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.

 

Decrypt your drives or go to jail indefinitely!

page: 7
32
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:22 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?

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.

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.


If he does give out the password, and the encrypted drives contain evidence, then his life is in danger wherever he is (prison, solitary confinement, parole, release). If he doesn't give out the password, then he gets solitary confinement indefinitely.

Guess which option he is going to take?




posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
The porn stuff isn't imminent danger..its pics or whatnot of a crime that happened long ago..but some anti-government person learning how to make bombs and the like..now that is an imminent threat.

I would agree except for the recent case I heard about where a pedo was directing the abuse of children live on a web cam. Those children are in imminent danger.

I'm not in favor of going against the constitution for any reason but we are doing just that anytime it suits an agenda. If it's not ok to do it with pedos it shouldn't happen in the war on drugs/terror or when attempting to reinterpret the right to bear arms.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580

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.


Depending on the encryption a brute force attack could take years.
If he rar'd his files with encryption and the password is longer than 10 characters it could be impossible to crack.

Even with the latest techniques and hardware cracking encrypted files is not an easy thing to do.


Any password can be cracked in a week. This baby cracks passwords at a rate of 348 billion per second:

securityledger.com...



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Morningglory

Originally posted by SaturnFX
The porn stuff isn't imminent danger..its pics or whatnot of a crime that happened long ago..but some anti-government person learning how to make bombs and the like..now that is an imminent threat.

I would agree except for the recent case I heard about where a pedo was directing the abuse of children live on a web cam. Those children are in imminent danger.

I'm not in favor of going against the constitution for any reason but we are doing just that anytime it suits an agenda. If it's not ok to do it with pedos it shouldn't happen in the war on drugs/terror or when attempting to reinterpret the right to bear arms.

There are laws against that, yes. like about donno..10 maybe of what your describing. No constitutional ripping need take place to apprehend that ring if they can find it. Sensationalism always favors nonsense like that



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 
Sadly in the time and world we live in you have no rights due to 9/11 and other laws that have become law, all in the name of National Security. The Judge used the last bit of rights one still has , Ill bet when this does go before the higher court the 5thnwill be tossed aside. and the cops will be allowed to open files with out permission, just on the itchy toe suspicion.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by stormcell

Originally posted by grey580

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.


Depending on the encryption a brute force attack could take years.
If he rar'd his files with encryption and the password is longer than 10 characters it could be impossible to crack.

Even with the latest techniques and hardware cracking encrypted files is not an easy thing to do.


Any password can be cracked in a week. This baby cracks passwords at a rate of 348 billion per second:

securityledger.com...

Well, if it can crack anything......why is the world and the whole underground community still staring at "Working ....Please Wait..." screens on the AES protected Wikileaks Insurance file?

That damn thing is the best advertisement for encryption effectiveness of anything in the world. It's the only thing I believe actually has both Governments AND Private citizens alike working to crack and working it since it was released in Dec. of 2010. Still no dice. Still a locked door that no one has opened.

If that sucker ever gets cracked, the net will either rock with what is found in it ....The net will laugh at something like an Al Capone Vault/Geraldo Rivera moment, or that is when we'll see the first use of whatever "kill switch" they have or think they have for the whole thing at once. It sure won't stay quiet tho.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 


Hang him high? Thats a little strong I think. This is just a pervert who gets his jollies looking at kiddie porn - He didn't commit the greater crime of participating in the kiddie porn - he didn't have sex with and video or photograph the sex acts - those are the people they should spend this great deal of money on prosecuting.

Seems to me this guy needs mental help more than jail time. His crime ( assuming he's Only a watcher of the stuff) doesn't hurt anyone at all but perhaps himself. Now he's gonna be put in jail with loads of other offenders and not get any help he needs - but this association may even cause him to become a worse pervert. This shows how messed up and backward out legal system is.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 
one reason come to mind there is nothing there , just an empty file, i have a few on mine file name but no contents , searched for week , got the "still working" and when it did open no file just a *-* now there could be a code with in that of some sort but then , [ill deal with bugs on a daily bases, mouse moves by it self or screen freezes, red lines through out page, upload some of them free scans malware tools just to find out you got to pay for them, could be a debug or bug code left by them]



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


I think I'd be pretty shocked to learn Julian Assange bet his life on an empty file. After all, that was and is it's purpose. If he has some "accident", what's in there is supposed to be sufficient to burn those who would have been responsible to the ground. It's also a big sucker....or..ahem..so I've been told.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I believe this should be looked at from a different angle.

This case could be seeing light NOT b/c of the constitutional issues, (Which, let's be honest, doesn't really matter in today's day & age, and most here know it) but the further public insistence that we voluntarily give up our rights in the interest of "the children".

In short, this will set precedent, and yet another right will be more firmly "non-existent". To the point that the public will no longer be so upset when it happens to them.

Hell, with the number of times the govt. has played both sides, I challenge anyone to prove the guy isn't some patsy/fed.

In short, it isn't that our rights are under fire, (they don't exist when it's inconvenient) rather the ILLUSION of said rights are now being swept away.

Big difference.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

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.


Huh you sound like Hopechest.....

The constitution stands or falls but theres no halfways measures....the rest is just Bulldooey



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

A portion of his drives are encrypted and the police can't or won't crack the encryption.



It would be mildly interesting to know which encryption package he used. Still, there is a legitimate purpose for encryption, which is to basically keep nosey people out of your stuff. In cases like this, though, it rises to a whole new level. In times like these when the government can no longer be trusted to guard your rights, some times you have to guard them yourself. Strong encryption gives Joe Average the ability to guard his own stuff against 4th and 5th Amendment infringements that are becoming ever more commonplace. There are combinations that can be used which will take longer than the current age of the universe to crack using current technology in a brute-force attack, and even government can't crack that.

I reckon it must really gripe their asses when Joe Average says "uh, not so fast there, bucko."

This part, however, gives me pause for thought. Something doesn't smell right here:





But last month, prosecutors convinced Callahan to change his mind. Among other reasons, the authorities were able, on their own, to decrypt one drive from Feldman’s “storage system” and discovered more than 700,000 files, some of “which constitute child pornography,” the magistrate said.
Source


Wait... WHAT? They've already got the evidence to prosecute decrypted, but just want a little MORE, and so are willing to Gitmo the poor sap to get it? If they already HAVE the evidence, they don't need any further decryption. I see a few different possibilities here -

a) They're lying, have nothing, and are trying to soften the target up and convince him it's all over but the crying so that he gives up the keys, thinking he's already lost. Not a new LE tactic, but pretty unlikely to work if he really DOESN'T have an kiddie porn, and already knows that. Not much incentive in caving to an obvious bluff, if you already know it AIN'T there.

b) The prosecutor wants to add to his OWN kiddie porn collection, and what they've found just isn't enough to feed the monkey on his back. Also not unheard of. They can prosecute on ONE photo - so why would they need more? Answer: monkeys. Vicious, back-riding, pedo bear monkeys.

c) It's not about the pr0n or the prosecution of Feldman at all, and this is just a vehicle to further disassemble the Constitution, and build a back-door into the 4th and 5th Amendments, making them effectively invalid. ALSO not unheard of - just look around to see all the others under attack this instant, from the FBI and DoJ violating the 1st to congress's incessant assaults on the 2nd, and on, and on, and on, right down the whole list. All happening RIGHT NOW. This would just add two more amendments to their shopping list of things to burn.

Strong encryption throws a road block in those plans. it tells the gummint in no uncertain terms that "my business ain't none of yours", and I reckon that upset them to no end.

d) They've decrypted nothing, but planted evidence (also not unheard of) and desperately need his encryption keys so they can plant MORE inside the encryption, which they can't do without the key.



Why oh why is it the most critical cases of Constitutional Law seem to involve the absolute least sympathetic defendants and cases? It's hard to even suggest something which may benefit a kiddie porn user.


Yes it IS, isn't it? That is the gut-punch that keeps on punching, which is why it's the first accusation trotted out by people who want to violate you at a gut level, but have nothing else to do it with. The mere accusation is often enough to follow you around and poison the well for years after. It's often enough to get people to convict in the court of public opinion with no evidence whatsoever under emotion-laden charges of that nature. You'd be amazed at what folks will give up to "prove their innocence" under such circumstances, forgetting altogether that it's not their job to prove anything, it's the prosecution's job to prove a conviction.

So far, in cases involving encryption, the consensus seems to be that if the password is WRITTEN any where, it may be compelled under the 4th Amendment which specifies allowance for seizure of "documents and effects", but if it is NOT written anywhere, then it can only be produced by oral testimony, which is prohibited by the 5th.

It looks to me like what they may be doing here is to set precedent to allow for compulsion under EITHER of those cases, and merely using charges of "child porn" as leverage to get that done.



edit on 2013/6/5 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:47 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?


This isn't something the defendant would be required to give them a key to. They could have a locksmith open it with a warrant the defendant isn't required by law to incriminate himself. Just because they cant find someone to decrypt the files is not the defendants fault. This specific case falls under the 5th amendment and he should never be required to speak or provide any proof of anything that would incriminate him.

So if they have a warrant go get a locksmith or a cracksmith if you will. Its still the same issue defendant has a 5th amendment right and the right to remain silent. I would forever remain silent in this situation although they already have him if they decrypted the other drive its really a moot point.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl

Originally posted by InTheFlesh1980
Saw this in the news... tough call. I hate the child porn pervert but I love the freedoms defined by our laws (the implementation of which is debatable),

I'd have to side with the 5th Amendment. If he's guilty, prosecutors please find something else (anything) other than forcing him to decrypt his drives and self-incriminate.

What a screwed-up world we live in.


Indeed.

What if the only evidence lies in these encrypted files? Maybe I'm missing something, but why can't a search warrant include encrypted files?


It DOES include encrypted files (per the search warrant), and they have those files in their possession, apparently, but cannot decrypt them. What it DOESN'T include, and what it CANNOT include, per the 5th amendment, is compulsion of the defendant's testimony - i.e. force him to supply the password to them. They've got to crack the encryption on their own. They've actually got to WORK according to the US Constitution. Sucks to be them.

I think the current argument involves "if we get him to enter the password and decrypt the files, then he's not testifying to anything, and we can still poke around in his encryption". That MAY follow the letter of the Constitution - that hasn't yet been determined if it does or not - but it absolutely rapes the spirit of it, by still forcing testimony without a word ever being spoken.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by stormcell
 


I still stand by my statement.

Not to get into a huge discussion about rainbow tables and hashes.
That 25 GPU monsther there was used in conjuction with hashcat.
Which is great for the following algorithms.



Algorithms

MD5
md5($pass.$salt)
md5($salt.$pass)
md5(unicode($pass).$salt)
md5($salt.unicode($pass))
SHA1
sha1($pass.$salt)
sha1($salt.$pass)
sha1(unicode($pass).$salt)
sha1($salt.unicode($pass))
MySQL
phpass, MD5(Wordpress), MD5(phpBB3)
md5crypt, MD5(Unix), FreeBSD MD5, Cisco-IOS MD5
MD4
NTLM
Domain Cached Credentials, mscash
SHA256
sha256($pass.$salt)
sha256($salt.$pass)
descrypt, DES(Unix), Traditional DES
md5apr1, MD5(APR), Apache MD5
SHA512
sha512($pass.$salt)
sha512($salt.$pass)
sha512crypt, SHA512(Unix)
Domain Cached Credentials2, mscash2
Cisco-PIX MD5
WPA/WPA2
Double MD5
LM
Oracle 7-10g, DES(Oracle)
bcrypt, Blowfish(OpenBSD)
SHA-3(Keccak)
Half MD5
Password Safe SHA-256
IKE-PSK MD5
IKE-PSK SHA1
NetNTLMv1-VANILLA / NetNTLMv1+ESS
NetNTLMv2
Cisco-IOS SHA256
Joomla
osCommerce, xt:Commerce
nsldap, SHA-1(Base64), Netscape LDAP SHA
nsldaps, SSHA-1(Base64), Netscape LDAP SSHA
Oracle 11g
SMF > v1.1
OSX v10.4, v10.5, v10.6
MSSQL(2000)
MSSQL(2005)
EPiServer 6.x
OSX v10.7
vBulletin < v3.8.5
vBulletin > v3.8.5
IPB2+, MyBB1.2+



AES which rar uses is not there.
A reasonably secure password that some 11 digits or longer would still take years to crack even with that monster.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeLeu
I think that if the guy has nothing to hide then he should comply with the courts request, especially if it could prove his innocents to the charges he is facing. His failure to do so kind of makes him look guilty, just sayin'.


NO!

I don't care if all he has encrypted is his great-grannie's secret recipe for peanut butter cookies, it is STILL a violation of his privacy, a violation of the 5th Amendment, and sets a very dangerous precedent.

It's an issue of principles.

What are one's principles worth? What would it take to get him to sell out his principles? How far will he go in allowing - no, ASSISTING - the government in violating his rights and principles?

What about when they say "well this guy gave up his rights, so YOU need to as well"?

What are your principles worth? You've got to stand for something, or fall for anything.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
They have the right to ask for the keys.

He has the right to remain silent, and not provide anything that might be used against him.

They might try to extract those keys with threats of permanent incarceration.

But, here's the interesting question.

If he gives up the keys, under duress, and they unlock the files and find the evidence they want, can they legally use that evidence, given how they obtained it involuntarily with threats?

Shouldn't a court throw out all evidence obtained illegally?

Isn't it illegal to misrepresent the law, and tell the suspect that "He doesn't have the right to remain silent?"



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Edonkey is older than broadband internet. I used to file share using E-Donkey back around 2001/2002



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


As long as it has the potential of being a party to, harm to others, they should be looked into. It reminds me of when a store thinks that you are guilty of shop lifting, they had better be damn sure or you have the right to sue the pants off of them. In this case it could be about our civil liberties being infringed upon, or it could be using the system to harbor a criminal.
Either way now there really does need to be an unbiased outside witness to what they discover once encrypted.
edit on 5-6-2013 by antar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:55 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. 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.


I know I'm dragging this back up from page 2, but I wanted to add clarification to this bit. For the job, I used to fly cross country with a ton of electronics.

TSA can ask you to power on the machine (any electronic device) to prove it's a working device, and not a shell for explosives. They have no right to access your data, merely to prove that your computer is a computer. They can, at their discretion, swab any electronics for explosive residue. Fortunately, this process only takes about 3 extra minutes, and then you get a shiny sticker that exempts your goods from inspection the rest of the journey



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join