Decrypt your drives or go to jail indefinitely!

Another thought. He likely has evidence on those drives to get a lot of other people in serious trouble, and maybe he knows that some of them don't play nice. So he may fear for his life, even if he makes a deal, and may just decide to sit silent, hope for the best, and serve some time. Or have I watched too many "Castle" episodes. I'd better stick to "Psych".

Originally posted by shadow watcher
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.

I think something was lost in translation. I am a stout Constitutionalists (of Adams and Madison sort; just ask the Beezer Bunny -- he keeps going and going and going).

This man has a case that should end up at the top. Even then, it violates the basic Natural Right that we are innocent until the accuser can prove otherwise. Here, we have a jury system of peers (and you should always demand that jury; the Constitution expressly states you have the Right to do so).

Upon rereading I too figured I must have misunderstood something.
We are on the same side of the fence on these issues.

I do feel that if allowed, we will be screwed later down the line where stored data is concerned.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Agreed. This case, though disgusting, might be setting a precedent.

reply to post by Sankari


Wait, the point of the constitution is to protect the people from the government, not to help catch criminals. Trying to use it for the latter would be bending it.

I am interested (for philosophical purposes and critical thinking) of those that believe he should be compelled to provide the information the State demands. Not to berate, it is a good topic of discussion to expand on. I am interested as to why people think he should be forced (if that can be done, we are in bigger trouble than we thought).

Should compulsion be proportionate to the levied crime?

seems to me that this guy is a porn addict who probably downloads anything without looking at the contents, the fact that only some is child porno yet still not enough to incriminate makes me think that it was stuff that was mislabeled, misleading or planted online to trick people into downloading child porn unaware.
decrypting the rest could land him in prison for things on his computer that he's unaware of, maybe thats why he refuses to do it, not because he's guilty but because he is afraid what else got on it without his knowing.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I was hesitant to look too closely at first because the supposed crime is disgusting. I know that should colour my opinion, but it does.

Perhaps that is the true test to the Constitutional aspects of any case.

To overcome ones personal bias and look at the case without personal judgment.

Originally posted by namehere
seems to me that this guy is a porn addict who probably downloads anything without looking at the contents, the fact that only some is child porno yet still not enough to incriminate makes me think that it was stuff that was mislabeled, misleading or planted online to trick people into downloading child porn unaware.
decrypting the rest could land him in prison for things on his computer that he's unaware of, maybe thats why he refuses to do it, not because he's guilty but because he is afraid what else got on it without his knowing.

Which again, plays a vital role. What does the search warrant state? They are to be specific. If they find say, photos of different crime and the warrant was for "photos pertaining to child pornography"; the other photos are not to be touched.

We have given way to expedience and it is really nipping us in the bud now.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

I was hesitant to look too closely at first because the supposed crime is disgusting. I know that should colour my opinion, but it does.

Perhaps that is the true test to the Constitutional aspects of any case.

To overcome ones personal bias and look at the case without personal judgment.

John Adams stood in court as the attorney for the very soldiers and Country he committed treason against in regards to the Boston Massacre. That is the true testament of the Rule of Law. You stand for it, even when the "mob" demands otherwise.

What happens if they want me to decrypt my files, but cant? I had an issue recently where I had to re-install windows and discovered a bunch of photos and videos had been encrypted by mistake on the old install. Luckily I had a back-up image and was able to export my certificate and decrypt everything. Fortunately I did it just before my old motherboard died completely. If that happened, I would've been up the creek.

Originally posted by davespanners
reply to post by smyleegrl

 

I think the issue isn't that the police need permission to unencrypt the file but rather that i would take an inordinate amount of time and resources for them to be able to decrypt it at all.
So rather than a filing cabinet imagine an impenetrable safe with a 3000000000 number combination lock and you will be sent to jail if you refuse to tell the police the combination

A similar thing has already happened in the UK linky

A teenage takeaway worker has been jailed for four months for refusing to give child protection police the password to his computer.

Oliver Drage was originally arrested in May last year by a team of officers from Blackpool tackling child sexual exploitation.

The 19-year-old's computer was seized but officers could not access material stored on it as it was protected by a sophisticated 50-character encryption password.

^ this sums it up ^


I am an IT technician so perhaps i will give my 2cents.......

one of two things are true.... the encryption is such that either it cannot be broken with out an outragous expense to the prosecution on the hunch it can even be broken

or

the prosecution is lazy would would rather force him to do it himself. I dont believe the issue stands with the encryption so much...
(with enough time, money, and brains you can decrypt, dare i say, all consumer grade encryptions)

But rather the state trying to force someone to self encriminate. if they can set the president with child porn they could do the same with say... political activities (look at recent IRS scandal) or any activity that at some point is deemed unlawful or in poor taste by those who rule us.

that being said...... i am in no way defending him.. but i know enough about technology given my profession to say that forcing him to do the encryption shows they either want to set the bar for the future or believe themselves incapable of doing it.




p.s.
If i were on their tech team i would be foaming at the mouth for the chance to crack his bs encryption and put the scum bag away (should he be guilty) myself. a great deal of satisfaction would come from that. the latter just seems to me to be like holding a gun to someones head to get them to do what you are not capable of doing.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I re-read the 5th amendment just to be sure, but I don't think it is legal for them to force him to unencrypt his files if by doing so he would incriminate himself. As much as child pornography makes me sick to my stomach I believe he should be covered by the amendment. The police should have to hire a professional to get into the files even if it costs many man hours and lots of taxpayer money. It sucks, but it is what is right.

They could get around this by cracking the files themselves. This can and would be used as a landmark, to side step the 5th Amendment, when it comes to computer files.

Originally posted by DAVID64
They could get around this by cracking the files themselves. This can and would be used as a landmark, to side step the 5th Amendment, when it comes to computer files.

They have valid and legal possession of the HDDs in question, that is of no doubt. They however, cannot break the encryption of those HDDs. Equate this to a safe, a mailbox, a safety deposit box, a locked room, etc. All of those it seems many are okay with the State taking means to get into, but this case it seems, they believe the person should be compelled and "forced" to provide that access.

reply to post by GrimReaper86

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?

The whole point of good encryption is that despite the knowledge of how it is done, it is very difficult, based on the number of operations required, to fabricate enough keys randomly to find the correct one. It is a time issue. If not the encryption would be worthless.

Originally posted by roadgravel
The whole point of good encryption is that despite the knowledge of how it is done, it is very difficult, based on the number of operations required, to fabricate enough keys randomly to find the correct one. It is a time issue. If not the encryption would be worthless.

If quantum computers ever become commonplace that will be a trivial problem to solve then. If that happens, I'm not sure how computer security and privacy will be handled.

reply to post by Junkheap


With quantum based encryption, I would imagine.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I think that may be their whole idea. Use this case to set precedent for future cases involving encrypted files. If they can force him to de crypt them, they have side stepped the 5th.

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by Junkheap

 

With quantum based encryption, I would imagine.

The sophistication of the encryption matters not -- may it be a simple key or a complex algorithm -- we are not compelled to provide evidence against ourselves for the State. That is their job.

If we speculate how quantum encryption takes place and this case goes through where the State can compel us to provide them access to such systems, it matters not how sophisticated the password or encryption is; it is compelled.

Don't wait for that leap, stop it now.