61–70 of 504 posts
This is a good reason to have TrueCrypt hidden volumes and other forms of steganography. You can decrypt and still have more stuff that looks like random junk. No one can be sure you decrypted everything. The best idea however is to have sensitive stuff stored encrypted on freenet, and log in using incognito browser sessions.
What exactly do you think they're going to do if they don't believe you've decrypted everything?
He shouldn't have to decrypt his hard drives, and I support his decisions. The problems with this are numerous. First of all no one has any duty to provide the police with evidence as a 5th amendment protection. It's not a "right" for the police at all to have. Imprisoning someone for failure to disregard their constitutional rights is absurd. They have no evidence to hold him period.
"no one has any duty to provide the police with evidence as a 5th amendment protection" I like that idea. However, the 5th amendment's protection is something different: "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Consider the case of someone running a drug lab or counterfeiting press in their residence. Police show up with a warrant based on probable cause to search the resid…
"I forgot the password" Problem solved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very interesting. You don't have any need for persistent storage that exceeds the amount of information that can be remembered? (E.g. work artifacts, photos, passwords)
I don't want to assume on spaceboy's behalf, but I think all you need is to remember a master password to some sort of (online) password manager. From there you could use cloud services (eg. Dropbox) to access such documents. Securing cloud hosted documents is obviously another discussion.
[1] https://tonyarcieri.com/4-fatal-flaws-in-deterministic-passw...
[2] Also related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13016132
"I forgot the password" Problem solved.
He shouldn't have to decrypt his hard drives, and I support his decisions. The problems with this are numerous. First of all no one has any duty to provide the police with evidence as a 5th amendment protection. It's not a "right" for the police at all to have. Imprisoning someone for failure to disregard their constitutional rights is absurd. They have no evidence to hold him period.
> First of all no one has any duty to provide the police with evidence as a 5th amendment protection. Apparently all these amendments are open to all kinds of BS interpretation by courts, with loopholes like "you don't really expect privacy when you send snail mail", "some random gun freak is the same as a well armed militia", "corporations are people" and other such shenanigans.
I think the correct interpretation of the various amendments is to view them in conjunction with the ninth. That is, the default should be to argue in good faith about what rights the amendment is attempting to preserve, not nit-picking them to find technicalities that the state can use to limit or restrict someone's rights.
Your hint at the 2nd Amendment is one such example: it's clear from reading other writings by the Founding Fathers that the 2nd Amendment was written to allow an individual to own firearms. Likewise, the 5th Amendment should be interpreted to allow an individual to refuse anything a court orders him to do that would force him to reveal evidence or testimony that could be used to incriminate him. I would argue that the entire point of that part of the 5th is to prevent exactly what is going on here: torture (involuntary imprisonment without conviction) used to coerce a confession.
Hopefully this issue is decided properly, as we are rapidly approaching a time where it may be possible to do a fMRI-like scan of someone's brain to determine guilt/innocence. Should we allow a court, with only a search warrant, the ability to scan our brain and possibly uncover other evidence of crimes?
He shouldn't have to decrypt his hard drives, and I support his decisions. The problems with this are numerous. First of all no one has any duty to provide the police with evidence as a 5th amendment protection. It's not a "right" for the police at all to have. Imprisoning someone for failure to disregard their constitutional rights is absurd. They have no evidence to hold him period.
What happens if he says he doesn't remember his password anymore? ie: sits down, and seemingly tries to decrypt, but tries 1( or 50 times) and says "Oh shucks, I forgot"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> First of all no one has any duty to provide the police with evidence as a 5th amendment protection. Apparently all these amendments are open to all kinds of BS interpretation by courts, with loopholes like "you don't really expect privacy when you send snail mail", "some random gun freak is the same as a well armed militia", "corporations are people" and other such shenanigans.
Yes. That's the problem with the whole "this is a government of laws, not men" idea. The laws are always, always interpreted by men. They are enforced (or not) by men, at their discretion. It's much like the "thou shalt not kill" commandment in the Bible. It's there in black and white, and about as clear and simple as you can get. Yet plenty of Jews and Christians kill, and often do so eagerly and joyfully, even thin…
Hell’s foundations quiver
At the shout of praise;
Brothers, lift your voices,
Loud your anthems raise.He shouldn't have to decrypt his hard drives, and I support his decisions. The problems with this are numerous. First of all no one has any duty to provide the police with evidence as a 5th amendment protection. It's not a "right" for the police at all to have. Imprisoning someone for failure to disregard their constitutional rights is absurd. They have no evidence to hold him period.
"no one has any duty to provide the police with evidence as a 5th amendment protection" I like that idea. However, the 5th amendment's protection is something different: "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Consider the case of someone running a drug lab or counterfeiting press in their residence. Police show up with a warrant based on probable cause to search the resid…
The difference between a lock and encryption is that all locks in the physical world can be broken by outside parties. If someone doesn't want to open the door for a search warrant, the cops can bust it down. That can't be done with encryption. The only metaphorical equivalent to breaking encryption would be to brute force it which, given proper encryption, is unlikely to succeed. So now we have an innocent person being held indefinitely based on some metaphor the courts decide must hold up in the real world that has no real world basis in reality. Instead of the courts logically following up their own thinking, they now expect the defendant to do the police and prosecutor's work.
If it's a lock, the police/prosecutor should break it after obtaining a warrant. It's not the defendant's job to testify and give them the information they need to break it. If they are incapable of carrying out their job, why should the innocent defendant be compelled to do it for them?
Why should the innocent defendant be made to languish in jail indefinitely because the police/prosecutor are inept and incapable of doing their job without reverting to unconstitutional tactics?