However, I do not think the spirit of the law was intended to prevent this.
To me, it all comes down to an antiquidated law, that is being used neither in the context in which it was created, or updated for current technologies, being abused to create a loophole.
See, the founding fathers probably would have just tortured the guy until he broke the code or died. Like it or not their intent and practices were nothing like ours. I don't believe in doing something that barbaric, but I *DO* believe in a case where the property was already seized legally that the person should be made to either break the code or suffer the full penelties for whatever they were accused of with no chance of reprieve or reduction (ie they can't chooe later to decrypt the files in hopes of a lesser sentence once convicted this way).
And this practice your advocating is, to me, the signs of antiquidated laws (or rather, antiquidated customs from a time where humans were barbarians).
You seem to make out a lot about what the "founding fathers" intended with the amendments they passed, but fact is most of these amendments are "timeless", meaning that they are rather common sense whether we are talking the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st or 22nd century. Are you honestly going to claim that the 13th amendment doesn't stand the test of time? The 14th? The 15th? The 1st? The 4th? You might think that the 5th amendment makes no sense in the digital world, but my last response to you makes in fact makes it perfectly clear why it makes sense. Like i said, decrypting contents is a testimonial act that acknowledges that you have control over the encrypted mediums. The 5th amendment does exactly what it's supposed to do.
Like i also mentioned in an earlier post, this opens up a big tuna-can of ways that an innocent person can be convicted. If a person claims that they can't decrypt a drive, and the court doesn't believe them, then they might send an innocent person to jail for contempt of court. There are plenty of reasons why someone might not be able to decrypt a seized drive. Forgotten password (unlikely, but not impossible, especially if it's a long court case and the accused hasn't had access to the mediums in a long time. It could also be that the password was written down, but lost during the search), lost keyfile (more likely than forgotten password. Some encrypted content requires keyfiles), or even claiming that the encrypted mediums isn't or wasn't under their control (either because the equipment doesn't belong to them, or they let someone else use it).
Your proposals are violating the very basic court principles that for centuries (both inside and outside the United States) have kept innocent people from going to jail. That is more antiquidated than the laws you are accusing of the same. If courts start making assumptions to the left and right about encrypted content that the accused refuses to (or worst case scenario, are unable to) decrypt, then people are gonna start going to jail for crimes they did not commit. The prosecution can basically claim the encrypted files contain whatever they dream up, and the accused will just have to swallow it. That's not how a 'justice' system works.
In fact, by that logic, we might also start prosecuting people for not confessing. After all, what's the difference between evidence that you can't get to on a hard drive, and evidence you can't get to in a persons mind ('evidence' in this case being what the prosecution CLAIMS are there, but they can't prove are there). Someone also made a comparison earlier to a handwrittendiary written in code seized during a search. If the prosecution can start claiming that you know what it means, and then prosecute you for not revealing it (despite your claim to not know what it means), then that is again not fair legal proceedings.
The ideal solution is the solution that is still in place today: That the prosecution gathers evidence from other sources (aka. through standard solid police work) and use that to prosecute their case. That is the basic principle of how law systems worked before encryption (and after the exclusion of torture and coercion). After all, something must have led them to the accused in the first place, so in most cases they will be able to dig something up. Yes, sometimes guilty people walk. That's a price we have to pay to keep innocent people out of jail. People who are truly guilty typically screw up again at a later stage, so there will always be a second chance to get them there, but there is no way to redeem the years an innocent man has lost in prison because of terrible court procedures.
From what I remember of a book I borrowed from a friend who is doing law, it is pretty much the same (it goes against our rights and whatnot) but it is more apparent than in the states. Basically, the same thing will happen (you won't have to decrypt your stuff) but with less dancing around through the courts.
But I think it is circumstantial, like if they already know what is on your hard drives... I'll have to see if I can find that book again.
A man's laptop is his property, his cut of cyberspace. If you want to search it with a warrant, FINE, but he's not showing you the gun cabinet, the secret hooch compartment, the illegal immigration tunnel, or the dead bodies hidden behind a wall of if-then statements. As with all things in a court of law, the prosecution must discover these things as per their empowerment to do so. No findy drugs? No have drug charges. No find incriminating data? No can make case on them. A locked computer that they can't figure out on their own may as well be the same as finding no axe, no blood, and no victim. You no haz evidence.
However, I do not think the spirit of the law was intended to prevent this.
To me, it all comes down to an antiquidated law, that is being used neither in the context in which it was created, or updated for current technologies, being abused to create a loophole.
See, the founding fathers probably would have just tortured the guy until he broke the code or died. Like it or not their intent and practices were nothing like ours. I don't believe in doing something that barbaric, but I *DO* believe in a case where the property was already seized legally that the person should be made to either break the code or suffer the full penelties for whatever they were accused of with no chance of reprieve or reduction (ie they can't chooe later to decrypt the files in hopes of a lesser sentence once convicted this way).
And this practice your advocating is, to me, the signs of antiquidated laws (or rather, antiquidated customs from a time where humans were barbarians).
You seem to make out a lot about what the "founding fathers" intended with the amendments they passed, but fact is most of these amendments are "timeless", meaning that they are rather common sense whether we are talking the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st or 22nd century. Are you honestly going to claim that the 13th amendment doesn't stand the test of time? The 14th? The 15th? The 1st? The 4th? You might think that the 5th amendment makes no sense in the digital world, but my last response to you makes in fact makes it perfectly clear why it makes sense. Like i said, decrypting contents is a testimonial act that acknowledges that you have control over the encrypted mediums. The 5th amendment does exactly what it's supposed to do.
Like i also mentioned in an earlier post, this opens up a big tuna-can of ways that an innocent person can be convicted. If a person claims that they can't decrypt a drive, and the court doesn't believe them, then they might send an innocent person to jail for contempt of court. There are plenty of reasons why someone might not be able to decrypt a seized drive. Forgotten password (unlikely, but not impossible, especially if it's a long court case and the accused hasn't had access to the mediums in a long time. It could also be that the password was written down, but lost during the search), lost keyfile (more likely than forgotten password. Some encrypted content requires keyfiles), or even claiming that the encrypted mediums isn't or wasn't under their control (either because the equipment doesn't belong to them, or they let someone else use it).
Your proposals are violating the very basic court principles that for centuries (both inside and outside the United States) have kept innocent people from going to jail. That is more antiquidated than the laws you are accusing of the same. If courts start making assumptions to the left and right about encrypted content that the accused refuses to (or worst case scenario, are unable to) decrypt, then people are gonna start going to jail for crimes they did not commit. The prosecution can basically claim the encrypted files contain whatever they dream up, and the accused will just have to swallow it. That's not how a 'justice' system works.
In fact, by that logic, we might also start prosecuting people for not confessing. After all, what's the difference between evidence that you can't get to on a hard drive, and evidence you can't get to in a persons mind ('evidence' in this case being what the prosecution CLAIMS are there, but they can't prove are there). Someone also made a comparison earlier to a handwrittendiary written in code seized during a search. If the prosecution can start claiming that you know what it means, and then prosecute you for not revealing it (despite your claim to not know what it means), then that is again not fair legal proceedings.
The ideal solution is the solution that is still in place today: That the prosecution gathers evidence from other sources (aka. through standard solid police work) and use that to prosecute their case. That is the basic principle of how law systems worked before encryption (and after the exclusion of torture and coercion). After all, something must have led them to the accused in the first place, so in most cases they will be able to dig something up. Yes, sometimes guilty people walk. That's a price we have to pay to keep innocent people out of jail. People who are truly guilty typically screw up again at a later stage, so there will always be a second chance to get them there, but there is no way to redeem the years an innocent man has lost in prison because of terrible court procedures.
Again, we're dealing with a situation where by the time the case has gone to court the evidence in question has already been picked up through due search and seizure. The court has the right to that information, and if the person refuses to decrypt it they are impeding the investigation.
It is highly unlikely that something would be deemed relevent and have a person pleading the 5th if it was unaccesible to them to begin with. To be seized it's going to be a computer routinely used by the accused for business puirposes or whatever.
I understand your reasoning here, I just happen to disagree with it. My point about the founding fathers is simply that these laws are NOT timeless, and they even said so themselves. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who mentioned the bit about re-doing the constitution every 19 years.
The differance is you don't care if the criminals get away, largely because your not a victim in a case like this. In my case I tend to side more with the victims and law enforcement. A big part of why is simply because all anti-police paranoia aside, the system just doesn't have the resources to throw everyone in jail, or waste it's time screwing with people on a power trip. It has no active desire to put innocent people in jail for the lulz.
In most cases with the 5th Amendment it's dealt with by offering immunity for things unrelated to the crime in question, and that is part of what lets it work. But in a case like a real estate scam you can't provide immunity to that kind of evidence.
As far as police work goes, again, the point is that the police work lead to the files on that system.
I consider simply finding the person guilty for not cooperating in that case and ending it right there a perfectly reasonable and civilized alternative.
As far as forgetting the password or being unable to enter the data, that's not a 5th Amendment plea, the 5th stands on it's own without justification or saying why your making the plea. See if someone said "I can't do it" that would have to be evaluated on it's own merits situation by situation, but on it's own saying "well I won't open that because it will incriminate me and I know this" (the 5th) that is something entirely differant.
while he may be right to hace a choice, he is still hingering and investigation. thats like if a robber is runing though your yard and you wont let police chase you because they cant enter without court order. i though this was an article about SOPA rage and how SOPA would legally put people who encrypt thier internet connection to jail but apparently this is something unrelated, so im raving.
I consider simply finding the person guilty for not cooperating in that case and ending it right there a perfectly reasonable and civilized alternative.
Again, we're dealing with a situation where by the time the case has gone to court the evidence in question has already been picked up through due search and seizure. The court has the right to that information, and if the person refuses to decrypt it they are impeding the investigation.
There is a difference between "impeding an investigation" and "refusing to help an investigation".
By that logic, not confessing to a crime you have committed, you are also impeding an investigation. You are currently moving from your original argument here (which was that people were hiding behind a technicality, an argument i would dispute, but you still made it) to the point of arguing that people have to prove their own innocence rather than being proven guilty.
Therumancer said:
It is highly unlikely that something would be deemed relevent and have a person pleading the 5th if it was unaccesible to them to begin with. To be seized it's going to be a computer routinely used by the accused for business puirposes or whatever.
Not really. When a search and seizure is conducted at a property, the police (or whoever is conducting the search) typically takes all material they suspect might be relevant, and then they later sort out what they consider irrelevant. Encrypted content can, at best, make police suspect that something relevant is located there, but being unable to decrypt it makes that a guessing game.
Also, you seem to be under the impression that a person somehow needs an excuse for pleading the 5th. That couldn't be further from the truth. A person doesn't need an "excuse" to plead the 5th. Pleading the 5th doesn't mean you have anything to hide. Like the supreme once court said in a case: "One of the 5th Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speakers own mouth."
In a country where lying the police is a felony (which, may i remind you, can also involve being convicted for telling the police the truth in cases where the police might have evidence suggesting you're lying, even if that evidence is mistaken), you don't need an excuse to exercise your right to silence.
If you have never watched it before, i recommend the YouTube video in the spoiler below. It explains very well why you should pretty much ALWAYS take the 5th if the police approaches you, even if you're innocent as an angel and have nothing to hide. You don't need an excuse to use no words besides "I want a lawyer", and that goes both for talking to the police and keeping silent in court as well.
Therumancer said:
I understand your reasoning here, I just happen to disagree with it. My point about the founding fathers is simply that these laws are NOT timeless, and they even said so themselves. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who mentioned the bit about re-doing the constitution every 19 years.
Many of them are timeless. I won't dispute that some of them might be a bit ridiculous by modern standards (the right to having a gun in your home, for example. I'm not one of the anti-gun fanatics, but i do believe that a law permitting people to have a weapon should be a normal law that are easier to change, and not a constitutional law), but several of the amendments (prohibiting slavery, illegal searches etc.) are rather timeless unless you predict that the USA will be the United Dictatorship of America in the near future.
But anyway, returning to the topic at hand, i see no convincing evidence in your argument that the 5th Amendment needs an update.
The examples in the video above (not to mention the THOUSANDS of other cases where testimony of innocent people have sent them to jail for crimes they did not commit because they didn't take the 5th) showcase well enough why the 5th is a basic necessity, and why it still fulfills its purpose. You see, the way the 5th is worded leads me to believe that it wasn't just invented to prevent confessions induced by coercion and torture. The quote from the Supreme Court in my last paragraph shows very well that the courts have a fine understanding of what the Amendment is meant to accomplish.
In the case of encryption, the 5th plays a very specific role, because dealing with encrypted content in court cases (in the way that you want them to deal with it) has some very specific problems. First of all, until decrypted, you cannot prove that the content on the encrypted drive has any relevance to the case. But second, and most importantly of all, you cannot in any way prove that someone (the accused) is capable of decrypting the drive to begin with (until they actually do so).
You cannot prove that they know the password (or knew it at one point, in case they have forgotten) or have access to the keyfile necessary to encrypt the drives or files that are encrypted. You might also not be able to prove that they are (were) the users of the encrypted content. Hell, in some cases you might not be able to prove that they are the owner of the content (even in some cases if they are the owner of the equipment). A person cannot be held in contempt of court if they are unable to comply with a judges order.
You are basically arguing that if a case involves encrypted content, the accused is guilty until they prove themself innocent by decrypting content they might not even be able to decrypt in the first place (because ultimately, any case involving encrypted content IS going to be a guessing game about whether or not the accused can actually decrypt the content). Suffice to say, that isn't in any way an appropriate way for a modern legal system to work.
Also, on the subject of "forgetting the password", i would like to give you a point of reference. As mentioned earlier in this thread, i use TrueCrypt myself. My Password, while not entirely 100% random, consists of upper and lowercase-letters, numbers and special characters and is almost 40 (!!) characters long (to prevent bruteforcing). I use the password around every third day on average, and i have a VERY good memory, which means that I'm unlikely to forget it in a hurry. Should i have my computers seized, however (for whatever reason), and they came to me and wanted me to decrypt my content maybe a year or more after i used that password last time (because court cases take so f*****g long), even i wouldn't be able to guarentee that I'd remember it.
I should mention btw, in this regard, that the 5th Amendment DOES have a special exception that can make it void in the regards to Encryption, and that's the Foregone Conclusion Doctrine that states that the provision of information is not subject to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when the existence and location of information are known to the government, and the act of providing the evidence adds little or nothing to the Governments case. In those exceptions, the government can still compel a suspect to produce the contents of an encrypted drive (and has done so in the past [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Boucher]). In the link provided, the defendant (Sebastian Boucher) had already showed some of the content of the encrypted drive before the court trial to ICE agents and had admitted to possession of the computer, the the Foregone Conclusions denied him the protection of the 5th Amendment. The constitution isn't exactly as "out of time" as you would have us believe )
Therumancer said:
The differance is you don't care if the criminals get away, largely because your not a victim in a case like this. In my case I tend to side more with the victims and law enforcement. A big part of why is simply because all anti-police paranoia aside, the system just doesn't have the resources to throw everyone in jail, or waste it's time screwing with people on a power trip. It has no active desire to put innocent people in jail for the lulz.
And this is why theory differs so much from reality. In theory, the system has no active desire to put innocent people in jail, yes. In reality, the rules for the system still allows it to happen on a daily basis in the United States. In the US, the police are allowed to lie to you and (verbally) intimidate you into confessing to a crime, whether you did do anything criminal or not, and every day people who don't take the 5th DO confess to crimes they did not commit. Sometimes these are smaller things that results in a fine. Sometimes people go to jail for it.
The system might not have an active desire to let things be that way, but you know what they say: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
In that regard btw, it's great that you side with the "victims" of crime. What about the people that are sent innocently to jail? They aren't "victims" or what? )
Therumancer said:
In most cases with the 5th Amendment it's dealt with by offering immunity for things unrelated to the crime in question, and that is part of what lets it work. But in a case like a real estate scam you can't provide immunity to that kind of evidence.
And, as the name implies, the immunity is an OFFER. The defendant can still decide to reject it and keep their mouth shut, in which case the prosecution will have to fall back on the remainder of their evidence.
Defendant usually only take up such an offer when the rest of the evidence against them can be considered to weigh heavily in favor of the prosecution, and they by taking the offer can somehow help their case. In the case of encryption, if the prosecution so desperately need to get the content decrypted, then chances are that the rest of their evidence is thin. In that case, the offer is unlikely to be the better decision.
That the prosecution often tries to "cheat" the legal system by offering immunity for revealing the password (but not immunity for the content that the password might be used to decrypt) is also just laughable. THAT, my friend, is the true meaning of hiding behind technicalities (by trying to circumvent the legal rights of the defendant using semantics).
So in short...
Therumancer said:
I consider simply finding the person guilty for not cooperating in that case and ending it right there a perfectly reasonable and civilized alternative.
...there is a good reason that suspects/defendants are not required to cooperate with the police: Because INNOCENT people have gone to jail for that several times through history for "cooperating" with police.
You can try to twist it any way you like, but history has shown that the ability to deny speaking with or helping the police (if you're a suspect) is a NECESSARY right if the goal of the 'justice' system is to disperse actual justice. The amount of innocents that have been jailed on account of not exercising their rights is staggering, and i see no convincing argument to take those rights away from them. Especially not the 5th. I once again recommend watchin the video above. There are some interesting statistics about how many people have gone to jail for not taking the 5th (especially during earlier times where racism caused black people to be tried en masse for crimes they did not commit, and many went to jail on confessions).
I consider simply finding the person guilty for not cooperating in that case and ending it right there a perfectly reasonable and civilized alternative.
Well, not really, actually that's a very western concept.
What's more this has nothing to do with that, this all about the rules of evidence really.
Basically, at this level we're talking about whether or not evidence that has been obtained in an approved search, and which is capable of proving a suspect guilty of crimes they committed, can be used in court if the accused can protect the evidence in such a way that the court cannot access it.
I'm saying that this is a stupid semantic arguement that is directly opposed to the spirit of the law, your saying you don't care. We disagree. But then again it's a touchy subject which is why it's newsworthy.
See, I think the problem is that your anti-goverment to the point where you want every tool and loophole you can use to defend yourself. I'm more concerned with the victims and getting the criminals off the street.
I'll also go so far as to say that I think you and the people like you, are one of the reasons why the country is such a mess right now, and why we have all these bankers and white collar criminals running roughshod over everyone, and things like the Occupy Wall Street Movement. The kind of defense your advocating is exactly how people like that manage to commit crimes and then avoid being held accountable for them due to being able to hire high priced lawyers to make semantic arguements for them. Right now this is exactly the kind of legal wrangling we need to step down on hard.
I can't help but think your tune would change if someone had scammed you out of a house or something, been caught red handed, and then got away with it because they were simply able to afford encryption the goverment can't break. If this stands it's a free pass for anyone who can afford enough digital protection to engage in any kind of scam they want. I have an issue with that.
You can try to twist it any way you like, but history has shown that the ability to deny speaking with or helping the police (if you're a suspect) is a NECESSARY right if the goal of the 'justice' system is to disperse actual justice. The amount of innocents that have been jailed on account of not exercising their rights is staggering, and i see no convincing argument to take those rights away from them. Especially not the 5th. I once again recommend watchin the video above. There are some interesting statistics about how many people have gone to jail for not taking the 5th (especially during earlier times where racism caused black people to be tried en masse for crimes they did not commit, and many went to jail on confessions).
The point you, and others, miss here is that in this case there has already been a safeguard imposed. That is to say that the evidence has been seized legally, a judge has already looked this over, and approved the seizure of that computer and data as relevent within the scope of the search. This is about access, not self incrimination, because the evidence has already been approved and entered, which is why it's a contempt issue. This isn't about testimony but a totally differant section of the legal system.
What's more you, and others, misunderstand the point of the 5th Amendment, that law exists to protect people from being forced to confess to unrelated crimes to give nessicary testimony. It's been twisted into other things, but that's the point. Someone taking the 5th is a sign that the goverment has to weigh offering immunity for whatever the crimes might be, against the potential value of testimony in the case to which they are involved.
Criminals being able to come up, swear an oath, and then refuse to answer questions is itself a manipulation of the intent of the protection, and one of the cases that kind of shows what a huge effect precedent can have on our system. If you think about it, why call anyone to trial for questioning if they can refuse to answer the questions? Kind of stupid, and that's because it wasn't originally supposed to work that way.
The bottom line is we disagree, but it is a contreversial issue for a reason. I'd agree with you, if it wasn't for the requirements to get the computer admitted to begin with, and as this is about evidence that has already been submitted, it's not a matter of violating "innocent until proven guilty" because it's already a matter of record for the proceeding.
Like in the last post I wrote (sorry if I'm snippy, I'm a bit tired), I'll also point out that the last thing we need in this country with all the problems with corperations, banks, and white collar criminals screwing everyone... the behavior that lead to things like occupy Wall Street, is saying that someone who can afford encryption the goverment can't break is basically entitled to get away with their crimes.
I love that 'The Founding Fathers' knew about computing and encryption when they wrote the constitution!
Any chance your old document could be slightly irrelevant to a modern day problem *Cough*Bible*Cough*
The point you, and others, miss here is that in this case there has already been a safeguard imposed. That is to say that the evidence has been seized legally, a judge has already looked this over, and approved the seizure of that computer and data as relevent within the scope of the search. This is about access, not self incrimination, because the evidence has already been approved and entered, which is why it's a contempt issue. This isn't about testimony but a totally differant section of the legal system.
And again, you miss - or rather, did not read - my points at all.
Even if the computer/encrypted material has been seized legally, you can't:
- Prove that the person from which the computer was seized has knowledge of the content of the equipment or was the one supervising it
- Prove that the person is capable of decrypting the contents
There is no "safeguard" in trying to guess whether or not someone is responsible for encrypted content or is capable of decrypting it. It is what it is: Guessing.
Therumancer said:
What's more you, and others, misunderstand the point of the 5th Amendment, that law exists to protect people from being forced to confess to unrelated crimes to give nessicary testimony. It's been twisted into other things, but that's the point. Someone taking the 5th is a sign that the goverment has to weigh offering immunity for whatever the crimes might be, against the potential value of testimony in the case to which they are involved.
"One of the 5th Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speakers own mouth."
From my last post to you.
The fifth amendment also clearly states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Like i already explained earlier, decrypting encrypted content means that you, as the defendant, admits to knowing of the content and admits to controlling and having previously controlled it. This is the equivalent of self-testimony in a case where the prosecution doesn't have proof of a link between you and the (at the time) unknown content that are encrypted.
I think you might want to consider the option that it's not us that are misunderstanding the 5th Amendment. It's you who are deliberately misinterpreting it, creating your own "idea" of what it's meant to accomplish.
I'll take the Supreme Courts definition over yours, no offense intended.
Therumancer said:
Criminals being able to come up, swear an oath, and then refuse to answer questions is itself a manipulation of the intent of the protection, and one of the cases that kind of shows what a huge effect precedent can have on our system. If you think about it, why call anyone to trial for questioning if they can refuse to answer the questions? Kind of stupid, and that's because it wasn't originally supposed to work that way.
Because:
- Not everyone refuses to answer questions (even though they can)
- People who lie often still give viable clues away that can be used to prosecute them
- Because having some questions answered is better than no questioned answered. Even if a defendant refuses to answer question X doesn't mean he refuses question Y.
- Because questions (and answers) creates context, and context is important for the jury/judge to get a better idea of the case.
I still see no evidence at all supporting your claim that the 5th Amendment is broken. The version you imagine might be broken, but like i said, that's likely because your idea of the 5th Amendment is off.
Therumancer said:
Like in the last post I wrote (sorry if I'm snippy, I'm a bit tired), I'll also point out that the last thing we need in this country with all the problems with corperations, banks, and white collar criminals screwing everyone... the behavior that lead to things like occupy Wall Street, is saying that someone who can afford encryption the goverment can't break is basically entitled to get away with their crimes.
Listen, you cannot beat encryption. Ever. Why? Because of deniable encryption, which in truecrypt is know as plausible deniability. What this does is hide an encrypted container within an encrypted container in a way that makes it absolutely 100% impossible to prove it exists (beyond actually decrypting it). You can read more about how it works here [http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/hidden-volume]. It's encryption that is practically impossible to beat short of brute-forcing the password (or torturing it out of someone). The only way to beat it is to outlaw encryption. The government already tried that 50 years ago by classifying encryption as a weapon, imposing restrictions. It didn't work.
Yes i agree it sucks for law-enforcement, but at the end of the day, encryption is just something they will have to live with. It's therefore up to the government to make sure there are safeguards in place that makes it harder for corporations to screw people. Encryption isn't something you can beat, ever.
To those asking: Truecrypt can be broken but the amount of power required to do it for one individual means they wouldn't even bother Even then you can keep portions of it hidden.
But the fact that now all you have to do is encrypt your HDD and get away with literally anything is a move made by an honest-to-god technology retard
Well this is just plain silly. What's he got on his hard drive that he doesn't want the FBI to see? He should have been put away for deliberate obstruction of justice. If you're threatened with a jail sentence, and all you have on your hard drive is a couple of embarrassing files, then surely you'd just let the FBI in?
Privacy is overrated when it starts interfering with the justice system.
Why do people keep making this stupid assumption that people can get away with anything?
Listen, people have been prosecuted before computers even existed (and encryption was something everyone could get). While winning a case based on data seized on a suspects computer can be nice, you can't rely on that to win every case for you.
There are other ways to win cases and other evidence to collect which prosecutors can use to sentence a criminal. Seizing computers CAN be useful, but it's not the only tool in the box.
And no, you cannot beat encryption. If the courts could compel people to reveal encryption keys, people would use hidden encryption volumes instead, and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
Well this is just plain silly. What's he got on his hard drive that he doesn't want the FBI to see? He should have been put away for deliberate obstruction of justice. If you're threatened with a jail sentence, and all you have on your hard drive is a couple of embarrassing files, then surely you'd just let the FBI in?
Jesus, more people who doesn't understand how encryption works, nor the law.
First of all, there is a difference between "obstruction of justice" and "refusing to help". Refusing to help police build a case against yourself is not the same as obstruction of justice. You have NO obligation to help them, and giving that helping them is counter-intuitive to your case, why would you?
Second of all, as mentioned in my earlier posts, you cannot beat encryption. Ever. Hidden volumes means that encryption can cheat investigators, and they have no way to prove otherwise.
Thyunda said:
Privacy is overrated when it starts interfering with the justice system.
The man is innocent until proven guilty. To jail someone for "Obstruction of justice" (even though, as i explained, refusing to decrypt something isn't obstruction of justice), you first have to prove that there are justice to be dispersed in the first place. If the man is innocent (which is the governments job to prove that he isn't, and he isn't obliged to help them), then there is no justice to be dispersed.
Also i almost don't even want to touch terrible your logic is. By that argument, the government should install cameras in EVERY home in the United States so they could spy on us. Then they would be able to solve almost every case of domestic violence, robbery etc. Sounds like a good idea to you? )
Decrypting the contents is that same as admitting that you not only had knowledge of the content, but also having control over it/owning it. By decrypting it, you are basically displaying that you are the one responsible for the content of the encrypted container.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)
