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.
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.
"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.
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
***PERSONAL NOTE***
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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):
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.
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:
Encryption is not the same as hashing, and the software we use (Hashcat) does not support encrypted documents, only password hashes.
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.
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?
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 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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Outside of those 2 very exceptional circumstances with very immediate and pressing demands? Well, that 5th Amendment was written to be absolute, IMO.