"I forgot the password" Problem solved.
Worse is: never knew my password, and lost my keychain. Happens. :-(
Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
181–190 of 504 posts
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#182Professor Orin Kerr has wrote about this exact case extensively, and provides a good insight into all legal aspects. I think it is well worth a read, especially the part about the 'forgone conclusion'. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
Right. Well that changes things.
There is some evidence of the contents.
I wonder if there are hash values for those 20,000 CEM files and if they are still on freenet. If so LE could aquire, via the hashes, from the network, and prove, without opening the drives, what the contents are. At least it becomes a strong circumstantial case. If you were relying on a single file you could claim the odds of hash collision etc, but after a few hundred I think you are well past that.
There is a pattern of behaviour here.
*edit - aquire not require..
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was pretty much inevitable :( > Encryption is nothing new people, you are just putting your data in a safe. Well, you could also be held indefinitely for refusing to provide the combination for a safe. If there were safes that could keep them out indefinitely, anyway. I suspect that they nailed him using ICAC's Black Ice app. It's a hacked version of the Freenet client that logs peer IPs, and tracks hashes that…
Thanks for the background, but somebody has to say it: his failure was looking at child pornography.
Maybe. But we don't know whether he looked at CP or not.
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#184Earlier 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?
If you wont stand up for the rights of even the most vile of humans, you deserve none.
I don't believe I have failed to do that. The conversation here revolves around 'coldtea's rather remarkable claim that distribution of child pornography should not constitute a crime.
Were I, though, for some unaccountable reason required to clarify my opinion on Rawls' situation despite it being in no way pertinent to the discussion at hand, I would note that I consider his treatment in contravention of both the right to speedy trial and, although I'm not as sure about this one, habeas corpus as well. The case as a whole, and the prosecution's attitude toward it, strike me as a solid example of the troubling habit of overreach our legislative and law-enforcement communities seem to be developing toward strong cryptography, which is as morally neutral as any other technology.
On the other hand, it's rather difficult to argue other than that a government unable to maintain order is unable to effectively govern, and not at all difficult to understand how, viewed from such a perspective, effectively impermeable cryptography might well seem an imminent danger to the security of the state and of those of its citizens not engaged in the sorts of activities which tend to undermine the ability of the government to maintain order. I understand that, especially since last November, the Overton window around opinions on the United States government has shifted such that mere deep and lasting mistrust seems absurdly moderate. But there is nuance here, and to ignore it in search of easy answers is as foolish in this context as in every other.
And quite aside from all that, there is the strong utilitarian argument to be made that this is not the hook on which to hang your defense of encryption, privacy, et cetera. Pedophiles and child molesters come in for about the strongest opprobrium our society ever brings to bear. Do you really not have anyone else around whom to build this case, so that you might have an easier time arguing against such mistreatment of someone as yet convicted of no crime? If you exclude refusal to decrypt a volume on demand from the permissible causes for a finding of contempt, you solve this fellow's problem, too. Can you really not find any way to do that that doesn't involve putting him front and center, where it is literally impossible to separate the substance of the issue from the allegations of extreme unsavoriness which will be leveled against his character, and by extension yours as well?
Remember, if you're going to make a meaningful contribution in this realm, you must of necessity do so in the world where we actually live, not the one where you'd prefer that we did. In the world where we actually live, pedophiles and child molesters are the lowest of the low, and even the mere accusation of involvement in such activities is often enough to ruin lives. It's already hard enough to sell the argument you're making. Why is it worth your while to make it a whole lot harder?
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
No idea. They don't know anymore if ANYONE decrypted everything. They would do whatever they do right now when they don't know things - about anyone.
So, you don't think they would, believing there is another layer of encrypted data that you could decrypt, lock you up until you "comply"?
But if you decrypt that then they can still lock you up pending the third layer password. By induction you are not getting out.
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#186Why don't they sue him based on what they already have. They have to have something strong enough to justify holding him for more than a year already, so wtf?
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was pretty much inevitable :( > Encryption is nothing new people, you are just putting your data in a safe. Well, you could also be held indefinitely for refusing to provide the combination for a safe. If there were safes that could keep them out indefinitely, anyway. I suspect that they nailed him using ICAC's Black Ice app. It's a hacked version of the Freenet client that logs peer IPs, and tracks hashes that…
Thanks for the background, but somebody has to say it: his failure was looking at child pornography.
But without 100% proof he can't be jailed. The prosecutors don't have enough evidence to prove it, so how can he be jailed for it already?
"Innocent until proven guilty" is the foundation of our legal system
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#188Modern 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/30460…
Aren't decrypt and decipher synonyms? What is their distinction, if any?
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> It's much like the "thou shalt not kill" commandment in the Bible. That's an erroneous translation, although I concede it is very common - but rarely if ever found within a Bible as you claim; both the KJV, which I prefer for the music of its language, and the NIV, which is much more common these days, instead correctly render it as "Thou shalt/you shall not murder ". I can't speak for Torah, but I doubt it differs…
Isn't "Thou shalt not murder" sailing awfully close to a tautology, though?
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#190He 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…
> In these cases with encryption the courts have consistently been finding that the password is comparable to unlocking the door to a house to which the police have a search warrant.
What proof do they have that he has the password to the harddrive?