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

Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 413 posts

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#141

Post by Terribledactyl »

naasking wrote: post #75
NightMKoder wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My bet would be to up the sentence. Go from 2 counts of CP to 200 - 5 years in jail to life sentence.

But then that seems to undermine the whole argument, because they actually are requiring the suspect to incriminate himself.

Each photo in possession is a separate crime and they, presumably, know about and want a single photo. However different legal doctrines say, if they find more in the normal course of events, they are now admissible and can be used to create new charges.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#142

Post by SolarNet »

RUG3Y wrote: post #54
NightMKoder wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they key is that the evidence is beyond circumstantial - they have concrete evidence that he uploaded files that were CP from that computer. It's a bit worrying why that isn't circumstantial (hacked computers aren't a thing?), but maybe the standard for issuing a subpoena is lower than guilt but higher than circumstantial. Sounds like the only right answer for your password is "I do not recall"

This might be a stupid thought but if they already have enough concrete evidence against the suspect, why do they require the contents of the drive?

My guess would be that they suspect him of producing child porn, and they want the those files so they can add it to the list of hashes (they know there were hashes of child porn sent to his computer, but they don't know which hashes/files were child porn that he sent that was originally produced by him) and/or they want to get at evidence he likely has on other child porn producers.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#143

Post by blubb-fish »

eridius wrote: post #52
smsm42 wrote: post #16

This reads as extremely bizarre. I mean, reading the fifth amendment makes it pretty clear - no one should be compelled to witness against oneself. However, it looks like the current executive and judicial are thinking "well, those Founders were just idiots for putting such an amendment in, clearly it'd be much easier to prosecute people if we could compel them to witness against themselves, so why don't we just igno…

The argument made in the article is that it's a "foregone conclusion" that there's child porn on the drives, so decrypting them isn't self-incriminating because they already know what's on the drive. That said, personally I don't buy it. What if there's evidence of other illegal acts on the drive too, ones the police don't know about? Then decrypting the drive would definitely be incriminating because it would tell p…

this reasoning also applies to search warrants. I believe those legal tools are simply necessary to allow criminal investigations.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#144

Post by Steeeve »

It goes to show that regardless of what protection encryption theoretically provides, security is only as good as the weakest link in the chain. Torture in some fashion is _always_ an option to force decryption.

The same goes for constitutional protections. The more time goes on, the more constitutional protections will be attacked and minimized.

The fact that a child pornography case is being used to break encryption via the courts should come as no surprise. Emotion is being used to broaden the power of the courts.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#145

Post by SolarNet »

silveira wrote: post #116
tpolm wrote: post #15

and this is why the software you use to encrypt hard drives should support plausible deniability. You give away the (other) password and the decrypted drive contains nothing but cat pictures.

This. This is actually a good solution. Not cat pictures though, it would need to be something at least shameful, maybe even lightly criminal. This would work as an alibi for why you are encrypting the drive.

Or deeply personal like a journal.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#146

Post by blubb-fish »

rayiner wrote: post #112
olliej wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite aside from anything else, can someone explain whether or not the same logic would apply to (for example) asking someone to open a safe vs. the code to open the safe. It seems like this ruling would say that failing to open the safe is functionally the same? As a gratuitously distorted example, lets say i had cooked accounting books in a spreadsheet on my computer, and they were encrypted by a random password th…

> Quite aside from anything else, can someone explain whether or not the same logic would apply to (for example) asking someone to open a safe vs. the code to open the safe. It seems like this ruling would say that failing to open the safe is functionally the same? Basically, judges don't agree on which way this scenario comes out. > Outside of the law i don't like the forgone conclusion stuff - for example, revoluti…

a safe will simply be cracked if there is a warrant. easy as that.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#147

Post by michaelmrose »

paulddraper wrote: post #41
smsm42 wrote: post #16

This reads as extremely bizarre. I mean, reading the fifth amendment makes it pretty clear - no one should be compelled to witness against oneself. However, it looks like the current executive and judicial are thinking "well, those Founders were just idiots for putting such an amendment in, clearly it'd be much easier to prosecute people if we could compel them to witness against themselves, so why don't we just igno…

It's not as black and white as you make it. If there is a warrant to search my property, I am obligated to assist if required. E.g. open the gun safe. (Hey, speaking of guns...You know what other antedquated amendment from the Founding Fathers would be really convenient to ignore...) Now, AFAIK, no one has tested whether that still hold true of a combination safe, where the access substaintivly requires information f…

I don't think anyone would ever test this theory its too easy just to force the safe.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#148

Post by michaelmrose »

paulddraper wrote: post #41
smsm42 wrote: post #16

This reads as extremely bizarre. I mean, reading the fifth amendment makes it pretty clear - no one should be compelled to witness against oneself. However, it looks like the current executive and judicial are thinking "well, those Founders were just idiots for putting such an amendment in, clearly it'd be much easier to prosecute people if we could compel them to witness against themselves, so why don't we just igno…

It's not as black and white as you make it. If there is a warrant to search my property, I am obligated to assist if required. E.g. open the gun safe. (Hey, speaking of guns...You know what other antedquated amendment from the Founding Fathers would be really convenient to ignore...) Now, AFAIK, no one has tested whether that still hold true of a combination safe, where the access substaintivly requires information f…

Can you explain wherein this obligation is spelled out?

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#149

Post by michaelmrose »

CompuHacker wrote: post #131
Buge wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was only because they chose a weak password. With a 100+ bit password, it's impossible.

Improbable.

When the average time to unlock is equal or greater to the probably heat death of the universe this distinction ceases to matter.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#150

Post by michaelmrose »

bobbington wrote: post #36
smsm42 wrote: post #16

This reads as extremely bizarre. I mean, reading the fifth amendment makes it pretty clear - no one should be compelled to witness against oneself. However, it looks like the current executive and judicial are thinking "well, those Founders were just idiots for putting such an amendment in, clearly it'd be much easier to prosecute people if we could compel them to witness against themselves, so why don't we just igno…

The supreme court is unelected, and are the supreme authority in this nation, above president and congress. the solution is simple - make the supreme court stand up to elections. America has had atrocious decisions from the supreme court. In Dred Scott, they said black people have no rights because they are black. In Roe v Wade, the abortion laws of 47 states were struck down by 5 oligarchs. No matter what you believ…

The supreme courts and indeed the judicial branches role is spelled out in the constitution they aren't given unlimited discretion to rule by fiat they are given the power within the boundaries written into law by the legislative and enacted by the executive to interpret the law. Don't like their interpretation? The other branches have the power to change the underlying law. Your statement is the sour grapes of those whose wishes are too unpopular to become the law of the land.
Post reply on HN