Decrypt your drives or go to jail indefinitely!

page: 2
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




If I had stolen jewels and had them hid in a safe, and the cops had a warrant to search my premises but couldn't get into the safe unless I gave them the combination, is that in violation of the 5th?

I doubt it. Though, like miss Smiley, I am unsure.

Legally, by our constitution, the highest law of the land, no they cannot force you to do something to incriminate yourself. If they want the jewels, they have to find them ala Sherlock Holmes. What's next, they hold you in prison until you produce a murder weapon? What if you aren't really the killer? So you see how this could be abused.

edit on 4-6-2013 by WP4YT because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-6-2013 by WP4YT because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Thanks for the clarification.




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


If I had stolen jewels and had them hid in a safe, and the cops had a warrant to search my premises but couldn't get into the safe unless I gave them the combination, is that in violation of the 5th?

I doubt it. Though, like miss Smiley, I am unsure.

I'm not entirely sure about case law. It seems to be they could not force you to give the combination though? They could totally destroy your safe while you watched and then weep if no jewels had been there for the loss of your equipment over being stubborn. Same with Smylee's example of a locked filing cabinet. They can just destroy it in the process of opening it...but open, it will.

This does enter into a new area where they may literally not have tools up to the task of getting what they want without the full, willing cooperation of the suspect who stands to be convicted with what he helps them get?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I see why it's a predicament if the guy is forced to decrypt his own files, that's self incrimination and I can see why that might be a questionable issue. However, I don't see why the police just can't hire a techie to do it for them. It should be possible for someone that knows what they are doing to decrypt the files and see what turns up. Why is that so complicated? They don't have a moral issue taking the computer but they have an issue decrypting the files. How is that a violation beyond the taking the computer itself?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I have a question for anyone.

Could that damn NDAA play into this?

Now that would be worrisome now it's a scumbag, but what about someone like us? Wrabbit asked a good question this could effect people with more honorable intentions.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl
If they had a search warrant for pictures, say, and came across a locked file cabinet...could they open the file cabinet under the assumption that the pics might be there?


They can open it, but it is still the same principle: They cannot compel him to unlock it for them to obtain the evidence. Through a valid court order (that spells out the specific cabinet), they can use other means of breaking the lock. Locksmith, safe-cracker, Ocean Eleven team member; anyone but the person held under suspicion.


Seems to me this would fall under the same category. If the police are looking for child porn, and if this person downloaded said porn...chances are high he encrypted it. I don't think this should give him protection, nor do I think the fifth amendment should apply. I also think, if he refuses to decrypt, that the police have the right (under the search warrant) to decrypt it for him.


It does, but it is the State's burden to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence. Put it this way and think of it like this: If I purchased say, a beverage of the adult kind that was "banned" by the State, should I be forced to provide said State the evidence (the receipt) of that purchase? Highlighting the very important point of innocence is held by the accused until the State can prove otherwise.


I'll admit, Wrabbitt, I'm not well versed in constitutional law or police procedures. Maybe the police need a new search warrant that includes the encrypted files, to be safe.


Now Smylee....take this and teach those pliable young minds you so tenderly form into well-rounded, freedom loving, self-governing, kids of yours.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

.....decrypt one drive from Feldman’s “storage system” and discovered more than 700,000 files, some of “which constitute child pornography,”


This is what bugs me. It's worded in a way that doesn't specifically state there was 700,000 'porn pics', just files.
He encrypted files. The second thing is 'constitute' CP. Does this mean Japanese porn where the adults dress like that or anime type? Constitute seems like a broad net that allows interpretation to prevail. The story seems to me skewed a bit. I wont even touch on the fact that it may have been planted there as a way of slapping him down for denying access.

I am not saying he's innocent, but this story seems like an attack on any file share people regardless of it's content. If someone is accused of file sharing copyrighted material and he refuses on principle not to cooperate with decrypting his drives, the burden of proof should be on the accuser no matter what the content may be.

This is a very slippery slope, and I feel it is closely tied to those idiots in the tsa who need to access your laptop to board a plane. Like there is a threat to life and limb if you board a plane and play with your computer. If the thing can boot up, it's not a bomb. The files cannot crash the plane.

Back on topic, let the judges employ their IT geniuses to crack the drives and let the evidence hang him.
If they cannot find evidence, then kick him loose. Obviously they cannot get enough info from the p2p to prove content, but it's the court's job not the defendant's.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Upon further introspection, never mind the safe.

What if I hid a body and didn't/wouldn't reveal the location?

Wouldn't the same rules apply then?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Thinking about this for a few minutes it seems obvious to me that "they" will drop the legal case of self-incrimination at some point if he still refuses to decrypt. Even the American judiciary isn't that far gone yet to let this stand, and if it survived to the Supreme Court - which I now doubt - it would probably come down to a 9-0 decision in his favor. But the immunity angle is still interesting, and that's the most likely route I can "see" occurring.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Upon further introspection, never mind the safe.

What if I hid a body and didn't/wouldn't reveal the location?

Wouldn't the same rules apply then?


Of course. You could not be forced to reveal the bodies location. No matter how much evidence has surfaced that you hid a body. If the guy just sits tight he can probably ride this out, although if enough child-porn evidence is found without his assistance the maximum sentence may be the price he will have to pay.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl
reply to post by davespanners
 


Thanks, Davespanners.

Do the authorities truly not have the software to crack such a code? I would think the military could do it, but perhaps not.



As a guide, easily available encryption programs like truecrypt use AES encryption which can be 256 bit from wiki


AES permits the use of 256-bit keys. Breaking a symmetric 256-bit key by brute force requires 2128 times more computational power than a 128-bit key. 50 supercomputers that could check a billion billion (1018) AES keys per second (if such a device could ever be made) would, in theory, require about 3×10⁵¹ years to exhaust the 256-bit key space.

So thats 3000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years if Ive counted my zeros correctly.

I'm no expert on it so I guess there may be ways around it without using a bruteforce attack



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by shadow watcher
This is a very slippery slope, and I feel it is closely tied to those idiots in the tsa who need to access your laptop to board a plane.


I flew in and out of Texas last year. I brought my tablet with me on the plane. TSA never asked to access it; not even once. They just put it through the x-ray machine and let me walk off with it.

I'll be flying to Chicago in a few weeks, and I'm willing to bet the TSA won't ask to access my tablet—just like last time.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Upon further introspection, never mind the safe.

What if I hid a body and didn't/wouldn't reveal the location?

Wouldn't the same rules apply then?


Yep. Most "perps" give up locations for other reasons (plea deals, fame, etc, etc.); they are compelled by their own narcissism in other-words and the State knows that archetype to use it against them.

If say, I was accused by the State of Nevada of murdering 10 people and I didn't want to tell them where the bodies were, they cannot compel me. Now if they have found a couple of them and can link them to me, they may make a plea deal to obtain the rest of the information; but that is done outside the scope and freely by the accused.

Post Script:
The State has been known to flub the truth to get more information. That is why it is key to just stay quiet (especially if you are really innocent; no help for those that actually committed a crime).



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by shadow watcher
This is a very slippery slope, and I feel it is closely tied to those idiots in the tsa who need to access your laptop to board a plane.


I flew in and out of Texas last year. I brought my tablet with me on the plane. TSA never asked to access it; not even once. They just put it through the x-ray machine and let me walk off with it.

I'll be flying to Chicago in a few weeks, and I'm willing to bet the TSA won't ask to access my tablet—just like last time.


People are going to invariably mix this with the "border-zone" cases.....separate issue all together so be prepared.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 


Here's hoping Sankari. I don't travel by air anymore so it may be dated intel. There were articles about this debated here in the past. It was infuriating to read about that stuff. Maybe you didn't fit the profile of the month?
Who knows...maybe the tsa stopped checking.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Thanks for the clarification.



On the HDDs? Now you know and knowing is.....half the battle.

I think more people know this is right (no matter what we think of this guy) for him to stand tall. He needs to. I will back him not because I believe he is innocent, but because be will be a landmark case in our new age of technology.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I disagree to an extent because if you set the presidence (sp?) for decrypt on demand, it can be used as ammo for other instances. Self incrimination is not the answer.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
A question for all:

What is the difference of say, saved files on the computer and information in your head? It is after all, locked information right? Information that cannot be retrieved (yet) without your express and implicit agreement to give it.

That is the case. Think of this man's HDDs as an extension of his brain (creepy I know) and the State is compelling him to incriminate himself by allowing them to have unfettered access to that....

Stop it now or when technology reaches a point where they can gain viable information from our brains, they will point back to this case as it being allowable.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sankari
I am not a fan of people who think it's OK to bend and twist the Constitution in all directions just so criminals can stay one step ahead of the law.

If the guy is innocent he'll be happy to decrypt those files and prove it. At this point his refusal to decrypt them is an act of self-incrimination.


So what, now people have to prove they are innocent? He doesn't have to do anything, it is up to the public Prosecutor to prove he committed a crime. Yes, criminals may get off due to a technicality, but that is the price society pays for its freedoms.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
A question for all:

What is the difference of say, saved files on the computer and information in your head? It is after all, locked information right? Information that cannot be retrieved (yet) without your express and implicit agreement to give it.

That is the case. Think of this man's HDDs as an extension of his brain (creepy I know) and the State is compelling him to incriminate himself by allowing them to have unfettered access to that....

Stop it now or when technology reaches a point where they can gain viable information from our brains, they will point back to this case as it being allowable.



I couldn't agree more. I would like to read another article about this to see if those 700,000 files were actually porn or if they were just identified as decrypted files.





new topics
top topics
 
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join