U.S. Court Extends Fifth Amendment to Encrypted Data

[cobra_ky]

They are irrelevant nowadays, the world is so different today than it was then, they need to write a new constitution, that's right I said it.

Fair enough then. If you want to completely rewrite the foundation of American government, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

You wouldn't agree that stating Lobbying to be illegal would help to make bribery clearer? Oh and stopping Corporations from being classified as humans?

i think i would agree with both of those things. Neither requires rewriting the Constitution from scratch.

 

[Athinira]

Oh. Wait. Did you want some hastily Googled video from some guy? No, see, I'm one of them educated types.

And so is the guy in the video i linked. Just because he decided to put his knowledge up on YouTube doesn't mean that it's invalid.

For someone who just stated himself as "educated", you don't seem to take well to education. I'll repeat again: Watch the video, it will make you smarter. If you insist on not doing so... well, like i said, you cannot force people to not be stupid, so suit yourself )

And once again - I can't comprehend how you can defend actively refusing to aid an investigation.

Because aiding an investigation might get yourself in trouble. Which you would once again understand if you watched the video.

Your neighbour doesn't hand the tapes over? Because of him, the criminals are not identified. Because of him they can strike again.

You can't prove that the tapes would allow the police the identify the perpetrators.
You can't prove that the criminals would strike again.
You can't prove that it's the neighbors fault that the criminals can strike again. Beyond the two first points i just made, who is to say he is the only one to have caught the criminals? Maybe someone else also saw the criminals, but decided not to speak up about it. Maybe someone even KNOWS the criminals, but decides also to keep quiet.

Case in point: You can't conclusively define the event horizon for the criminals getting caught or walking free )

See, with your attitude, we can't remove the stupid. But with a more...forward-thinking approach, then yes, we CAN.

The only way to remove stupid is to remove free will.

People need to respect the police. 'Never trust a copper' is 70s talk. I like to think we've come past that. If the officer asks 'what's in the box', you open the box. The law enforcement has a job to do. An important job.

I'll repeat again: Watch the damned video. If you don't have the time now to watch the ~27 important minutes, then that's okay. Return to me tomorrow instead when you have watched it.

The police needs to give people a reason to respect them. I respect the cops in Denmark because they don't try to entrap you at every chance you get, and because they aren't allowed to legally lie to you, and don't necessarily try to hook you up on every little nook and cranny of a law that you break (unless you do something to piss them off).

In the United States, it doesn't work like that. I don't mean to say that there aren't nice cops in the US, and I'm sure that most US cops take pride in helping out the citizens, but the point is that US law gives the population absolutely NO reason to trust the police. Talking to the police in the US is ALWAYS a risk, because everything you say can be used against you (but not for you). Again, the video will make you smarter, so watch it. I cannot reiterate this enough.

I agree that law enforcement has a very important job to do, but even so, respect is something that needs to be earned, no matter who you are. And in the US, talking to the cops always carry a higher risk than in other countries. Why do you think defense attorneys always say to their clients that they should NEVER talk to the police? Because it's not worth it. Best case scenario is that nothing happens. Worst case scenario is that you get yourself into trouble. That's why.

Respect is always a two-way street. No-one gets a free-ride, not even the police (and certainly not politicians).

And the Middle East is an excellent example of why religion and state should remain totally separate. That doesn't apply here. We're talking about the fair, democratic, safe-for-all, equality-driven West.

And see, this is where you're wrong again.

If the west is so fair, democratic, safe-for-all and equility-driven, why does the United States only score 7.1 on Transparency Internationals [http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results] 0-10 scale about corruption? )

No country is perfect. Period. There will always be people who abuse power, laws who aren't fair/just/thought through properly, lobbyists who sway politicians. Yes we are miles ahead of the middle-eastern countries where Religion dominates. However, we still have a long way to go.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

They are irrelevant nowadays, the world is so different today than it was then, they need to write a new constitution, that's right I said it.

Fair enough then. If you want to completely rewrite the foundation of American government, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

You wouldn't agree that stating Lobbying to be illegal would help to make bribery clearer? Oh and stopping Corporations from being classified as humans?

i think i would agree with both of those things. Neither requires rewriting the Constitution from scratch.

But there is no reason not to rewrite it from scratch and take away the stigma of "Founding Fathers" writing it. Making it more plausible to change it at any time to constantly align with modern culture

 

[Robert Ewing]

As much as I do love the right to privacy. I think this is a good thing.

>> Has child porn on computer
>> FBI want to look
>> Say no
>> The end.

That can now be totally avoided.

 

[Thyunda]

And the Middle East is an excellent example of why religion and state should remain totally separate. That doesn't apply here. We're talking about the fair, democratic, safe-for-all, equality-driven West.

And see, this is where you're wrong again.

If the west is so fair, democratic, safe-for-all and equility-driven, why does the United States only score 7.1 on Transparency Internationals [http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results] 0-10 scale about corruption? )

No country is perfect. Period. There will always be people who abuse power, laws who aren't fair/just/thought through properly, lobbyists who sway politicians. Yes we are miles ahead of the middle-eastern countries where Religion dominates. However, we still have a long way to go.

I think your sarcasm detectors might be faulty.

 

[cobra_ky]

They are irrelevant nowadays, the world is so different today than it was then, they need to write a new constitution, that's right I said it.

Fair enough then. If you want to completely rewrite the foundation of American government, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

You wouldn't agree that stating Lobbying to be illegal would help to make bribery clearer? Oh and stopping Corporations from being classified as humans?

i think i would agree with both of those things. Neither requires rewriting the Constitution from scratch.

But there is no reason not to rewrite it from scratch and take away the stigma of "Founding Fathers" writing it. Making it more plausible to change it at any time to constantly align with modern culture

It's not like the mechanisms to change it don't exist already. People simply need to be motivated to use them, which you would need to do in order to draft a new constitution anyway.

 

[lapan]

As much as I do love the right to privacy. I think this is a good thing.

>> Has child porn on computer
>> FBI want to look
>> Say no
>> The end.

That can now be totally avoided.

I don't think you actually read the article. It's about encryption being protected under the law, you seem to assume the opposite.

 

[Athinira]

I think your sarcasm detectors might be faulty.

Possibly, it's a long discussion, and I'm headed to work in 15 minutes

 

[Thyunda]

I think your sarcasm detectors might be faulty.

Possibly, it's a long discussion, and I'm headed to work in 15 minutes

In case the sarcasm and the ac.uk college didn't give it away, I'm in fact British, and we make a whole culture of being ashamed of the American government. So don't think I'm trying to justify the convoluted minefield of the legal system over there. Or over here, for that matter.

 

[Kathinka]

and this is news?
where i live (czech republic/germany) it's been like that since forever. they can't make you assist in the investigation against yourself, that would be moronic.

 

[OldRat]

Well, this is a bit problematic. On one hand, I can very well see why this is a good thing. And on the other hand, I can see why this is a bad thing. So I'm going to reserve judgement and see how this plays out.

 

[tehroc]

Great for the little guy, but will set a precedent that will be abused by any major corporation.

 

[FrostyChick]

Couldn't you just say you don't know how or don't know the password?
They can't prove you know or don't know it.
If they ask you hod you accessed it, you say you had it written on a piece of paper and lost it.


Just asking.

Unfortunately not. Under The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Part III.
It is an offence to refuse to decrypt information when requested to do so by law enforcement.
Failure to provide decrypted information or the keys to read the information can carry a penalty of up to 2 years in prison.

The thing about pleading ignorance is, how do you prove you don't know something in a court of law?
What evidence could one offer up that proves they don't know something other than their word?

It massively sucks as it is very possible for people to go to jail for not knowing how to access an encrypted file on their own system.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

Its kinda funny how everyone here thinks data encryption means its untouchable. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

1) Decrypting data takes time and I think the FBI wanted to shortcut the process. Since the feds already had warrants for the material, if the man had decrypted the data and then the appeals court overturned the ruling, the data might still be admissible in court since it was obtained under a warrant.

2) If it were a high profile case, don't you think the people at TrueCrypt would help and probably have methods for bypassing their own security. Enough with the doomsday scenarios.

3) This is about the right to no self-incriminate. You are legally entitled to do nothing to help the police build a case.

btw: If you encrypt data after its been requested, that's obstruction. So this ruling only applies to someone who routinely encrypts their data.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Couldn't you just say you don't know how or don't know the password?
They can't prove you know or don't know it.
If they ask you hod you accessed it, you say you had it written on a piece of paper and lost it.


Just asking.

Unfortunately not. Under The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Part III.
It is an offence to refuse to decrypt information when requested to do so by law enforcement.
Failure to provide decrypted information or the keys to read the information can carry a penalty of up to 2 years in prison.

The thing about pleading ignorance is, how do you prove you don't know something in a court of law?
What evidence could one offer up that proves they don't know something other than their word?

It massively sucks as it is very possible for people to go to jail for not knowing how to access an encrypted file on their own system.

But that means that you're guilty until you prove your self innocent. That's totally against democracy. They should prove me guilty, not the other way around.

IMHO, makes no sense and should be changed ASAP. I know that that could make some cases harder even tho the defendant is obviously guilty, but the current situation can be abused to easily.

Just an example. Someone could create some encrypted data on your PC (via hacking or by just having direct access to your PC) and give the police an anonymous tip. You really don't know anything, jet you can't prove it. You're guilty by default. In the current world, where computer access is a "must", that's damn wrong. It doesn't need to be anything illegal. Just an encrypted empty .txt document and you go 2 years.

 

[MrTub]

The part that Im confused is that people actually believe that people will decrypt stuff that will land them several years in prison simply cause you can receive up to two years prison time for refusing to do so.

I'm pretty sure that anyone that has half a brain will choose 2 years over (example) 5 years in prison..

 

[FrostyChick]

But that means that you're guilty until you prove your self innocent. That's totally against democracy. They should prove me guilty, not the other way around.

IMHO, makes no sense and should be changed ASAP. I know that that could make some cases harder even tho the defendant is obviously guilty, but the current situation can be abused to easily.

It can be massively abused, a point that my IT legislation lecturer loves to bring up.
And I know, it is pretty horrible but the law has been around now for 12 years. There is always hope that it might be changed at some point in the future. But when you wait 12 years to start a political shitstorm, your message kinda gets blunted by the inevitable, "Why wait till now, over a decade later, to say anything about it?".

 

[Athinira]

Its kinda funny how everyone here thinks data encryption means its untouchable. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

1) Decrypting data takes time and I think the FBI wanted to shortcut the process. Since the feds already had warrants for the material, if the man had decrypted the data and then the appeals court overturned the ruling, the data might still be admissible in court since it was obtained under a warrant.

2) If it were a high profile case, don't you think the people at TrueCrypt would help and probably have methods for bypassing their own security. Enough with the doomsday scenarios.

It's funny how people like you come here and talk about stuff you literally know NOTHING about.

Modern encryption algorithms, the ones employed by TrueCrypt, are so strong that if you employ a strong password (and potentially keyfiles) they can't be cracked within the lifetime of the universe, even if you gathered the earths collective computer power and multiplied it by a trillion. Even quantum computers cannot help bruteforce modern algorithms (their application is in factoring prime-numbers, which can crack public key crypto like RSA, but not symmetrical key crypto like AES, Twofish and Serpent).

Neither the FBI, nor any other organization (NSA, CIA, Russians, Chinese) have the capabilities to crack modern symmetrical key crypto with a proper password/key. And no, the TrueCrypt developers cannot help them either. The system is designed with no backdoors. TrueCrypt is Open-Source, uses well-known encryption algorithms (including AES which the US Government themself use to protect data), and TrueCrypt containers have already been attempted cryptoanalyzed before. They just look like random data.

Edit: Decided to fetch you an article [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/is-encryption-really-crackable/204], that might be able to put things into perspective.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Damn. And to think that this topic has been seething under the public's eye since the early 90s when the FBI wanted to restrict or ban encryption systems from public use because it would interfere with police procedure.

"Due process" interferes with their line of work, and ignoring the usual Tin-Foil-Hat/Trust issues for a moment, I can sympathize with that kind of frustration when information forensics is timely.

However, I'm absolutely certain the Internet needed open distribution of such security to private entities just to function). My main job was/is network security, and there is simply no right or reason to keep prodding around for loopholes that undermine the public's trust.

"Safety without trust is neither."

 

[OldNewNewOld]

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.

The problem is that he gave them access to the computer and the data. It's not his problem that they don't know how to use/read the data.

It's like giving them your gun. It's their damn problem that they don't know how to run the ballistics and see if the gun was used recently. If the bullet matches the bullet found. You don't help the police to see if you're DNA is on the victim. You give them access to the DNA. You don't help them find any blood in your house. You give them access to the house.

You give them the data. They don't know how to use it.
And the court CAN'T force you to decrypt it because that would be assuming that you know how to encrypt it. If you just deny that the data is yours, they can't do shit. If they assume you know it, then you are guilty until proven innocent.

Forcing you to give a password is like forcing you to give a document that may or may not exist. But if you don't give it, you go to jail. It's not important that the document doesn't exist, they don't believe you.