• Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their hard disks at FBI's request
    100 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Forumaster;34381378]Guttmann 35-pass is the method the US government uses to delete data [I]for a reason.[/I][/QUOTE] Funnily enough, Guttmann himself wrote: "in the time since this paper was published, some people have treated the 35-pass overwrite technique described in it more as a kind of voodoo incantation to banish evil spirits than the result of a technical analysis of drive encoding techniques. As a result, they advocate applying the voodoo to PRML and EPRML drives even though it will have no more effect than a simple scrubbing with random data... For any modern PRML/EPRML drive, a few passes of random scrubbing is the best you can do". [url]http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/secure_del.html[/url]
[QUOTE=cccritical;34381399]I don't see where all the outrage against this is coming from, I think the wording is a little too broad but as long as it requires a warrant how is it different from getting your house searched (after a warrant is produced)?[/QUOTE] You are not required to aid law enforcement in searches even with a warrant. This forces you to potentially incriminate yourself.
They can't make me give them the password... if it's not encrypted in the first place! Muahaha!
Odds are the contempt of court charge will carry a lighter sentence than the evidence that may or may not be on your hard drive would get you. I hope this goes to the Supreme Court, your Miranda rights specifically say you don't have to tell the cops a FUCKING THING.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34379579]They can ask for the key, but you are not obligated to give it to them. At no time are you required to aid in your own incrimination. Even in this case, the defendant can simply say "no fuck off" and push the case up to the next tier where it will almost undoubtedly be overturned. There is a long history of similar cases on the books establishing the exact opposite precedent. No need to sound the alarm bells.[/QUOTE] Did you miss the title? "Judge: Americans can be [b]forced[/b] to decrypt their hard drives at FBI's request." Operative word here being forced. [editline]25th January 2012[/editline] anyways, exactly what anyone else said. "Accidentally forgot the key because of the mental and physical stress caused by this investigation, so sorry."
[QUOTE=5killer;34381538]You are not required to aid law enforcement in searches even with a warrant. This forces you to potentially incriminate yourself.[/QUOTE] If you lock all your doors and windows they have to smash them in even if they've got a warrant? I somehow doubt that. I think what you're saying is more of a legal loophole than security for your rights.
[QUOTE=Ryukrawr?;34380754]> Finds out that the FBI is coming for me. > Furiously rips drives out and hides them out of site. > Replaces drives with dead hard drives from 2001. > FBI takes computer with dead drives. > Gets off scott free > You mad FBI?[/QUOTE] > Lose everything on harddrives because you ripped them out of the computer
[QUOTE=GunFox;34379579]They can ask for the key, but you are not obligated to give it to them. At no time are you required to aid in your own incrimination. Even in this case, the defendant can simply say "no fuck off" and push the case up to the next tier where it will almost undoubtedly be overturned. There is a long history of similar cases on the books establishing the exact opposite precedent. No need to sound the alarm bells.[/QUOTE] [quote]Blackburn, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that the Fifth Amendment posed no barrier to his decryption order[/quote]
I still don't see how they can "force" someone to give up anything. What are the cops gonna do, waterboard suspects to make them give up decryption keys? The worst they can do is charge defendants with contempt of court. Again, I hope this goes to the Supreme Court.
are we required to put together the shattered pieces of a destroyed hard drive as well?
[QUOTE=5killer;34381538]You are not required to aid law enforcement in searches even with a warrant. This forces you to potentially incriminate yourself.[/QUOTE] You are required by law to let law enforcement in though, even if I do have a pile of coke on the coffee table. Thats basically all you are doing is letting them into something.
Depending on how you interpret it, it could fall under the 5th amendment. Here's how I envision it: say you have a briefcase in your car filled with drugs and money. Police obtain a search warrant and have the right to search your car for drugs and money. The briefcase will be included in that search just by virtue of being in the car, so the police have a right to search it. Problem is, what if the briefcase is locked? Well, in the situation of a tangible object, they can force entry to the briefcase by breaking the locks or something along those lines if you don't provide the combination for the lock. Now, imagine you have an encrypted laptop in a similar situation to the briefcase. The issue with this is it is practically impossible to force entry to an encrypted hard drive. The real question is, following the above hypothetical, what will you be charged with if you don't provide the combination for your briefcase? I would imagine the same charges would apply to the laptop situation. Furthermore, would giving the combination of your briefcase lead to you incriminating yourself, as per the 5th amendment?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34379691]The only problem with having your main decrypted volume hidden is that you have to continually maintain and use your decoy one or the authorities will wonder why your main PC is just a clean install of Windows that hasn't been used in 6 months.[/QUOTE] I'm an organized person! :V If they can't prove otherwise, they can fuck right off.
only people who'd get worried are people with illegal content.
[QUOTE=Lazor;34380990]lol hi guys. Ryukrawr here. I literally have no idea how things work in reality. bye[/QUOTE] IKR
even if they have the right to seize it, they can't force us to decrypt it. That could force us to incriminate ourselves, and we have a right not to do that.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;34380219] Way to ignore the rest of the post. As usual your posts have little argumentative content, and merely rely on personal attacks to dismiss my statements. Come up with a better rebuttal than "you disagree with me, your stupid."[/QUOTE] What rest of the post? Your whole argument was that if you have nothing to hide it shouldn't matter that you're unable to hide anything. To rebut that all anyone has to do is press their lips together and make a PFFFFTTTTTPTPTPTPTP sound
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;34379823]So you'd print out every byte of data on your hard drive, destory the hard drive, then hand the FBI the paper representation of your hard drive? I don't see what the problem with this is anyway. It's common knowledge that if you need encryption in the first place, you're trying to hide something. The Fifth Amendment allows people to refuse to testify against or incriminate themselves, but the data is already there in this case... it's just being obscured, and I see no problem with a court order forcing the person to relinquish the key.[/QUOTE] Ahem or perhaps you have work related things on your computer which are confidential. Or perhaps you have personal, fully confidential data on the PC. Claiming that encryption is only useful for someone breaking the law is a fallacy of the outmost kind.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;34380729]Bruteforcing 34 characters? Haha. Good luck with that. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/5BkPB.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] How much is a duodecillion anyway?
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;34380773]Yeah, that won't work on the FBI. There are methods of retrieving data that you've deleted, even in the case that its actually completely written over.[/QUOTE] A single format? sure that's piss easy. A DBAN session that loops itself for a few hours? give up turbo, you ain't getting those data back.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;34379823]It's common knowledge that if you need encryption in the first place, you're trying to hide something.[/QUOTE] The fact that you want to conceal something does not mean you wish to conceal something illegal. Numerous people hide, obscure, or simply discuss the details of private, intimate relationships that are entirely legal simply because that is privileged information, and quite frankly, no business of anyone but those involved. Those honeymoon pictures you have of you and your legal-age, consenting spouse pissing on each other in latex catsuits? I can see why you'd want to encrypt that. That is personal, private, and legal, if not a bit weird. Too weird of an example for you? Well, how about private information used in the production of a new, potentially revolutionary new product? Construction or development information for proprietary hardware or software? Can't see why a company would want to protect that kind of information. Oh hey, what if you were one of the few medical professionals that still makes housecalls? Gosh, I can't imagine why you'd want to keep a patient's digitally stored medical information encrypted. Oh! Oh! How about an accountant? Say an accountant or financial advisor for a large company was traveling on a long flight to meet with a client about the use of company assets, and has a laptop containing private company information, or even sensitive information like employee personal information or company credit card numbers? That shouldn't be encrypted at all! What's common knowledge is that a lot of people value privacy for a variety of reasons, most of then legitimate. In the United States (in case you forgot, that's the country this court case applies to), there is a general idea that citizens have some degree of a right to privacy, as do businesses. As for self incrimination, you are arguing that providing access to information about yourself that may be incriminating, is not incriminating yourself. How can you not see where that is absurd?
[QUOTE=Forumaster;34381378]Guttmann 35-pass is the method the US government uses to delete data [I]for a reason.[/I][/QUOTE] Actually they stopped using it because they discovered they could recover the data. Make of this what you will.
[QUOTE=BLOODGA$M;34379195]You are promptly stripped of your US citizenship and indefinitely detained in Guantanamo Bay without further trial[/QUOTE] [editline]25th January 2012[/editline] this is the fastest method of decrypting passwords
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;34379823] I don't see what the problem with this is anyway. It's common knowledge that if you need encryption in the first place, you're trying to hide something.[/QUOTE] I can think of hundreds and hundreds of reasons why people might want to encrypt stuff. I can't believe someone would be stupid enough to think the only reason is hiding bad stuff.
[QUOTE=Quark:;34379982]it would be handy if software like truecrypt had a feature where you could pick a special password to wipe the data completely and fill it with dumb decoy data so if they ask for the password, you can give them the wipe-word and hope they dont catch on[/QUOTE] Do you have any idea how TrueCrypt and the police work? 1. The police will create a clone of your harddrive so nothing can get destroyed. 2. It's mathematically impossible to decrypt data without the proper key (which could be brute forced in a few gazillion millenia) 3. They don't have to run ANY code they don't want to, all they need is the decryption algorithm (very easy to get, it's open) and the key.
[QUOTE=Robber;34386235]1. The police will create a clone of your harddrive so nothing can get destroyed.[/quote] [quote]and hope they don't catch on[/quote] [quote]2. It's mathematically impossible to decrypt data without the proper key (which could be brute forced in a few gazillion millenia)[/quote] With this idea you don't have to decrypt it, just replace all the encrypted data with 0s. Then put your decoy in.
Hello welcome to America! The theocratic police state!
[QUOTE=znk666;34387334]Hello welcome to America! The theocratic police state![/QUOTE]you must've never visited Russia.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;34379193]Does the 4th Amendment even exist anymore?[/QUOTE] Have you forgotten? Citizens aren't people anymore, only coorperations are called people these days!
[QUOTE=leach139;34380372]Here in the UK if the police want you to decrypt a drive and you refuse you'll just get done in for perverting the course of justice / obstructing an investigation which is normally just as serious[/QUOTE] How much do you get for "obstructing justice"? Say you have made a huge amount of money on some illegal activities, which when exposed, would get you 20+ years. It would make sense to spend maybe 1 year in jail than 20. I just BitLocker'd my D:\ drive (where torrents are at). Is there any benefit of using TrueCrypt besides plausible deniability?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.