Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 504 posts

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#101

Post by sologoub »

Modern encryption isn't that much difference in basic concept to a cipher, such that it takes data in readable form and makes it unreadable.

In Apple/Gov dispute on the San Bernardino iPhone case, Gov brought up the Burr case from 1807, arguing that a 3rd party could be compelled to decipher the contents, provided there was no self-incrimination (Apple argued Burr did not apply): http://www.macworld.com/article/3046095/legal/burrs-cipher-s...

Does anyone know if there has been an attempt to equate decryption to deciphering in US courts?

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#102

Post by jacquesm »

jakeogh wrote: post #62
droithomme wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Now extend that thought line to embedded brain chips. I don't like where it goes.

Well, they could be un-embedded and read out the hard way.

(Might still be encrypted after that, but the data is going to be made accessible one way or another unless the device self destructs and you won't be storing the key in there but in your wetware.)

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#103

Post by ommunist »

Humanity is really close to produce tech that quite literally reads minds. Since those are not easily encrypted, what prosecution awaits judges so much obsessed with illicit topics, like the one discussed in this article? Either we'll have an orwellian "thoughtcrime" to become reality, or we change the legal system. For the moment, it is obvious that American legal system and basic information technology are quite different worlds.

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#104

Post by jliptzin »

droithomme wrote: post #37
AckSyn wrote: post #17

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…

And what happens if he actually forgot the password? Then what?

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#105

Post by godelski »

jamessb wrote: post #76
godelski wrote: post #71

From what I understand our legal system was designed to fail "open". Or rather that we are willing to let a guilty person go free rather than an innocent person go to jail. I know everyone wants to have a perfect justice system but we have to ALSO decide which direction we would like it to fail until that time comes (never). In essence cases like this are more about this question. When the system fails, which directi…

As a starting point, see the Wikipedia article on Blackstone's formulation [1]: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". It refers to an interesting article, "n Guilty Men" [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation [2]: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm

Thanks, these are interesting reads.

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#106

Post by throwanem »

coldtea wrote: post #88
throwanem wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do we care for people distributing "illegal material" in the first place? Is "distributing child pornography should not be a crime" really the hill you want to die on?

No, it's the "abolish BS laws" hill. How about creating child pornography being a crime? That's what's actually hurtful.

Pretty sure that already is a crime. But I gather there's a large quantity of the stuff that exists already. Your proposal ignores it - legalizes its distribution, in fact. Why?

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#107

Post by dmm »

bluejekyll wrote: post #92
briHass wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The examples you chose are interesting, not only because they reveal an obvious bias. 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 hi…

> it's clear from reading other writings by the Founding Fathers that the 2nd Amendment was written to allow an individual to own firearms. This is irrelevant, it matters what made it into the contract, i.e. Constitution. The second amendment in full is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A well regulated mi…

The supreme court has ruled that the second amendment protects an individual's right to own guns and that right cannot be removed by states. If you don't like that get 2/3rds of congress to agree with you and change the constitution.

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#108

Post by jakeogh »

jacquesm wrote: post #102
jakeogh wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now extend that thought line to embedded brain chips. I don't like where it goes.

Well, they could be un-embedded and read out the hard way. (Might still be encrypted after that, but the data is going to be made accessible one way or another unless the device self destructs and you won't be storing the key in there but in your wetware.)

Compulsive surgery before a conviction? Even worse.

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#109

Post by jacquesm »

tjalfi wrote: post #79
beezle wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few points - Devils advocate, travel back to the 1950s. The government searches your home and takes a letter or other document that is clearly written in code. Can/would they jail you as in the current case until you decode it? And without even charging you with any other crime first? At what point is "I used a one time pad" or "I don'remember" sufficient? I'm sure all of us have at least once (probably many) times…

This reminds me of Les Earnest's story ( http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/les/crypto.htm ) about being investigated for espionage as a teenager during WWII.

> I remember hearing that a local grocer was secretly a Colonel in the Japanese Army and had hidden his uniform in the back of his store. A lot of people actually believed such things.

Some things never change.

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#110

Post by shrimp_emoji »

throwanem wrote: post #54
coldtea wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As expected on HN I am not surprised to see people defending one's right to privacy and encryption. However, what's the solution then ? If all the "bad guys" who distribute illegal material do so encrypted volumes and refuse to give up the decryption key then what do we do ? Why do we care for people distributing "illegal material" in the first place? And how come this "illegal material" doesn't ever get decrypted?…

> Why do we care for people distributing "illegal material" in the first place? Is "distributing child pornography should not be a crime" really the hill you want to die on?

>Is "distributing child pornography should not be a crime" really the hill you want to die on?

nice counterargument

Post reply on HN