encryption keys and wipes the flash completely, rendering the entire drive unusable.
 
2013-05-30 10:30:27 AM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Having actually read the article, I'm ok with this.

The FBI did their legwork and it's looking pretty likely that the accused was into kiddie pr0n.

The judge's order in this instance is more like, "Care to explain yourself or do you want us to explain it for you?"


They have offered him the option to decrypt forensic copies of his remaining hard drives while unobserved.  I'm not sure how that is any different from him giving them the password(s) in the eyes of the 5th.

In any case, it sounds like he's toast, based on the evidence that they did recover.  I guess they just want to be thorough.  They might find and identify new victims or perpetrators on those other disks.
 
2013-05-30 10:31:38 AM  

Millennium: Comic Book Guy: Big_Fat_Liar: Why not Democrats and the NRA? Or independents? I must be missing a reference to something that makes this headline funny, or make sense.It's not like the Republicans are in charge of the FBI right now.

The reference is that it would be nice for the NRA/Republicans, in their fervent protection of 2nd amendment rights, to remember that there are 26 other amendments (25, if you discount the Prohibition repeal) that also require the same fervent protection.  TrueCrypt is designed to protect your 5th amendment rights, which too often in this country is immediately perceived as an indirect admission of guilt.

Clear enough for you?


But however many other amendments there are, they already have protectors that are every bit as staunch: protectors that, all too often, pointedly ignore the Second Amendment while defending the others. The NRA and their ilk exist to fill that hole.


Citation, please.
 
2013-05-30 10:35:04 AM  

Comic Book Guy: wildcardjack: If I were one to engage in dubious activity I'd want an encryption that includes a self destruct password. Order me to give up my fifth amendment rights and I'll make your IT guys guilty of destruction of evidence. Evidence of what? I have no idea.

IronKey USB drives offer this right now, and have been since 2007.  If you enter the password in wrong 10 times (and you have to unplug/replug after every 3 attempts for safety), the thumbdrive deletes the encryption keys and wipes the flash completely, rendering the entire drive unusable.


Dudes, you what what the first thing the FBI (or any other competent investigative team) does with that kind of electronic evidence?  Make copies, that's what.  Byte for byte, even in the "unused" space (deleted files and fragments can be evidence too).

It's this easy to do that under Linux, for example:

# dd if=/dev/sdd of=evidenceHDD1.img
 
2013-05-30 10:35:26 AM  

dittybopper: Comic Book Guy: Big_Fat_Liar: Why not Democrats and the NRA? Or independents? I must be missing a reference to something that makes this headline funny, or make sense.It's not like the Republicans are in charge of the FBI right now.

The reference is that it would be nice for the NRA/Republicans, in their fervent protection of 2nd amendment rights, to remember that there are 26 other amendments (25, if you discount the Prohibition repeal) that also require the same fervent protection.  TrueCrypt is designed to protect your 5th amendment rights, which too often in this country is immediately perceived as an indirect admission of guilt.

Clear enough for you?

The NRA is a single-issue organization.  If the case doesn't somehow involve the legal ownership or use of firearms, there is no reason for them to be interested at all.

As for the Republicans, they probably aren't going to touch this one with a 10 foot pole for fear of being accused of siding with kiddy diddlers.  It sucks, but that's the reality.


Although I don't argue with your single-issue assertion, this hasn't stopped the NRA from being anti-Obama even prior to the shootings, when he was actually expanding legal gun ownership (allowing carry on federal lands, etc.)

The NRA has essentially turned into an inverse of MADD.
 
2013-05-30 10:37:15 AM  
I am surprised that this gem didnt get picked out of the comments yet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis

"In cryptography, rubber-hose cryptanalysis (or thermorectal cryptanalysis) is the extraction of cryptographic secrets (e.g. the password to an encrypted file) from a person by coercion or torture,[1][2] in contrast to a mathematical or technical cryptanalytic attack. "
 
2013-05-30 10:41:59 AM  

Comic Book Guy: wildcardjack: If I were one to engage in dubious activity I'd want an encryption that includes a self destruct password. Order me to give up my fifth amendment rights and I'll make your IT guys guilty of destruction of evidence. Evidence of what? I have no idea.

IronKey USB drives offer this right now, and have been since 2007.  If you enter the password in wrong 10 times (and you have to unplug/replug after every 3 attempts for safety), the thumbdrive deletes the encryption keys and wipes the flash completely, rendering the entire drive unusable.


Oops.  I'll have to give Comic Book Guy a pass on the IronKey.  It seems their encrypted partition is disabled in hardware until the password is correctly entered.  *Might* still be able to copy the data, but with some pretty tricky hardware hacking.
 
2013-05-30 10:44:39 AM  
Dude's a fool if he wasn't using hidden archives. Also, if they really have already found illegal material, they should be able to take him down with what they have now.

The "partial decryption" thing is suspicious. I think they just found one of his passwords. The other devices must use different passwords.
 
2013-05-30 10:52:23 AM  

RatOmeter: Comic Book Guy: wildcardjack: If I were one to engage in dubious activity I'd want an encryption that includes a self destruct password. Order me to give up my fifth amendment rights and I'll make your IT guys guilty of destruction of evidence. Evidence of what? I have no idea.

IronKey USB drives offer this right now, and have been since 2007.  If you enter the password in wrong 10 times (and you have to unplug/replug after every 3 attempts for safety), the thumbdrive deletes the encryption keys and wipes the flash completely, rendering the entire drive unusable.

Dudes, you what what the first thing the FBI (or any other competent investigative team) does with that kind of electronic evidence?  Make copies, that's what.  Byte for byte, even in the "unused" space (deleted files and fragments can be evidence too).

It's this easy to do that under Linux, for example:

# dd if=/dev/sdd of=evidenceHDD1.img


We go so far as using a hardware write blocker when copying data from USB devices as not to alter the source.
 
2013-05-30 10:53:14 AM  
Millennium:

I'm not a hardcore cypherpunk or anything, but I do tend to stand strongly with them. But the more I look at this, I'm not sure this is a Fifth Amendment case. Court-ordered decryption is tantamount to ordering you to open the door to your house to let law enforcement conduct a search, and within certain limits (notably warrants, which are themselves limited to situations with probable cause), this is allowed. It's not considered self-incrimination even if something is found. What makes court-ordered decryption any different, provided that it is subject to exactly the same restrictions as any other law enforcement search?

I would think that if you are forced to provide a password and the law successfully decrypts a drive based on that password, you have effectively made a statment that you are aware of and probably responsible for the contents of the drive, especially if more identifiers are found.  That would be your self-incrimination there.
 
2013-05-30 10:57:18 AM  

Loki009: I am surprised that this gem didnt get picked out of the comments yet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis

"In cryptography, rubber-hose cryptanalysis (or thermorectal cryptanalysis) is the extraction of cryptographic secrets (e.g. the password to an encrypted file) from a person by coercion or torture,[1][2] in contrast to a mathematical or technical cryptanalytic attack. "




Boobies about the $5 wrench (xkcd reference).

Coercion works so long as the person being coerced has the key but lacked a backup plan to deceive you or destroy the data.
With all this movement to cloud storage, I'm Wondering what the liabilities of the cloud are (having data forcibly extracted and used against customers can't be a good thing for business) or if you can't simply lose the data in the shuffle.

So many million terabytes are floating out there and only linked by an address. If its all encrypted, how does the prosecution associate those unknown contents with you?
 
2013-05-30 11:03:32 AM  

way south: Loki009: I am surprised that this gem didnt get picked out of the comments yet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis

"In cryptography, rubber-hose cryptanalysis (or thermorectal cryptanalysis) is the extraction of cryptographic secrets (e.g. the password to an encrypted file) from a person by coercion or torture,[1][2] in contrast to a mathematical or technical cryptanalytic attack. "

Boobies about the $5 wrench (xkcd reference).

Coercion works so long as the person being coerced has the key but lacked a backup plan to deceive you or destroy the data.
With all this movement to cloud storage, I'm Wondering what the liabilities of the cloud are (having data forcibly extracted and used against customers can't be a good thing for business) or if you can't simply lose the data in the shuffle.

So many million terabytes are floating out there and only linked by an address. If its all encrypted, how does the prosecution associate those unknown contents with you?


I was more referencing the fact that there is a Wikipedia article referencing thermorectal cryptanalysis. I know its Wikipedia and anyone can edit it, but still

\will not google what thermorectal cryptanalysis involves or the source of the idea.
 
2013-05-30 11:07:12 AM  
1.  Encrypt your drives from boot
2.  compress or zip folders inside an other encrypted containers.  this makes it harder on the analyst to know when they have a 'gotcha' moment.
3.  if using trucrypt, create a hidden volume inside another volume for plausible deniability
4.  use eraser or something similar to destroy unwanted data
 
2013-05-30 11:12:00 AM  

elchupacabra: Millennium:

I'm not a hardcore cypherpunk or anything, but I do tend to stand strongly with them. But the more I look at this, I'm not sure this is a Fifth Amendment case. Court-ordered decryption is tantamount to ordering you to open the door to your house to let law enforcement conduct a search, and within certain limits (notably warrants, which are themselves limited to situations with probable cause), this is allowed. It's not considered self-incrimination even if something is found. What makes court-ordered decryption any different, provided that it is subject to exactly the same restrictions as any other law enforcement search?

I would think that if you are forced to provide a password and the law successfully decrypts a drive based on that password, you have effectively made a statment that you are aware of and probably responsible for the contents of the drive, especially if more identifiers are found.  That would be your self-incrimination there.


Aware of the drive? Certainly. But you're no more "probably responsible for" the contents of the drive than you are "probably responsible for" the contents of your own house. That's to say that it is indeed probable, but reasonable doubt remains. Especially if you encrypt whole drives at a time, the same defenses used against things found on unencrypted drives can all still be employed.
 
2013-05-30 11:15:45 AM  

Comic Book Guy: Although I don't argue with your single-issue assertion, this hasn't stopped the NRA from being anti-Obama even prior to the shootings, when he was actually expanding legal gun ownership (allowing carry on federal lands, etc.)

The NRA has essentially turned into an inverse of MADD.


1.  He wasn't expanding legal gun *OWNERSHIP*.   What he did was sign an unrelated rider that was attached to his "must pass" Credit CARD Act of 2009 into law.

That doesn't really count:  It was added by a Republican, and Obama had to either sign it, or veto a bill he desperately wanted to pass.  Allowing a very minor and relatively inconsequential advancement of gun rights to act as a poison pill for that legislation just wasn't going to happen.

Had that been a separate bill that landed on his desk, he almost certainly would have vetoed it.

2. The NRA was merely taking Barack Obama at his word.  From the Urban Policy page of Change.gov:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

His official platform included re-enacting and making permanent the failed assault weapons ban, closing the non-existent "gun show loophole" (the same exact laws apply inside a gun show as outside).

Plus, he has spoken approvingly of complete bans on the ownership of handguns both in DC and in Chicago, and for 8 years he was on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation, which is one of the largest single sources of money for the advocacy of stricter gun control in the World.

It's not been a big secret that Barack Obama isn't a fan of the Second Amendment, but he was able to keep the issue out of the election, probably because of the Heller decision that happened just a few months before the 2008 election.

In fact, I've been saying for at least one, and I think probably more like two, years prior to the 2012 election that the president wasn't going to move on gun control until after the election because it wouldn't gain him any votes, but it would cost him rural, blue collar Democrats, and it could very well have cost him the election.   He knew that, which is why nothing got done about it during his first term.  I'm not the only one who pointed that out, either.

He's a smart person.  Smarter than most, probably.  Certainly he recognized that moving on gun control in any big way would re-energize the NRA, and doing that in the face of an impending election is tantamount to political suicide in the United States.  And it's not like he didn't have the opportunity to do it:  After the the Gabby Giffords and Aurora theater shootings, he certainly could have signaled to Congress that he wanted to see, at a minimum, a new assault weapons ban.  Yet he didn't.  Not until the first major tragedy after the 2012 election.

Then it all of a sudden became the most important issue for him.

I'm willing to bet that if Sandy Hook had happened in December of 2011 instead of December of 2012, he wouldn't have pushed for gun control as hard as he did, because it would have pretty much sealed his fate, and he *KNOWS* that.
 
2013-05-30 11:18:29 AM  
Don't know about the NRA, but fooling the Republicans shouldn't be too hard.  The NRA has been doing it forever.

The NRA does not give a shiat about you, the gun owner.  The NRA is the unofficial public relations firm for weapons manufacturers.
 
2013-05-30 11:19:15 AM  

elchupacabra: Millennium:

I'm not a hardcore cypherpunk or anything, but I do tend to stand strongly with them. But the more I look at this, I'm not sure this is a Fifth Amendment case. Court-ordered decryption is tantamount to ordering you to open the door to your house to let law enforcement conduct a search, and within certain limits (notably warrants, which are themselves limited to situations with probable cause), this is allowed. It's not considered self-incrimination even if something is found. What makes court-ordered decryption any different, provided that it is subject to exactly the same restrictions as any other law enforcement search?

I would think that if you are forced to provide a password and the law successfully decrypts a drive based on that password, you have effectively made a statment that you are aware of and probably responsible for the contents of the drive, especially if more identifiers are found.  That would be your self-incrimination there.


That's exactly it.  If I provide the password, it's not outside the realm of logic to conclude that I was either the one who put it there, and/or had access to the drive at some point to put the incriminating contents on it.

Where Millennium's metaphor falls apart is it's not tantamount to opening the front door to a structure.  Structures can, by and large, be quickly bypassed with multiple entrances or forcible entry gained by brute-force means (breach round, battering ram, newly minted Army surplus tank, etc.) and the house searched pursuant to the search warrant.  Here in the case of the HD, there's only one way in, and that's through me.  Sure, you can try to cryptanalyse the contents, but depending on the level of encryption deployed that could take centuries of computing power to gain entry.  To get at the contents quickly and effectively there's only one way, and that's to get the password out of my head.  Now, if I forget the password, similar to how Alberto Gonzales forgot if he wore pants this morning, then that doesn't leave the police with a whole lot to work with.
 
2013-05-30 11:24:42 AM  

Loki009: way south: Loki009: I am surprised that this gem didnt get picked out of the comments yet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis

"In cryptography, rubber-hose cryptanalysis (or thermorectal cryptanalysis) is the extraction of cryptographic secrets (e.g. the password to an encrypted file) from a person by coercion or torture,[1][2] in contrast to a mathematical or technical cryptanalytic attack. "

Boobies about the $5 wrench (xkcd reference).

Coercion works so long as the person being coerced has the key but lacked a backup plan to deceive you or destroy the data.
With all this movement to cloud storage, I'm Wondering what the liabilities of the cloud are (having data forcibly extracted and used against customers can't be a good thing for business) or if you can't simply lose the data in the shuffle.

So many million terabytes are floating out there and only linked by an address. If its all encrypted, how does the prosecution associate those unknown contents with you?

I was more referencing the fact that there is a Wikipedia article referencing thermorectal cryptanalysis. I know its Wikipedia and anyone can edit it, but still

\will not google what thermorectal cryptanalysis involves or the source of the idea.


Hint: getting medieval on your ass


Further hint: with a hot poker.
 
2013-05-30 11:43:06 AM  

elchupacabra: Millennium:

I'm not a hardcore cypherpunk or anything, but I do tend to stand strongly with them. But the more I look at this, I'm not sure this is a Fifth Amendment case. Court-ordered decryption is tantamount to ordering you to open the door to your house to let law enforcement conduct a search, and within certain limits (notably warrants, which are themselves limited to situations with probable cause), this is allowed. It's not considered self-incrimination even if something is found. What makes court-ordered decryption any different, provided that it is subject to exactly the same restrictions as any other law enforcement search?

I would think that if you are forced to provide a password and the law successfully decrypts a drive based on that password, you have effectively made a statment that you are aware of and probably responsible for the contents of the drive, especially if more identifiers are found.  That would be your self-incrimination there.


And the judge apparently dis agree that was the case when they couldn't show the drives were his, only changing his mind only once one drive was cracked reveralin photos of the guy and financial information.
 
2013-05-30 11:46:15 AM  

Millennium: elchupacabra: Millennium:

I'm not a hardcore cypherpunk or anything, but I do tend to stand strongly with them. But the more I look at this, I'm not sure this is a Fifth Amendment case. Court-ordered decryption is tantamount to ordering you to open the door to your house to let law enforcement conduct a search, and within certain limits (notably warrants, which are themselves limited to situations with probable cause), this is allowed. It's not considered self-incrimination even if something is found. What makes court-ordered decryption any different, provided that it is subject to exactly the same restrictions as any other law enforcement search?

I would think that if you are forced to provide a password and the law successfully decrypts a drive based on that password, you have effectively made a statment that you are aware of and probably responsible for the contents of the drive, especially if more identifiers are found.  That would be your self-incrimination there.

Aware of the drive? Certainly. But you're no more "probably responsible for" the contents of the drive than you are "probably responsible for" the contents of your own house. That's to say that it is indeed probable, but reasonable doubt remains. Especially if you encrypt whole drives at a time, the same defenses used against things found on unencrypted drives can all still be employed.


The Fifth Amendment was to make sure the cops could not force you to either confess to a crime, force you to make statements that could be manipulated to make you look guilty of that crime, or even have you make statements that could lead to additional charges.

In that light, I'd think it was different from a house that at least the police are the ones gathering the evidence.  Whereas in this case, you're being forced into either scenarios 2 or 3 above.

Disclaimer: Not very experienced in law
 
2013-05-30 11:47:29 AM  

Orgasmatron138: Don't know about the NRA, but fooling the Republicans shouldn't be too hard.  The NRA has been doing it forever.

The NRA does not give a shiat about you, the gun owner.  The NRA is the unofficial public relations firm for weapons manufacturers.


That's why they almost put Smith and Wesson out of business, right?  Because they are in the pockets of the weapons manufacturers.
 
2013-05-30 12:38:17 PM  

dittybopper: Orgasmatron138: Don't know about the NRA, but fooling the Republicans shouldn't be too hard.  The NRA has been doing it forever.

The NRA does not give a shiat about you, the gun owner.  The NRA is the unofficial public relations firm for weapons manufacturers.

That's why they almost put Smith and Wesson out of business, right?  Because they are in the pockets of the weapons manufacturers.


You're damned right they're in the pockets of manufacturers.  One manufacturer breaking from the pack and agreeing to any form of cooperation with the government on gun control was a threat to the entire industry, so that manufacturer had to be destroyed.
 
2013-05-30 12:58:42 PM  

Codenamechaz: Well, here's a thought:

How about not download illegal and sick content in the first place.


How can they prove it without the man's Fifth Amendment rights being violated?
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report