DOJ: We can force you to decrypt that laptop

reply to post by Mumbotron


That still doesn't really answer my question, people who harp on about their rights automatically assume that everyone who should have these freedoms will be law abiding citizens.

Like I've said earlier, just turn it out around and look at it from a different perspective.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Not sure if you've heard about this or not, but technically you lose your rights when committing an illegal act.

When and where? What rights do you lose? Unless a prosecutor can persuade a judge that you are a risk (of either flight or possibly committing another crime in which you are being charged) you can post bail and live your life as normal, with no rights lost.

Not your human rights as stated in the Geneva convention, but any rights you have/had towards protecting you from being punished from a crime you committed you lose.

Being arrested does not grant the State power to declare you guilty and thus lose your protection from Government in regards to your rights. Even if you are caught in the act, in which my above statement regarding refusal of bail would come into play, you still retain the presumption of innocence. While overused by the media in their reporting, you are only alleged to have committed a crime. The State still must prove your guilt. You do not lose your right to not testify against yourself, you do not lose your right to face your accuser (this is up in the air with a recent Supreme Court ruling. I will find the ruling regarding this), you do not lose your right to a jury. Yet your assertion is that if you are charged, you lose all those because you are simply charged. If you have, then you need to declare incompetent representation.

Turn it around, every paedophile gen's up on Computer Security and manages to evade prosecution by refusing to provide the key and thus still is able to distribute images of child pornography ?

Would that be fair ?

I'll bite on your hypothetical, but as you have made clear, you believe that guilt is declared before innocence. The precedence you are advocating is that the Government can coerce an individual, under threat of force, to incriminate themselves. This is clearly a violation of the 5th Amendment. First, a search warrant is just that; permission granted to officers to search, not force you to point them in the direction to self-incrimination evidence. It can be specific to a computer, but how would they charge you if you forgot your password or key? How would they be able to force you, based on the sole evidence that they think you have images on the computer? You have simplified this so much that to support your argument that it fails.

[P]lease rights hugger's explain how it would be fair to for a person with stored child pornography on a laptop refuse to give his encryption key to the police?

What does fair have to do with it? Tell me, would it be "fair" to allow the Government to operate in such a manner that they can do whatever they want? To dig into personal lives (even more so than they do now) to get the information they want? In the court room, it is the prosecutions responsibility to obtain evidence and prove guilt in any charges levied by them.

Rights are not about fairness. I feel I just had this talk with my son. The only thing that should be fair, should be that we, as free people are all seen equally in the eyes of the law. Outside of that, life is not fair. Bad people get away with bad stuff. Good people go unnoticed for their deeds. Children grow up in bad neighborhoods, while their peers grow up in picture perfect ones. Your utopia is farce in regards to fair.

Okay... computer data security, let's see....

First off, when you delete something, your computer merely removes its entry in the table of contents.... and then it gets written over eventually.

SO, the best way yo delete that information, is to create a zip file (or other compression archive) and fill it with 10 kilobyte text files containing only the word "AboveTopSecret" over and over and over and over and over.... etcetera.

put like 100 gigabytes of those text files in that archive, it will compress to like, 50 some megabytes....

And then, when you mass delete all your stuff, just start uncompressing that bad boy... POOF! data overwritten.

Recovery? Im-Frickin-Possible.

Secondly?

What you do is get a usb flash drive, and fill it with completely random data.

And you use that flash drive as the encryption pad for your encrypted partition.

en.wikipedia.org...

What's your password?

LOL... "I don't remember it"

Yeah... good luck remembering a 20 billion charachter long string of completely random digits.

Computer security is easy if you do it right.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
the real question here is why do they need us to give them the passphrase when they are perfectly capable of decrypting it themselves [nsa].

answer: because its not about getting getting the material. its about getting your rights.

I'd actually agree to a point, I'm fairly certain there isn't any software on the Internet or available for civilian purchase that the Gov can't crack.

However, from a business perspective, putting in requests to other agencies costs money, time and computing power (which again costs money) when I'm sure the three letter agencies have better things to do doing with their mainframes.

But, thinking about the number of occasions (very small I'd guess) the regular cops run into encryption they can't break and require the suspect to hand over the key, I'd hazard a guess and say it would be feasible from a business point of view to hand these cases to the code crackers.

I'm not sure, rather than dwelling on the "rights" aspect. The law is the law, it's an offence to withhold your encryption keys and if you don't supply them you can be charged, if you really don't want to find yourself in that situation then either a.) don't do anything illegal, b.) don't store your information or anything that could be connected to your behaviour on a computer or c.) don't get caught.

There isn't really any more to the subject than that, and ultimately if your innocent wouldn't you just simply hand the key over?

edit on 13/7/11 by Death_Kron because: (no reason given)

perhaps in parts of the world where your guilty until proven innocent.

but in the united states, we make prosecuters, judges, and juries earn their keep.

im not sure what the motive is, but i know theres an alterior one. i would think in this day and age stuff like this is old hat to the various alphabet agencies, and is likely already privatized (fuzion centers come to mind).in fact i know it is because with the latest waves of new consumer based storage media, certain things that were not possible for the average peon, are now possible.

and im pretty sure they alphabet soups have had their terabyte harddrives a lot longer than we have.

but if your going to do something bad, its probably better that you assume the worst from the get go. me i would never assume i could hide some type of financial fraud using a consumer based algorythm, thats just foolish.

reply to post by Death_Kron


This is absolutely a violation of her rights and there is a very easy way to get to the problem you describe absent such a gross violation of rights.

Were someone to be suspected of comitting a crime for which there is assumed to be electronic evidence, they should present the person with a warrant for material pertaining to the offense in question. Should the person not want to simply hand over the PC to the police, which opens the possibility of planting evidence as well as giving the police access information that has nothing to do with the offense in question, covered under the warrant, but also may be illegal, the person should be simply be taken into custody with their PC and under the advice of a lawyer, be asked to produce the documents identified in the warrant. The disk should be copied prior to all of that activity taking place.

Why is it OK for us to insist that a lawyer be present when a person is being questioned, but not when this kind of information is being sought? This is different than a warrant looking for a knife or something, this is a item that contains massive amounts of personal information, much of it with the possibility of being taken out of context. I dirty cop can plant something on an individuals hard drive and extract it. They can't put it in their brain and then make them say it.

What safequards exist to guarantee that the police don't tamper/plant evidence on the drive? Is she being given some kind of documentation which depicts the technical details of the laptop prior to the police looking at it? Is she there when the report is run?

When the government presents a company with a supeona for certain information, they ask for the information. They don't come in and take over your data center. You are legally bound to produce the materials and the penalties for not doing so are draconian. What happens in that instance is that the materials and every e-mail, memo, you name it, are individually reviewed by attorneys and then submitted to the police with an attestation that all of it has been turned over.

Why are we giving corporations more rights than citizens with respect to electronic evidence?

The law has not caught up with the technology and these cases are good ones as hopefully they will get the law on track. These are not difficult problems to solve and can be solved in a manner that allows the police to get the criminals and protect the citizens, whether they be criminals or not.

Having read the article and giving it some thought, here is the following that can be stated:
This is a case where the spirit of the law is against what is written in the law, and there will be other cases such as this.
The 5 amendment states: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
And now there are cases that are coming up where modern technology has the evidence that may or may not contain data that would either proves a persons innocence or guilt. And the question must be asked as to how to balance the letter and the spirit of the law. In this case, if the warrant that is given to search such, is provided, then taking the 5th is not a valid excuse to prevent said excuse, as the warrant is very specific as to what they are looking for, and only what they are looking for. That means if police or detectives have a warrant to search a computer for financial information, then it is reasonable to be under the belief that if there is evidence of another crime that they come across, can not be admissible in a court of law, as the warrant did not specify such. And the person who owns the computer or may have committed a crime using a computer does not have to testify about the contents. However, they can be ordered by a judge, and it should be the one who granted the warrant in the first place, to give the encryption key, to the police so they may check. Rules of evidence has to be followed, as long as they followed all of the rules of said evidence, then such should be fine. However if they did not follow the rules of evidence, and hacked into the computer, then such is not acceptable and should not be allowable.
In this case, the suspect is accused of defrauding people out of money in a mortgage scam. So all of those people, and families could potentially lose their home, and the question must be asked would it matter if it was your home or your family? Lets say you were the victim, would you be happy to allow this person to get away with fraud, knowing you could end up on the street, and in a state like Colorado, where the winters could be harsh? No, you would not, and would demand and expect that all evidence, including that which is in a lap top computer, be examined and gone through and possibly that evidence used to save your home and that of your families. While this may seem harsh, ultimately this woman, if she is guilty, did more harm to a number of people, by defrauding them out of their homes and money, in an economy that is right now in a bad way. Just like Maydoff, and he did not have the right nor did his company have the right to withhold evidence when a warrant was presented, and would have to turn over the encryption keys for such.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Just like Maydoff, and he did not have the right nor did his company have the right to withhold evidence when a warrant was presented, and would have to turn over the encryption keys for such.

Exactly.

Without replying to everyone's replies individually, sdcigarpig's point above is simply all I'm pointing out.

It is illegal to withhold encryption keys.

reply to post by Death_Kron


It may be but it should not be. It should be illegal to withhold evidence, but turning over the PC (with encryption keys) which without question contains much information not covered under a warrant, unless the judge issued a warrant for "everything you can find about the person" should not required.

The level of encryption is irrelevant and is no different than were the PC to be in a box outfitted with high explosives. The warrant demands that specific materials be handed over and they must be. There needs to be protections against fishing they are relatively easy to design and implement. These designs could easily be implemented to ensure relevant material was not destroyed.

All we hear today, whether it be about the warrantless searches of smart phones, warrantless phone taps, web records and the like is that "we need it". Who cares if they need it? What do they need it for? They typically respond to those questions with some hypothetical description of capturing "serious criminals". Do we ever hear reports of how many personal devices were jacked open and nothing found or is that unimportant? Same with the provisions of the Patriot Act. All we hear is that they are "making us safer" but we never hear real statistics that would demonstrate how effective they actually are and allow us to make informed decisions about whether or not the laws are worth the freedoms they erode.

In this country the burden of proof is placed on the state for a reason. We're quickly moving to a place where suspicion is deemed equal to proof or reasonable cause and that is a very dangerous path to be walking down.

If criminals go free because the legal system can not evolve to adapt to protect the constitutional rights of citizens in an electronic age, then they go free.

reply to post by dolphinfan


Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't fully agree with the law on the matter but unfortunately things are as they are.

The point I was trying to make is that if it wasn't a crime to with hold your encryption keys then every man and his dog (obviously the people up to no good) would have the ability to store illegal information on encrypted hard drives safe in the knowledge that they police couldn't touch them.

It's not an easy situation, how do you know a suspect hasn't stored information on an encrypted hard drive if you don't check?

I'm fairly certain the authorities have reason to believe that relevant information to the case is stored on that computer, I honestly think to suggest otherwise is over dramatic.

reply to post by Death_Kron


I don't disagree with you, it is the law.

As far as the police not having reasonable suspicion that there is illegal information on the laptop, I don't disagree with that either. I disagree with the ability of the police to obtain information that is beyond the scope of a warrant, which by definition they are by simply be granted access to the information on the device. Controls can and should be implemented which enable the police to obtain what they are legally entitled to obtain while protecting that which they are not.

Those protections should also include measures which ensure that the initial state of the device is maintained to protect both the police from the destruction of evidence and the citizen from the planting of evidence by police.

reply to post by dolphinfan


With regards to carrying out what only what is defined is the search warrant, I agree. These types of things have to be done following protocol ensuring everyone is treated fairly, if the police haven't got a warrant to search the computer then they can't (or shouldn't) - although they will just proceed to submit an application to extend their powers on a case by case basis.

As I keep saying, I'm all for personal privacy but at the end of the day when your being investigated for committing a crime you have to accept that lose some personal freedoms in the process. I've had to do things that completely eclipse handing over encryption keys, was I happy about that at time? No... Did I have any choice? No, not really

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

It's a federal offence to not disclose an encryption key when required to do so by the authorities...

Not saying I agree with it, but imagine if you caught a terrorist (for the person in this example, a 100% proven guilty terrorist) who had information stored on an encrypted external hard drive which would prevent a few thousand people dying.

That's why it's an offence to not hand over the key.

edit on 13/7/11 by Death_Kron because: (no reason given)

It's a violation of the 5th Amendment to attempt to compel someone to relinquish their password. You can waive your rights if you want to, I guess, but I don't know why anyone would. Read and learn this website's motto. You'll be better off by doing so.

/TOA

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by DerekJR321
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

Doesn't matter. My "opinion" does not supersede someones rights.

Not sure if you've heard about this or not, but technically you lose your rights when committing an illegal act.

Wow, you're 0 for 2 here. You don't lose your rights if you commit a crime. You only lose some rights when convicted of a crime. But I see you live in the UK, so I can see where your skewed views of law come from.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American
Wow, you're 0 for 2 here. You don't lose your rights if you commit a crime. You only lose some rights when convicted of a crime. But I see you live in the UK, so I can see where your skewed views of law come from.

/TOA

That's really not true depending on what you have been accused of...

What about when your accused but not charged because the case needs investigating and your placed on bail until a decision has been made?

When on bail your not allowed to leave the country, so surely you have lost a right ?

Depending on what your accused of you might have to do certain things that I suspect many on here would say was a loss of a right, freedom, dignity.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
please rights hugger's explain

We're "rights huggers" now? Wow, I didn't realize that things were so dismal in the UK that the national malaise of being perpetually oppressed had permeated her subjects...sorry...citizens so deeply that America's rights are now to be scorned. That's pitiful, and I weep for you.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American
We're "rights huggers" now? Wow, I didn't realize that things were so dismal in the UK that the national malaise of being perpetually oppressed had permeated her subjects...sorry...citizens so deeply that America's rights are now to be scorned. That's pitiful, and I weep for you.

/TOA

Sometimes you have to do things you don't want to do, such is the nature of life my friend.

reply to post by Death_Kron

because even pedo's have rights and are protected by the constitution im not a fan of them but hey they still have rights and i think in your pedo case the cops would either crack the laptop or wait for him to screw up again and get caught beeing a creep or a deviant dosent remove your rights from you just for being one of those you have to be caught convicted and jailed for that kinda stuff to happen and as angry as it would make us the pedo is under no obligation to incriminate him/her self

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

because even pedo's have rights and are protected by the constitution im not a fan of them but hey they still have rights and i think in your pedo case the cops would either crack the laptop or wait for him to screw up again and get caught beeing a creep or a deviant dosent remove your rights from you just for being one of those you have to be caught convicted and jailed for that kinda stuff to happen and as angry as it would make us the pedo is under no obligation to incriminate him/her self

Paedophiles have no rights in my opinion, but this isn't what this thread is about so I don't want to derail it.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Just like Maydoff, and he did not have the right nor did his company have the right to withhold evidence when a warrant was presented, and would have to turn over the encryption keys for such.

Exactly.

Without replying to everyone's replies individually, sdcigarpig's point above is simply all I'm pointing out.

It is illegal to withhold encryption keys.

Two people have addressed your hypothetical after you called on us "rights-huggers" to do so and you have dodged them quite nicely.

Nonetheless, how does the State prove to a jury of your peers that you are withholding encryption keys? If they have solid evidence that logically leads to the storage medium contains pertinent information, then I can see how they can charge you...still unsure with what though.

Otherwise, how do you prove that I simply cannot remember my password? Maybe I just recently changed it just prior to being arrested and didn't write it down. How can I be charged with anything for simply forgetting? I would LOVE to be in front of that jury while the prosecution is presenting that case.

In any manner, if your whole case is built around opening up a storage medium that you cannot access, then I would say the case is weak and might want to build some more evidence.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Paedophiles have no rights in my opinion, but this isn't what this thread is about so I don't want to derail it.

This is EXACTLY what you have made the thread and your argument. Which is based on the premise that declaration of guilt is held as soon as someone is charged with a crime. Since this pertains to the court of law, and not that of public opinion or even your opinion, presumption of innocence is given and there is no title of "pedophile" because the crimes associated with have not yet been found true and of merit.