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: 8
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
It's pretty obvious they picked this specific case to challenge the this part of the constitution. If it were simply a case of someone stealing credit card information no one is going to say, "Dear god man we must know what's in those files, someone's credit card information could be at stake!"

They chose this case carefully, and under the suspicion there are going to be a number of people that are going to say, "The hell with his rights!" ...But that's the problem.

They do it today for illegal porn, tomorrow it's for something not even close to that.

The constitution has to be protected.

Which might be unfortunate in this case, but it's imperative in the big picture.


Indeed, this case reminds me a lot of how our Dear Leaders wanted to introduce internet censorship in my country. They linked it to child porn and as a result everyone who spoke out against the censorship was immediately suspicious of defending child porn. Quite a clever move, I must give them that.

In my opinion giving up the passwords would be a clear case of self incrimination and as such the suspect cannot be forced to give it up. I have heard of a similar case here in Germany, in which the suspect didn't have to give up this information either. The poilice didn't manage to crack the incryption and thus had no case.
edit on 5-6-2013 by Sirrurg because: ETA




posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
A few questions about this case have me scratching my head:


If the Police had a warrant for the data held in the crypto files, then not providing them is obstruction of justice. My question is what lead the authorities to this guy to begin with, and couldn't they just expand on that, or if they have to have the data on his computer why not just get a new warrant for that data?

Then there is this;



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
"which constitute child pornography" that's a vague statement. Here's why; You get have an opinion about something that offends some person. That person has powerful friends in the local government (maybe not serving in the local government, but possible fundraising for them). That person knows that you know that they're involved in a criminal activity, so they call in a favor.

Now your house is getting searched by local law enforcement (they don't know why, but have a general search warrant for illicit activities) Now what do they find on your computer? Apparently you've been to a questionable site (Maybe you like Japanese cartoons, On-line games, or you're part of an adult dating site) Now there isn't anything wrong with what you're doing, but in order to paint you as a lowlife of society the person who you have something on, now can say that you have items on your computer "which constitutes child pornography".

With this case if it is child porn, why not just call it that? unless they are just saying that in order to justify their actions.

Finally, I have to ask this:
Is this a real case, or is this whole affair a non-case that will be used to justify actions that violate Constitutional rights in the court system? What if you have gathered dirt of a local politician, and they find out about it? IF this case goes through the system and passes, then that politician could simply court order you to hand over your files and decrypt them. If they add in that you might be hiding child porn, then they get the public against you, and they've removed any files from your computer that might incriminate them.

What did it for me on this, is the part where it says that out of the 700,000 file only some of them have something that constitutes child porn. Is that what they want, or is it what's on the other 100,000s files?


***PERSONAL NOTE***


Really 700,000 files of questionable item? If all those files are porn (much less child porn), then this guy needs the kind of help only a full blown University study can provide.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 04:38 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.


That is actually a terrible comparison. Anyone could just bust their way into a locked file cabinet; the owner's assistance is entirely unneeded. An encrypted drive, however, may possibly not be accessible by any means without the owner's assistance; and that is where the self-incrimination issue is raised.

---

This sounds like one for the Supreme Court. There are definite constitutional questions raised.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 04:39 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.


No.

It's an act of self defense, not one of self incrimination. He is acting to defend his rights, not putting forth testimonial evidence of his own wrong doing.

Oddly enough, a potential criminal is defending YOUR rights much harder than you are willing to defend HIS.

I gotta wonder how that feels for you.

ETA: If I were in HIS shoes, and assuming that I was guilty, and the evidence they sought would be found upon decryption, I think what I would do would be to hold out until they really put the pressure on, then acted as if I cracked under that pressure and give them the key, THEN have it thrown out of court on grounds of a Constitutional violation, and walk away scot free when all their evidence just went legally POOF!

If, on the other hand, I were NOT guilty, I'd never, EVER give them that key, since the contents of the file(s) would be none of their damned business, because the evidence they sought was not in them.

Yes, I'm perfectly willing to sit in jail over principle, even when I'm innocent, and have done so. 3 hots and a cot, and I ain't gotta pay rent there.




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



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
You people and your stupid constitution...your willing to let a child molester free because you do not agree with how the courts are handling the case.

I do not have children but have great nieces and nephews...if your child had been molested...would you still fight for this guy and his rights....?

Be honest?


a. He is charged with child pornography, not child molestation.
b. He is not likely to go free. It sounds like they have a lot of other evidence against him.
c. Yes, I would still fight for his rights. They're not just "his" rights, they are all of ours.
edit on 6/5/13 by AnonymousCitizen because: typos


D He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law
edit on 5-6-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 05:04 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?


Yes, the same principle applies. If you have hidden a body (an illegal act) you cannot be compelled to disclose the location of it, since such disclosure would be prima facie evidence that you were guilty of hiding it.

If, on the other hand, you aren't the one who hid it, but merely stumbled across it during a walk through the woods (not an illegal act), you could be compelled to disclose the location where you saw it in passing if you went to the authorities and said "hey guys, I found a body".

IF, on yet another hand, the authorities said "you FOUND a body? Just like that you FOUND it? Hm, you must have hidden it there to have found it" and then proceeded to charge you with hiding a body, and possibly even the murder of that body, you could no longer be compelled to disclose the location, even though you didn't hide it or kill the person. The very act of accusing you of potentially having done so bars the state from compelling you to testify in the matter you are accused of.

At that point, THEY have to build the case and prove your guilt - you no longer have to prove your innocence.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by davespanners

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


Yup. The way around it is to crack the passphrase, rather than cracking the key. If one speaks a foreign language, and uses that for a passphrase, the dictionary sort of attacks get even more complicated - which dictionary to use, in which language? Suppose you have a passphrase in Arabic, but transliterated to English, and it's 128 characters long or so. Now, we've all seen that Arabic is transliterated to English in a number of different ways. So then, which transliteration system to use? That would affect the dictionary used. Pretty nigh impossible to guess.

Then you move to brute-force, where every possible character has to be run through for every position in the passphrase, which can be a bit tedious for a 128 character or so passphrase. 26 upper case chars plus 26 lower case chars plus 10 numbers plus several special characters. That makes a big potential number for EACH character position in the passphrase to be run through. If the passphrase is long, then the exponent you have to tag onto that number is the number of character positions in the passphrase - 128 in our example. "Some already really big number" ^128. That makes a lot of possible combinations. (I think the actual number of useable characters is 95, so it's 95^128 in this example, or 1.4x10^253)

Then, since you mentioned TrueCrypt, we have to add in a delay factor of "times seven" I think. That is because TrueCrypt doesn't know your passphrase, nor does it store it anywhere. It runs through the passphrase for each possible algorithm or combination thereof (which as I recall is around 7 currently for TrueCrypt) until it decrypts something that is "not gibberish". Then what you have is ("some already really big number"^128)*7 (i.e (1.4x10^253)x7).

That could take a while. Better put on another pot of coffee.

ETA:1.4x10^253 is: 140000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

At 1 billion guesses per second, that would take 4.46x10^236 years. The solar system is about 4.6x10^9 years old since it's inception. The universe is around 13 or 14x10^9 years old, so far.

That's how long and how many possible combinations for the passphrase. Now multiply that by seven for the TrueCrypt delay.

maybe better put on two pots of coffee.

Then there are people who use things like "Fido" for passphrases. less than a second and it's blown right open.







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



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
To me, they should go on that, why do you need more; unless...you are trying to set precedents by "forcing" him to incriminate himself on more evidence.


You do realize that this type of evidence is vital not only to putting away the filth that views it, but also in capturing and putting away the pathetic wastes of space that make it, right? I don't think throwing away the key on this guy is the ultimate goal here by the prosecution. They can effectively imprison him for the rest of his life by simply tossing his ass in GP and turning the other way when the other inmates do what should be done and painfully end his existence on this planet.

They need to know exactly what he has, EXIF data, file tags, etc to stop this at the source.

ETA: I have no personal or moral issues regarding enhanced rendition when it comes to obtaining evidence used to protect/save children. Instead of indefinite detention, they need to go full Gitmo on him and stop this foolishness immediately.
edit on 5-6-2013 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Delete
edit on 5-6-2013 by thepainweaver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
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.

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.
The guy who created the 25 GPU monster commented when asked about decryption and he made this clarification at the same link as the article (comments section):


Encryption is not the same as hashing, and the software we use (Hashcat) does not support encrypted documents, only password hashes.
So the 25 GPU monster will not break encryption. On the other hand, your comments seem to be based on brute force and brute force is only a last resort for both encryption and hashing. He also made this comment:


Brute force is just one method of offline password recovery that we employ. In fact, for most algorithms, brute force is a last resort. We have dozens of tricks up our sleeves that allow us to yield a very high percentage of user-selected passwords in a very short amount of time.

Apparently a secretive US government agency is building a supercomputer with the same power requirements of an entire city of homes, which some people think will be able to break the common encryption method you mention when it's complete, and, like the 25 GPU monster, it won't rely solely on brute force, so brute force calculations miss the point.

Of course the local police department has no such supercomputer so they would prefer the user to give up his password.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
You people and your stupid constitution...your willing to let a child molester free because you do not agree with how the courts are handling the case.

I do not have children but have great nieces and nephews...if your child had been molested...would you still fight for this guy and his rights....?

Be honest?


Yes I would because what comes around goes around. Do you think John Adams, while fighting to break off from England, ever thought more than to defend the very practices he was fighting to secure when he defended the British regulars after the "Boston Massacre"? Or countless other cases?

It is a simple principle; a person is considered innocent (in the eyes of the State) until proven otherwise. Do I think the guy is scum? Yep. Do I, personally think he did it? Probably. Would I defend him in the court of law if I were a lawyer in thisparticular matter? In a heart beat.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   

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"


Then...you wouldn't mind if I have access to your files? I mean, you have nothing to hide right? Open it up for all of ATS to see. 4th and 5th Amendments be damned!



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
You do realize that this type of evidence is vital not only to putting away the filth that views it, but also in capturing and putting away the pathetic wastes of space that make it, right?


You do realize that, beside our own personal beliefs of this gentleman, he is innocent before the State until the State can prove it otherwise. Hard concept to figure out huh?


They need to know exactly what he has, EXIF data, file tags, etc to stop this at the source.


They have secured the warrant to do so, but he doesn't have to incriminate himself for the State. It is THEIR job to find the evidence.


ETA: I have no personal or moral issues regarding enhanced rendition when it comes to obtaining evidence used to protect/save children. Instead of indefinite detention, they need to go full Gitmo on him and stop this foolishness immediately.


Even if you have no proof?! Nice -- please never run for office or hold any position of power in the Government.
edit on 5-6-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Then...you wouldn't mind if I have access to your files? I mean, you have nothing to hide right? Open it up for all of ATS to see. 4th and 5th Amendments be damned!
The network mentioned in the OP article has an option for users to not only share their files, but also an extra option to share their file lists so you can browse what they had. Years ago I was searching for physics literature using that network, and I ended up finding what appeared to be the computer of a university physics professor, based on the type of files he was sharing which was physics literature, some of it very advanced.

So I downloaded some of his files and nearly all of them were exactly what the filenames suggested, but there was one exception. I opened this file with a physics article filename, and I couldn't believe the shocking content was not what I expected and nothing like all the other guys files which contained genuine physics literature.

I guarantee you that this physics professor was completely innocent and had no intention of sharing an illegal file, yet without his knowledge he was doing just that. He probably downloaded that file from someone else thinking it was what it said it was, and hadn't opened it yet to see it wasn't what it claimed to be. That shook me up so much, I stopped using that network. But some people really are innocent...that professor was and I was...we were both victims of someone naming a file something that had nothing to do with the content.

So, if you've got a bunch of files you've downloaded from that network, even if what you did was perfectly innocent like what I did, if you haven't opened them all to see what's inside you don't know what kind of nasty surprises might be inside them that aren't what you expected to download. So he probably shouldn't give up his password even if he's completely innocent.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So, if you've got a bunch of files you've downloaded from that network, even if what you did was perfectly innocent like what I did, if you haven't opened them all to see what's inside you don't know what kind of nasty surprises might be inside them that aren't what you expected to download. So he probably shouldn't give up his password even if he's completely innocent.


One big difference here in this scenario though; can you spot it?

The network you accessed was opened up by choice of the owner. The State did not demand that the owner open it for them so they can find the evidence they needed. The burden of proof, in criminal cases, lies squarely on the State to obtain it.

So yes, this person should holdout. It isn't his job to build the case for the State to prosecute him. Simple 5th Amendment principles.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


You add a very interesting aspect to this that had occurred to me earlier as well. In considering just how much they may suspect they hold for child porn from this one guy, it may actually go beyond just prosecuting him for the 'compelling interest'.

It's possible that the sheer volume they think they see there contains a fair % they have not seen before and so, not indexed and digitally fingerprinted before. If they think he's got genuinely new child porn that they haven't had a chance to index, they may be relentless about it for the possibility of, as you note, tracking more back to it's source.

That could explain why they may already have enough to nail him but demand all of it, despite the added charges being little more than pile-on in his individual case. Hmmm.... I'd almost see their point too, but for that Constitution and our rights. Those still need to come first.

Only 2 situations in life, in my opinion, justify FORCED extraction of information in criminal cases. A true, no kidding 'Ticking Time Bomb' scenario and the case of a kidnapping where you have the kidnapper, you don't have the victim ...he knows where the victim is and no one else is involved to keep that victim alive. If the choice comes down to forcing the suspect, releasing him to save the victims life or letting the victim die? Well...I believe I recall reading about a Miami area cop years ago who was faced with that and gave up his career for what he did to the suspect in successfully recovering a kidnap victim, despite his....'reluctance' to share said information. The cop deserved to lose his career for it....but I respect what was done. I'm stretching my memory here, but I think it came down to a few broken bones in the end.

Outside of those 2 very exceptional circumstances with very immediate and pressing demands? Well, that 5th Amendment was written to be absolute, IMO.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
There is the odd chance that the person in the story might not have the decryption key.

Considering the Apple laptop computer, there is an encryption option and a key which has to be written down and kept in a safe place or else recovery is impossible. Doesn't matter the content of the computer if it's photos of child abuses or photos of everyday safe and legal family, if there is no key, the stuff is lost.

Here is the problem in the dangerous conspiracy parts of the legal system. Say there were a corrupt officer who had an open computer and put some data on there that would incriminate their suspect. You can't say it has never happened.

True story, I had some evidence, nothing obscene, regarding someone I knew who was doing criminal acts, and I naively brought it to the officials hoping to get justice happening. They take the computer away for a minute for security, tell me to my face they need the media on a DVD, and then hand back my computer. Well, that thing was encrypted, and when I went to access my computer, the encryption forced a computer breakdown on any non-passworded access attempts. Those dang authority types had screwed with my laptop behind my back at their office. Now I had no proof, and all the good stuff of my life in my computer was gone, to be rebooted at the computer store, thinking the whole time oh god I hope those people didn't put something on there to try to incriminate me. They would be the people with the resources for the worst evidence wouldn't they? And they couldn't keep their hands off my stuff, and well, who am I going to complain to about that, the authorities that just looked a gift horse in the mouth?

That is a demonstration how even on the best day with the cleanest media the law enforcement system is either hopelessly computer illiterate or full of potential saboteurs. So when I read about these authorities demanding to see what is on the computer, or else, there are those rules of evidence handling that is not being regarded in computers. Encrypt away, and lose the key. If what I read in those computer security magazines is true, the legal authorities don't know what they are doing with the computers after the devices have been seized, that the men and women are too old for the skills of investigating computers and are trying to act smart around new equipment to keep their job. My small experience says they are underqualified with their equipments. Maybe it's just a regional incompetence.
edit on 5-6-2013 by Sandalphon because: rules of evidence handling, look into it



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Only 2 situations in life, in my opinion, justify FORCED extraction of information in criminal cases. A true, no kidding 'Ticking Time Bomb' scenario and the case of a kidnapping where you have the kidnapper, you don't have the victim ...he knows where the victim is and no one else is involved to keep that victim alive. If the choice comes down to forcing the suspect, releasing him to save the victims life or letting the victim die? Well...I believe I recall reading about a Miami area cop years ago who was faced with that and gave up his career for what he did to the suspect in successfully recovering a kidnap victim, despite his....'reluctance' to share said information. The cop deserved to lose his career for it....but I respect what was done. I'm stretching my memory here, but I think it came down to a few broken bones in the end.


You bring up a good point of discussion here -- even though I disagree with it.

First, I do not accept your notion that anything is justified if it is "forced". To force, it would mean extreme measure such as torture or other means (threatening indefinite detention?).

Second, if the analogy you given happened, the "suspect" is still entitled to keep his mouth shut, barring my first point of torture. The only concession is a lessor sentence or a favorable DA.


Outside of those 2 very exceptional circumstances with very immediate and pressing demands? Well, that 5th Amendment was written to be absolute, IMO.


Respectably you fury Wrabbit, I disagree. Even immediate, it isn't the position of the accused (unless they like the plea deal or terms) to provide State's evidence to prosecute themselves.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 

lol... I figured I wouldn't get any love or fresh carrots for that sentiment voiced. You'll notice I also was clear to add that, as I recall, the guy losing his career over what was done was also justified. Taking a big stand can come at a big price and sometimes, that's how it needs to be too. Justified and legal are two different things, indeed.

The ticking time bomb scenario is the other and it's a toughie I think most people, if taking some time to consider the full meaning, will find equally hard to come to an easy and clear determination on. They did make a rather graphic movie exploring that whole idea.

Unthinkable

If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend it. It's not a popcorn and soda type movie to sit in on a Friday night and enjoy. No...Nothing close to that, I'd say. It's absolutely no movie to have a kid even walk through the room for either. It's a pretty hard core look at a pretty hard core topic. How far would you go in the ticking time bomb scenario if you knew, without question or doubt of any kind, the bomb was real and it was of the very large and very 'mass casualty' type? At the same time, I think the movie also explored the nature of having that measure come to backfire....and I'll leave it there for those who haven't seen it and still may. (Just know, for those who haven't yet, it's exceptionally graphic in spots, even by modern movie standards)

I debated whether to even mention these two situations as any exception of any kind...but figured it needed said for the sake of throwing it out there anyway. Child porn hardly qualifies to either of them and really, they are situations unique and as rare as they would be urgent.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Do bring it up though....love lost or gained, it is valid for discussion. I will have to view the video at a different time though. I respectfully disagree, though find your points entirely valid and most worthy of discussion.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join