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.
How many people encrypt files if they don't have something to hide?
Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by kerazeesicko
The Constitution is in place to protect ALL American citizens, and if we start making exceptions for particular cases eventually it would lead to no protection for anyone as more and more exceptions would be made until the Constitution is eroded completely.
Originally posted by terriblyvexed
They should just crack them themselves.
I don't understand the law well enough to say if it's an infringement on his rights,I guess computers weren't considered at the time..lol
Indefinite detention with no trial that is just wrong (scum bag should be strung up) and violates his rights.
Unless he wrote some out of this world encryption algorithms the police should ask other agencies to assist with the decryption if they lack the resources. It is embarrassing that with the money thrown at defence and law enforcement that they have to ask this shlob for help in a case against him because he spent a couple bucks on some over the counter commercial software.
Assuming ideal performance and no downtime, one should be able to exhaustively search the key-space in over 20,000 years.
I don't actually know what it takes in order to encrypt or decrypt, so I'm not sure whether or not this is a feasible possibility.....
Originally posted by davespanners
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 [color=E6DEB8]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
Originally posted by Morningglory
Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by kerazeesicko
The Constitution is in place to protect ALL American citizens, and if we start making exceptions for particular cases eventually it would lead to no protection for anyone as more and more exceptions would be made until the Constitution is eroded completely.
I agree but in the name of protecting all American citizens exceptions are already in place concerning drugs/terrorism.
What could be gleaned from his hidden files? Could it save the lives of children who, by the very nature of the industry, are in imminent danger?
If the constitution is the last word then it should be across the board, no picking choosing who loses rights. If imminent danger is all that's required to forgo rights in the war on drugs/terror, then imo it should apply here as well or not at all.
Originally posted by maryhinge
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
if he has nothing to hide then open said files,
if he wont open files hes hiding something so
"simples"
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
If a judge orders you to decrypt the only existing copies of incriminating files, are your constitutional rights against compelled self-incrimination being violated?
...
In this case, it would appear to be the argument that because it's electronic and not verbal, it doesn't warrant the same protections?
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Tell me every secret you have...tell all of ATS
Every single deep, dark secret, thought, etc.
I mean, if you don't, then your hiding something...right?
Originally posted by KingErik
What if you don't have any secrets?
But they believe you do. Remember the Witch hunts in the dark ages?
Originally posted by DeeKlassified
I think in exceptional cases like this, i.e. child related, then you should lose your rights, because it's to help make the world a safer place, and that can't be a bad thing.