It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge orders woman to give up password to hard drive

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
The thing about those rights, though, is that you have to know them and fight for them. They don't automatically give them to you even though they should. I think she'd actually have to knowingly invoke the 5th amendment before it would actually be valid. Why? Because that's not the way it really should be, that's not the way it actually is legally, but that's the way the justice system pretends like it is.




posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthinfact
Hey I am siding with the courts, the judge did the right thing, HE GOT A WARRANT.

Nothing wrong with gettin' a warrant. She shouldn't'a' (should not have) done the crime!

You can't get a warrant that forces a person to give up their 5th amendment rights. Just because she may be a slug does not mean that we want the precedent set allowing them to strip our right against self incrimination away from the rest of us.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Sort of silly. There is precidence that shows this to be in violation of her civil rights.
Which means any discovery coming from this = fruit of the poisonous tree..aka, all tossed out.

So, unless they "convince" her to give up her password voluntarily, then its all invalid anyhow..

And yes, they do "convince" people to give up rights voluntarily..such as sit in detention until they crack.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by truthinfact
Hey I am siding with the courts, the judge did the right thing, HE GOT A WARRANT.

Nothing wrong with gettin' a warrant. She shouldn't'a' (should not have) done the crime!

You can't get a warrant that forces a person to give up their 5th amendment rights. Just because she may be a slug does not mean that we want the precedent set allowing them to strip our right against self incrimination away from the rest of us.



You are right the courts should just move away from precedents anyways. The courts are not always fair anyways.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
I think she'd actually have to knowingly invoke the 5th amendment before it would actually be valid.


Thats what lawyers are for.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Point taken....you have given to me (food for thought!).



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Ok , heres a straight up FACT for everyones enjoyment. This whole scenario is bogus, and is being designed in order to make it appear as if anyone who has data on thier computer, has any defense against having thier information accessed by the government at any time.

The data could already have been in the hands of prosecutors, and her passwords, security systems, interesting homebrewed hacks and drive kills would have been circumvented utterly in under a day, by government employed hackers and forensic computer specialists, IF they really wanted into her data. Regular folks , and even highly skilled hackers are all fooling themselves if they think that electronic data, on any device, cannot be accessed by the tyrants at the drop of a hat.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 




Thoughts.


Simple enough, this is a joke and is an indication of the sickening levels we are allowing our governments to go do to restrict our freedoms.

As i stated in another thread on this subject, my solution would be a custom linux boot loader with a drive wipe software set to run the instant an "encryption password" is entered into a phony screen. Using a similar method to a rootkit, i'd ensure that program resumes when the laptop is booted, before being able to access any operating systems.

Since the data is encrypted, a single wipe pass would be ok, but for pure safety I'd suggest a 7 pass zeroing out of the drive with any software. The RCMP in canada use D.S.X. but anyone can easily get any number of disk wiping apps for free, legally, usually in the form of linux boot disks or flash key bootable programs.

If I were going to travel around with a laptop with "private" data, I would ensure the following:

"fastgate" or similar "preboot" mini os ability

a bios that is easily flashable, and customizable

A BIOS that allows you to set a boot password, and drive password, and a setup ( bios ) password
Preferably one with "stringent security" so removing the cmos battery does NOT wipe the password
Best case is a security chip (most HP business class notebooks) that has no back door password

encryption software that locks itself out after a set amount of failed attempts.

Aforementioned linux boot selection with fake encryption password prompt, that starts a drive wipe when the password is supplied (or isn't)

some of this sounds complicated, but thanks to the linux community, most of this is already done for you, creating a linux boot loader for your machine is literally a 4 minute process that anyone who can use notepad.exe can handle.

I'd suggest doing this BEFORE it becomes illegal, which would be the next logical step.


Well yes and no. Bios protections do not do much as more than likely an evidence team is going to remove the hard drive form the original machine to any kind of search or data mining. Same thing with the "auto destruct" scripts, any good forensics team is going to remove the hard drive and place it into a machine setup for this kind of evidence gathering.

The easiest way to hide sensitive data is do do a "double" encryption container. Certain encryption software (that is free BTW) allows you to create a encrypted container either as a file or as a whole device, a thumb drive for example. One would put files in the outer container that might look like sensitive data, but is harmless. The software creates an inner container, so to speak, that is not marked at all. It is not a file system or file, just raw data that is encrypted separately with a different key (password). It basically looks like random garbage that is left after files are deleted and sectors written over a period of time.
If one is forced to give up the password, one just gives them the password to the outer container that contains legit sensitive looking files, but are really fake.One just has to remember to use a long strong passkey for the inner container, in fact the software will bark at you if you use less than 25 characters.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo

Originally posted by caladonea
If she has nothing to hide and didn't do anything wrong...why not just comply...then when it is all over...make a new password.


That is the same thinking they used during the witch hunts...

"Only a witch wouldn't take the test!"

-Victim, "Fine, I'll do it, I have nothing to hide..."

"Oops, the test killed them... But at least we know she wasn't a witch!..."


Or the nazis...

"Only someone hiding Jews wouldn't let us search their house..."

Victim, "Fine you can search my house for Jews... I have nothing to hide..."

"Oops, we accidentally burned your house down while investigating... But at least you weren't hiding Jews!..."



Witch hunts; Nazi's...I really think you are over reacting. Do you think the woman is just protecting her legal rights? Or...do you think she is guilty and that is why she won't give out the password?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


right, but thatsnot the point. The pont is them trying to do it the correct way.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


If she were to give up her password, with the knowledge that there is nothing incrinminating on it, who is to say that the authorities wouldn't put it there once they had it?

"That's not my data!"

"But it is your computer, is it not?"

"Well, yes, but I never input that data!"

"Riiiiight."



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
Ok , heres a straight up FACT for everyones enjoyment. This whole scenario is bogus, and is being designed in order to make it appear as if anyone who has data on thier computer, has any defense against having thier information accessed by the government at any time.

The data could already have been in the hands of prosecutors, and her passwords, security systems, interesting homebrewed hacks and drive kills would have been circumvented utterly in under a day, by government employed hackers and forensic computer specialists, IF they really wanted into her data. Regular folks , and even highly skilled hackers are all fooling themselves if they think that electronic data, on any device, cannot be accessed by the tyrants at the drop of a hat.


I suppose you have never heard of Truecrypt and long, multi-character passwords.

Beside the point.

If you think you can jerk a judge around with patently bull# answers that are the equivalent of saying "Prove it!" while giving him the finger, think again.

Judges are not stupid. They are cranky, conservative old men, infatuated with their own estimate of their abilities, with a jaundiced view of the rest of mankind, and drunk on the power they have exercised over others'
lives, true - but they aren't stupid.

And courts are not just about old men in fusty wigs, funny clothes, and oak paneling. Behind that veneer lies power, naked and raw, with very, very sharp teeth. Cross them and that power will be brought to bear very
forcefully indeed.

If you find yourself in court you have already lost - bigtime! Even if found innocent it will be a sentence of bankruptcy with perhaps your marriage, your career, and your future in tatters. That's the upside.

So make sure you don't find yourself there. But, if you do, I suggest presenting a very submissive and very respectful demeanor.

Unless, of course, you'd like to go out in a blaze of glory, a hero to us all, as you begin your long sentence :-)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TheExopolitician
 


My computer is fully 100% TrueCrypt encrypted with a 40 char password
I only wish megaupload servers had used truecrypt on their servers as to keep their data confidential since they were confiscated.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by TheExopolitician
 


My computer is fully 100% TrueCrypt encrypted with a 40 char password
I only wish megaupload servers had used truecrypt on their servers as to keep their data confidential since they were confiscated.


Exactly the software I was posting about. Tru Crypt will create the double container encryption on just about any device or as a file. It is available for both Windows and Linux and the files it creates are compatible with both.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
This is pretty jaded.

I'm not fully aware how American law works, but if she claimed to forget the password under oath, would they be able to charge her for lying?

Sorry if it seems like a stupid question but I just don't know the answer.

Hopefully she's able to take this to the Supreme Court and win.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthinfact
Hey I am siding with the courts, the judge did the right thing, HE GOT A WARRANT.

Nothing wrong with gettin' a warrant. She shouldn't'a' (should not have) done the crime!


If she did the crime then the Court system should be able to prosecute her without circumventing the constitution..

Courts and Police may try but they aren't allowed to bend the rules.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I would have told the judge that the computer didn't belong to me and that i didn't have the password.

End of story



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetnlow

I would have told the judge that the computer didn't belong to me and that i didn't have the password.

End of story


Start of story.

They toss your smart butt into jail until you "remember" the password or find that the computer is actually yours. Whereupon you are immediately charged with a dozen felonies and back to jail you go.

Seriously, did you not read my post?


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


However though, this has nothing to do with her rights. She is in contempt of court my friend, WITHOLDING EVIDENCE is the worst thing you could EVER do. (in terms of our court system.)

They can make her sit in a jail cell the rest of her life, she is in Contempt! SHE has to turn over the evidence. That supersedes the fifth amendment. Its set up this way for a reason.

Imagine if CEOs could just destroy the evidence of their crimes or not turn it over because they "Plead the 5th, that evidence makes me look guilty!"


This women must not have a lawyer yet. lol you can't withhold evidence, especially if the evidence makes you look guilty!
edit on 24-1-2012 by truthinfact because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TheExopolitician
 

#1.Judges don't have secret service to protect them
#2. if it meant trading lives, who going first?
#3.why would anyone be stupid enough to let access to sensitive information or even the device for that matter if they were seriously breaking laws?
#4.if you were breaking the law then you better be prepared to do whatever is necessary to circumvent or silence the opposition
edit on 24-1-2012 by sweetnlow because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join