DOJ: We Can Force You To Decrypt That Laptop 887
betterunixthanunix writes "A mortgage-fraud case may have widespread implications for criminals who use cryptography to hide evidence. The US Department of Justice is pushing for the defendant to be forced to decrypt her hard drive, claiming that if they cannot force such decryptions, law enforcement will be unable to gather important evidence. The defendant's lawyer and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have made the claim that forcing such a decryption would be a violation of the defendant's fifth amendment right not to self-incriminate. The prosecutor in the case has insisted that the defendant would not be forced to disclose her passphrase, but only to enter the passphrase into a computer to decrypt the drive."
When Can They Force Decryption? (Score:2)
Re:When Can They Force Decryption? (Score:5, Informative)
Do they have to show cause first or is this a new tool in the arsenal of the TSA?
You guys need to get your government departments straight. This is NOT the TSA. The TSA are the ones at Fargo International Airport who x-ray your flip-flops and make sure you're not taking nail clippers onto an airplane. They're not tasked with searching your laptop - They're only tasked with X-raying your laptop and your kid's teddy to make sure there isn't a bomb inside. If they suspect criminal activity they have to call the police.
The US CBP (Customs and Border Protection) *do* have the right to search the contents (i.e. files) of your laptop when you are entering the USA. They can search your laptop, search your luggage and search your person. In the same way they can require you to open a locked box that you might be travelling with, they are require you to open your 'locked' laptop. The courts have backed them up - See: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10172866-38.html [cnet.com]
So don't get TSA and CBP mixed up - They're different.
[Insert dozens of obligatory Slashdot posts here about TrueCrypt "Plausible Deniability" here.]
Finally, note that this article has nothing to do with airport or border security - It's about a court case.
Re:When Can They Force Decryption? - Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
"The courts have backed them up ..."
Wrong, in the general sense. The courts can force you to reveal your passwords, only in cases where they can already show that the encrypted data contains something illegal. They do NOT have the right to force you to reveal your password or decrypt your data just so they can find "evidence".
The article you point to in that link failed to emphasize that the customs agents had already seen child pornography that was contained in his encrypted data. Therefore, they already knew that there was illegal material in it.
The courts have NOT supported forcing someone to reveal encrypted data under any other circumstances.
Re: (Score:3)
The court case under discussion appears to be a case of a fishing ex
Re: (Score:3)
from the TSA to a cop in a coffee shop, to force decryption.
Again, that's my point. The TSA are *not* LEOs - Even if they have nifty badges on their shirts. They're no more an LEO than the security guard outside a Wal-Mart. If they suspect a crime, they need to call over an LEO. The cop in the coffee shop is an LEO, and yes, once he had a warrant he could compel you to type in your password, in the same way he could compel you to open your safe.
Re:When Can They Force Decryption? (Score:4, Insightful)
...and yes, once he had a warrant he could compel you to type in your password, in the same way he could compel you to open your safe.
Well...that's still to be determined by the courts.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly! Wow, I'm deep into the comments before anyone has started talking sense! The whole article is about the legal issue as to whether or not the courts can compel you to reveal your password. The courts cannot force you to testify at your own trial, and the question here is whether disclosing your password is tantamount to testimony (IANAL).
Re:When Can They Force Decryption? (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps the problem is that the graphics they're using to crack the password just aren't fancy enough...
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't that they can't get competent people to crack an "electronic safe", the problem is that the electronic safes are exponentially harder to crack than the physical ones.
So, what you're saying is that if someone designed a better physical safe that was much harder to crack, it would be OK for the police to demand that you open it?
Eventually, this ends up as "well, it's just so darn hard to prove people are guilty, so let's just find ways we can throw them into jail without any effort on our part".
Re: (Score:3)
And which court cases are those that the judge ordered them to reveal a password when they have absolutely no idea what was encrypted on the drive? I have only read about cases where they had to reveal the password when someone/a witness had already actually seen what was on the encrypted drive.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Now, that case says that he was being compelled to release a decrypted version of the Z: drive, which they had already seen exists. To me, that isn't any different than compelling someone to open a safe which is known to exist.
The obvious solution is to make it illegal for the prosecution to use any evidence they have not specifically requested to see, and which would be irrelevant to the case. I.e. if they find evidence for a different crime, it can't be used if the person first pleaded the fifth regarding the contents. So then the prosecution has a choice between (a) saying yes to getting the evidence through compelled disclosure, but knowing they can only use what's requested and not prosecute for, say, murder they discover
Re:When Can They Force Decryption? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Fifth Amendment wouldn't stop you from the contents of a safe for which a search warrant was obtained, so I don't see why it would be any different for an encrypted drive.
Remember, you're not being asked to incriminate yourself. You're being asked to produce an unencrypted version of a drive that is already known to exist, just like you would be asked to provide the contents of a safe that is known to exist. How you actually go about doing this (letting the DOJ crack open the safe, or giving them the password) is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3)
But if you have not admitted that it is your laptop, or have not admitted that the encrypted file is yours or that you know the password, then they are asking you to divulge information - perhaps not the password itself, but the information that you know the password, that the data is yours. You cannot be forced to testify to any of these facts. This is why you should not say anything at all when asked questions by government officers, even if the questions seem harmless. (Don't lie, either - that is a cr
Re:When Can They Force Decryption? (Score:4, Interesting)
There is the big difference. You didn't have to do or say anything. Same for say a blood sample or DNA sample. You don't have do (or say) anything to provide it. They do all work. But in forcing you to decrypt, they are forcing you to take action against yourself. That's self incrimination, and that's a violation of the fifth amendment.
Not that it will help much when most judges think they are above the law. Case in point. [tinyurl.com]
Re: (Score:3)
They can search likely locations without your help (by brute forcing your password), but if they actually want to find it, they have to get you to tell them where it is.
This is CLEARLY self incrimination, and EVERYONE has the right to remain silent when they are under arrest. PERIOD.
Anyone who claims otherwise should be disbarred, have their citizenship stripped, and be dumped in North Korean territo
You don't have to confess (Score:2)
You just have to sign this confession we very thoughtfully prepared for you.
Yeah, I know, it's not entirely the same; it's not even really analogous. It's just an example of other back-door out-of-the-box problem-solving thinking, the kind of thing that made America great.
I don't recall... (Score:3, Insightful)
"I'm sorry, but I don't recall my passphrase. I guess the stress of this case has made me forget it!"
If it works for the DoJ it should work for us...
Re:I don't recall... (Score:5, Funny)
"I'm sorry, but I don't recall my passphrase. I guess the stress of this case has made me forget it!"
Wow! That actually is my passphrase.
Re:I don't recall... (Score:5, Informative)
If it's anything like the movies, a search warrant allows police to search property by any means necessary. So no, they can't force you to open a safe, but they can certainly force the safe open (which, for a safe almost any private citizen can afford, is not terribly challenging.) The thing about encryption is that it isn't so much a "safe", it's more analogous to a private citizen having their own moon on which to store valuables. Getting access to it isn't a matter of will, its a matter of effort (years and years of crunching, even for a massive supercomputer.) As long as the only way to unlock the encryption is in your head, they can't legally force it out.
Re:I don't recall... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing about encryption is that it isn't so much a "safe", it's more analogous to a private citizen having their own moon on which to store valuables.
It is more akin to speaking and writing everything in your own private language, and forcing the police to determine how to translate that language.
Re:I don't recall... (Score:5, Funny)
The thing about encryption is that it isn't so much a "safe", it's more analogous to a private citizen having their own moon on which to store valuables.
It is more akin to speaking and writing everything in your own private language, and forcing the police to determine how to translate that language.
Actually, it's like putting the evidence far away and making the police fetch it in your car, only they have to hotwire it because you don't give them the keys...
Yeah, I know it sucks, but at least I *tried* to put it automotive terms.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, if it is anything like the movies, a quirky, slightly overweight, but cute computer genius that works for the feds will type 4 or 5 keystrokes, then the computer will flash lots of semi garbled text while emitting cute little beeps for 10 or so seconds until the encryption is broken.
Re:I don't recall... (Score:5, Informative)
That pesky constitution is why. For that matter, the supreme court has already ruled on this issue. In the US you cannot be forced to give up a password. The DOJ can bitch all they want, but it's already a settled issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that a judge can hold you in contempt doesn't mean what the court ordered is Constitutionally permissible. A sufficiently power-mad or "law-and-order" judge might order you to testify against yourself in the most explicitly unconstitutional fashion and then clap you in jail for pleading the Fifth, and you'd be there in jail until someone took the case to a higher authority (perhaps a Habeas Corpus appeal?).
That's the distinction between "can" (is capable of) and "may" (is permitted to).
In other wor
Re:I don't recall... (Score:4, Informative)
Being jailed for contempt doesn't last forever in the real world. Once it's clear it's not going to be forced, that's the end of being jailed. I'm not sure where you got "seize all your assets", as I've never heard of that happening, even in cases where the witness gets chained because they lunged at the judge (you see some odd things working at a courthouse). Not related to contempt charges for lack of testimony, at any rate.
That said, the whole question here is if you can be forced to give up your password. If not (if it's like a safe combination or the location of a storage unit), then there is no "crime of failing to give up your password". No judge can compel you to give it up. If they can't access it, they can't have it. Plain and simple. The question here is if a password falls under something that can be compelled, like a warrant to be able to walk into your bedroom and search because somebody said they saw you hide something in there (i.e., with cause), or if it's something more akin to compelling somebody to tell you where you put something, which the court can't do.
Re: (Score:3)
No not forever.. The record so far is 14 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I don't recall... (Score:4, Insightful)
According to TFA, yes, you can be obliged to hand over the key.
With regards to encryption it's an old problem that's solved by using multiple pass keys; the one you hand over decrypts something reasonably embarrassing like your tranny porn collection, while the real key decrypts the actual material you want to hide.
So trying to force people into divulging encryption keys is just asinine; it will merely lead to widespread adoption of readily available methods to defeat it while failing to accomplish the desired goal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Burning the note would be obstruction of justice.
not fair to ask you to rat on yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
hey, if you did something wrong and would be going to jail, why the hell help them even more? either way you go to jail, right?
they won't KILL you if you don't unlock your encr. stream. they will lock you up either way.
so don't give it to them. you cannot be forced to hang yourself.
fuck the DOJ.
Re:not fair to ask you to rat on yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not fair to ask you to rat on yourself (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, NO, they are not allowed the privilege to "not agree".
If you invoke the Fifth in a criminal case, discussion STOPS. On the spot and there is NO further questioning allowed. Regardless of whether it's a State or Federal Court, per the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifth.
If you invoke the Fourth and can PROVE that they violated that one, Case DIES on the spot. No further discussion, all evidence that stems from the improper warrant action must be discarded and is forever usable. Again, this is regardless of whether it's a State or Federal Court.
Now...what remains is whether this court deems the forcing you to decrypt things is a violation of the Fifth. Personally, I see it as being so. It's making you potentially incriminate yourself- which is PRECISELY what the Amendment was intended to prevent. It's irrelevant what form that self-incrimination takes. If they don't "see" it that way, you can bet your bottom dollar it'll be appealed right up to the Supreme Court because it's just that- a direct violation of the Fifth as much as forcing testimony out of you on the stand or in a police interrogation room.
Re:not fair to ask you to rat on yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
In addition to what anyGould said, pleading the fifth will likely be used against you in court.
I probably don't need to mention that pleading the fifth makes you look guilty as hell.
Re: (Score:3)
the supreme court will save us?
what century did you come from??
Re:not fair to ask you to rat on yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
people and privacy rights come first.
'solving crimes' always comes second.
we have ignored or forgotton this in our insatiable need to find 'bad guys' and seek vengence.
better that some bad guys go free than even 1 innocent man get locked up.
core american principle.
Re: (Score:3)
contempt gets you the joys of an indefinite stay at jail. Until you comply or they finally accept that you aren't going to.
Unfortunately.... (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
Much of the discussion has been about what analogy comes closest. Prosecutors tend to view PGP passphrases as akin to someone possessing a key to a safe filled with incriminating documents. That person can, in general, be legally compelled to hand over the key. Other examples include the U.S. Supreme Court saying that defendants can be forced to provide fingerprints, blood samples, or voice recordings.
That sounds like a rather spot on analogy. Sounds like precedent is against her. The argument that the passphrase, itself, is the incriminating self-testimony seems really weak, both because the passphrase is not being required, and because the passphrase is not, in the end, what will incriminate her.
IANAL, of course.
Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The argument that the police will be unable to gather evidence if criminals use encryption is just as weak, considering the techniques they have developed for defeating such measures:
http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/crypto-spy.pdf [cryptome.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Let's say I've written my incriminating evidence in Klingon. The prosecutor doesn't have access to anyone who can read Klingon. Does he have the right to force me to translate said evidence for him?
Similarly, encryption translates English text (this is the US we're talking about) into "mumbo jumbo". How does forcing me to translate the "mumbo jumbo" into English differ from the Klingon scenario above?
Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Me too, but EFF's perspective is also useful, and forms a valuable distinction:
(Quote from EFF's amicus brief, emphasis mine)
So, while you can be compelled to surrender a physical object (the key to the safe, in the previous analogy), the 5th Amendment is specifically is about something in your mind.
If the "locked safe" in the previous analogy is not locked, but hidden, can a defendant be compelled to disclose its location?
As to the DoJ's "end run" based on the principle "don't tell us, just type it into the computer".... would the 5th Amendment not apply is a defendant is compelled to type self-incriminating testimony into a computer instead of speaking it to a law-enforcement officer?
The DoJ, IMHaUO*, hasn't got a leg to stand on.
*In My Humble and Uneducated Opinion... IANAL, after all.
Re: (Score:3)
So, what you're saying is that the DOJ can compel someone to hand-over the key to a safe, but if that same exact safe had a combination lock, then the DOJ would be powerless because they can't ask you for the numerical combination that would open it? Seems like a bizarre distinction.
> "If the "locked safe" in the previ
Re: (Score:3)
If it's a combination lock the DoJ is free to hire a lock smith to open it up. They are trying to do an end run because opening it up is an expensive and long process. They have the data they are free to attack the crypto. Fact is it could be decades before they do that successfully.
We have swung way to far into the governments need for info.. The end runs around spousal protects for the mob cases were the start of the land slide (your supposed to be able to confide in your spouse similar to doctor/lawye
Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple solution, just make your pass-phrase "IKilledAGuyIn1998@Work!"
Not only does it meat the requiments of a strong password. Your pass-phrase WOULD be incriminating evidence, and they cannot get you to reveal it.
Re: (Score:3)
My password is: "I will never tell you my password!"
Re: (Score:3)
Being required to enter the passphrase into a computer that the DoJ controls is exactly the same as being required to give your passphrase to the DoJ. There's no difference. Hell, what it boils down to is: Don't give me your passphrase; just enter it into this computer which I control. How many Slashdotters would balk at that? Hopefully most of them.
There are any number of ways that the DoJ could get your passphrase if they wanted it, and were permitted to demand that you enter it onto their computer - a ke
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds like a rather spot on analogy. Sounds like precedent is against her.
Did you read the next paragraph? They gave a number of precedents that were for her.
The point is that this could go either way, and the story did try to give both sides.
The argument that the passphrase, itself, is the incriminating self-testimony seems really weak, both because the passphrase is not being required, and because the passphrase is not, in the end, what will incriminate her.
IANAL, of course.
Traditionally, defendants have not been required to assist in any manner in building the legal case against them. Giving up the password assists.
Your home can be search (with a warrant) without your assistance. Your brain cannot -- at least not yet. (And be very afraid of what the courts might rule if we ever do have the technology to re
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If only judges dealing with lying politicians took the same dim view. The "I don't recall" defense works particularly well for politicians, even under oath.
Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Search And Seizure Explained - They Took My Laptop (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a presentation discussing the issue of force password disclosures and laptops I gave at DefCon 17: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibQGWXfWc7c [youtube.com]
Check the law and make up your own mind.
The EFF's argument makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am no lawyer, but the argument that this is a fifth amendment issue seems strong to me.
How is allowing the defendant to keep the password private a meaningful concession? The password has no value if the hard drive has been decrypted.
Re: (Score:3)
...mostly because of the worst abuse of passwords: She probably uses that password elsewhere and having the information in the public domain could potentially lead to more of her life being exposed than what's required for the case.
This is just another good reason for not reusing passwords.
Still violates the 5th (Score:5, Insightful)
The prosecutor in the case has insisted that the defendant would not be forced to disclose her passphrase, but only to enter the passphrase into a computer to decrypt the drive."
That would still seem to violate the 5th amendment. The relevant text is bolded below:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Anyone of more legal background care to comment?
Cheers,
Re: (Score:3)
She's not being compelled to be a witness against herself... The hard drive is a piece of evidence that is in effect a "witness" against her.
It's like you're hiding a dead body in the trunk of your car... and you've modified it with a special lock that cannot be forced. This is the equivalent of them getting a warrant on searching your car, and you being forced to come up with a key.
Re:Still violates the 5th (Score:4, Insightful)
By setting up your analogy with the statement that there is a dead body in the trunk, you've already presumed guilt, nothing any civilized society should be doing.
What kind of a crime can be committed where the only access to incriminating evidence lies in the mind of the accused? We're entering a dangerous era of thought-crime. Why doesn't the DOJ just apply some random permutation on the data so that it generates some unrelated and arbitrary but incriminating documents?
TL;DR - Law enforcement should either do better detective work to find evidence without relying on the accused to provide it, or save taxpayer money, cut the whole "democracy" shenanigans, and just use false or forced confessions.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it's not quite. RTFA, because they are not insisting that she provides the key to unlock the car/hard drive, instead, they are providing the option that she can type in her password, (keeping the passphrase secret) to unlock the drive and then allow acces
Re: (Score:3)
Much of the discussion has assumed the guilt of the accused. The correct principle is presumption of innocence. The accused should not be compelled to provide assistance, especially to parties who are already looking to convict.
It's not like the Prosecution wants to find proof of innocence. It's better for them to secure the conviction
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Torture anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do US authorities not just torture people to get the information they need? Wouldn't that be more effective and convenient?
Oh wait...they already did in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo...
Unlock a safe (Score:3)
If you have a safe with a combination lock, can the authorities legally require you to either tell them the combination or unlock the safe? The passphrase to allow access to an encrypted drive is equivalent to the combination of a safe, so the same rules should apply.
Taking a leaf out of the UK's book (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly this is taking a leaf out of the UK's book. I say sadly, sad that we got there first on this sort of nonsense. It's a crime not to reveal passwords when required to do so. It's part of the Regulation of Investigatory Power Act 2000 (look it up!)
If I recall someone demonstrated the stupidity of it by sending an encrypted file to the then home secretary. He was then in possession of a file that he could not possibly decrypt, but it would be a criminal offence for him not to supply the passphrase to decrypt it if required to do so. In other words, a law that he could not possibly obey no matter how much he wanted to.
Despite this demonstration of the stupidity of the act, I believe it still stands.
In the UK... (Score:4, Informative)
... they already can.
(Legally compel you to reveal crypto keys or render the relevant information intelligible that is. Well, you could refuse, but that's an offence obviously. Section 49 of Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIPA)).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/49 [legislation.gov.uk]
Interpretation (Score:5, Interesting)
"The prosecutor in the case has insisted that the defendant would not be forced to disclose her passphrase, but only to enter the passphrase into a computer to decrypt the drive."
I can see that there is a difference between forcing the disclosure of the password and being able to read something that is already decrypted, however I can't see how that wouldn't still be self-incrimination. I assume the police would either bring her to the evidence room and tell her to enter the passphrase, or they would simply demand that she deliver an un-encrypted copy of the drive. Either way they are forcing her to give up evidence that may be used to incriminate. This seems to be a seriously frightening precedent to set.
They would never be able to take someone accused of murder and say, in effect: "look, we KNOW you did it, we just lack all the evidence needed to convict. You are now ordered to show us every place you visited on the day in question, including where the body is hidden."
-d
Papers and effects (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever said that you have to arrange your papers and effects in such a way that the government can understand it?
Does this also apply to paper documents?
Are you not allowed to write your thoughts in a coded manner?
Is it also OK to use euphemisms in your diary?
Is it the government's position that you also have to interpret your diary for the prosecution?
"I forgot" worked for alberto gonzales (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"I forgot" worked for alberto gonzales (Score:4, Funny)
What if your passphrase is "I forgot"?
Plausible deniability (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A part of the 5th amendment defense is against self-incrimination.
It is a distinct point of evidence that you have the passphrase to an encrypted (and incriminating) file. Your best course of action is to not affirm that you have a passphrase to that file.
Re: (Score:3)
Alberto Gonzales didn't forget, the guy flat out lied. There was an infuriating exchange in Congressional testimony between Sen. Schumer and him [washingtonpost.com] that flat out showed he was lying and smiling about it the whole time.
DOJ encryption policy (Score:3)
Many criminals will use encryption that permits access by law enforcement, if that is the type of encryption that is commonly used and included in over-the-counter software
Because criminals buy their encryption software at Best Buy...
TrueCrypt FTW (Score:4)
This is why anyone serious about security uses TrueCrypt or other encryption systems which have plausible deniability built in. If she was using TrueCrypt, she could give them the password they are looking for, without revealing ANYTHING about what is actually on the drive.
Re: (Score:3)
Or it can be an OS that is made to look like it was booted when the real one was, and erase the code that sets that up (the real OS restores it). It could just be a copy of the system parts of the real OS but not the data.
Or maybe only the /home and /var parts are encrypted (or whatever equivalents exist on some-other-OS).
Be sure to keep some normal adult pr0n in the bogus area.
SQUIDS - maybe 10 years away? (Score:3)
So once the technology is available to directly read someone's thoughts, I assume they will allow the same argument. You can't be forced to say what you're thinking, but you can't stop them from looking inside your head because the evidence is there.
Two things (Score:3)
"I don't recall" work great for Ronald Reagan. I'm sure there is precedent that it is acceptable under oath.
Second, and this is a technical solution, we need a forked compression system, where two different passwords give you two different sets of contents. Where encrypted data looks like empty space on the faux system. When the faux system is engaged, the encrypted data is destroyed. Hopefully one uses backup.
Contempt of Court (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope the defendant doesn't give in. Personally, I'd rather sit in jail on contempt of court charges than go to big boy prison for whatever the state were investigating me for. At least with the contempt of court charges, I run the chance of becoming a cause celeb for standing up for principles, which is way better than being convicted of a crime.
I got into an argument about this very case with my (non-American) girlfriend the other day. She honestly doesn't get the fifth amendment and assumes that anyone who invokes it is basically admitting guilt, which isn't the case. She's from central America. You would think that people down in that part of the world would have some recent memory of unjust laws. Just because something is the law, doesn't make it right, and it is better for all of us that we keep the fifth amendment intact for cases when the law is not just than to violate it just so that someone can get convicted of fraud, murder or anything else.
Re: (Score:3)
At a minimum, Miranda will need a rewrite (Score:3)
Now that compelled testimony (prohibited by 5th amendment) and compelled speech which may be used to obtain evidence, have suddenly become two different things, Miranda warnings will have to be reworded.
"You have the right to remain silent," will have to change to "You have the right to withhold information which may be used against you, but do not have the right to withhold information which leads to other information which may be used against you." And that's just a first draft off the top of my head but probably still doesn't work quite right.
It's going to take a lot of lawyers working a lot of years to rewrite Miranda, I think. And somehow I doubt it'll be comprehensible when they're done.
Law is too complex for humans.
Oops. I forgot it. (Score:3)
What password?
I bumped my head when you put me in the police car. Can't remember a thing. Other than my 5th Amendment right to give you nothing you can't find on your own.
My take on it (Score:3)
Dear DOJ (Score:3)
Dear DOJ,
Each step you take like this causes us to take one step closer to a revolution.
Sincerely,
Cranky citizens
Divorce Court! (Score:3)
Wasn't there a case in NY where a guy was getting a divorce and refused to give over his account numbers where he stashed all his loot as he didn't want his wife to have any of it.
The judge basically said he was in contempt of court and could stay in jail until he felt like sharing that information.
He stayed in jail in protest in contempt of court for like 12 years before I think they finally released him (or is he still in jail, I have no idea).
This seems like a very similar issue.
Re:Self-Destructing Key (Score:5, Insightful)
obstruction of justice.
probably that's what they'd say.
but which would you rather 'deal with' - that or the fact that they successfully stole your soul? so to speak. forcing someone to unlock their most private journal is a sign of an evil state.
I am under no obligation to comply with the illegal and unconstitutional wishes of evil leaders or states.
but you may have hit on something: if they raise the anty and sell the idea to the public that they are now 'forced' to unlock their journals, I do expect to see more 'destroy on tamper' seals on things.
tit for tat. hey gov, you really want to fight your own people in this way? re-think that, guys. this is not a fight you want with the geek population. we actually outnumber you!
OK, so here is my simple question (Score:5, Interesting)
How do I prevent them from adding anything to the system after it is in their possession.
If I turn over my key to the encryption I want a method to ensure than anything they use against me was put there by me, not by them afterward.
Can that be done?
After all, if they are willing to force an issue you can be sure some will make sure something is wrong. Its not like the current Administration is concerned about the rights of its citizens, they are making Bush Jr look like a staunch civil liberties advocate
Re: (Score:3)
The drive containing evidence will be cloned through a "hardware write blocker", a device designed and certified to ignore all ATA/SATA/SAS/SCSI/whatever commands that have the potential to modify data on the drive, and only allow re
Re: (Score:3)
Chain of custody. Evidence tampering isn't something that was suddenly invented after computers became popular, in case you never watched the OJ Simpson trial. Credibility of evidence is something trial lawyers know a lot about.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They will have cloned the drive before they let her anywhere near it.
Re:Self-Destructing Key (Score:4, Funny)
Begun, the clone wars has.
Re: (Score:3)
What you describe is not possible in any way.
An "encrytped hard drive" or an "encrypted file" are both the same thing: a very very large number. When the government took possession of the medium that stores that number, they then permanently know it. It's a series of 1s and 0s, and they have it for sure, definitely, it can never be altered. So whatever procedure you have in mind is like saying, what if the number 8 simply decays in September. It doesn't make any sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
new password tech: the model you have in your mind, on how to vary the password based on current date and time and the matching code in the auth-modules.
there, fixed. there isn't 'one' password anymore, it varies based on when (maybe even where, if you can pull that off). maybe even based on other things: how many times its been booted or something. some variable that raises the bar beyond static passwords.
not needing those DES cards, but still having a varying password that is coded in your system and a
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure why, with a proper warrant, this shouldn't happen.
For the same reason that you cannot get a warrant for someone to tell you the location of a dead body.
Re: (Score:3)
... unless someone followed even the remotest bit of common sense and made a copy of your drive before asking you to decrypt it. Trying to self-destruct the data is both futile and a VERY fast way to get either an obstruction of justice charge or get nailed with contempt of court. Better to let the lawyers fight it out.