Man Who Refused to Decrypt Hard Drives Still in Prison After Two Years • Hacker News Board

Re: Man Who Refused to Decrypt Hard Drives Still in Prison After Two Years

#111

Post by beisner » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 3:09 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #94

weinzierl wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, but the original quote doesn't say that they compared decrypted content with known hashes. It doesn't say anything about how they learned about the "content stored on the encrypted hard drive". "Investigators said content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content." I read it like this: They figured out that the disk had some incriminating files, as I described…

If they're in possession of the original files they can just look at the files to see what they contain.

There could be a hash collision, which might be enough to provide reasonable doubt for a jury.

Re: Man Who Refused to Decrypt Hard Drives Still in Prison After Two Years

#112

Post by Zhenya » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 3:13 PM UTC

mcny wrote: post #6

godzillabrennus wrote: post #2

The accused crime is heinous and there is some evidence against him stated in the article but common, an indefinite jail sentence with no conviction? Then people wonder why the country elects Trump to shake things up. This guy should stand trial or be let go.

Absolutely but I'll go further. Having something in your hard drive or book or whatever should never be a crime in itself. I mean in India it is a crime to carry an authentic map of India with you. What harm does the contents of an encrypted disk do to society? It is not like he was going out and trying to legalize child abuse. If the person was involved in child abuse, we must try to convict him absolutely but we sh…

What's an "Authentic Map of India"?

Re: Man Who Refused to Decrypt Hard Drives Still in Prison After Two Years

#113

Post by stinkytaco » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 3:16 PM UTC

dopamean wrote: post #101

stinkytaco wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they are not asking him to testify, admit guilt, or anything like that. They aren't even asking him to tell them the password, just to enter the password to decrypt. This is more like expecting access to your house when a search warrant is provided. EDIT: To be clear, it's not that I feel he should necessarily be compelled, but rather that a fifth amendment defense is weak in this case, since it's not a testimony…

This may be a dumb question but I want to make sure I'm getting everything here... they have a warrant to search the hard drive?

Yes, there is a court order compelling him to unlock the drives. The really questionable thing here is that they haven't charged him with any crimes, even contempt. That shows there may be a desire to establish some precedent in this case.

EDIT: Scratch that, you can hold someone in jail as long as they are in contempt of court, apparently.

Re: Man Who Refused to Decrypt Hard Drives Still in Prison After Two Years

#114

Post by Clubber » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 3:23 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #91

Clubber wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. When we think of it as a cyphered letter, it is more clear to me that the government is compelling him to incriminate himself. So instead of collecting evidence, they are forcing him to provide evidence, which to me is a clear 5th amendment violation. When we use the safe analogy, well safes are easy to open, no big deal. The government opens them all the time. Why is that such a huge leap? Using the incorre…

Your analogy fails for a couple of reasons: 1) Giving up the decryption key is clearly not analogous to deciphering the letter. When you decrypt a drive, it’s the computer does the actual deciphering operation. 2) Focusing on how easy the safe is to break without the key cuts against your position. We can jail people for not providing the key to a regular safe, even though the cops could break into it. But we can’t j…

>Giving up the decryption key is clearly not analogous to deciphering the letter. When you decrypt a drive, it’s the computer does the actual deciphering operation.

The computer cannot decipher the drive without the decryption key. The computer doing it is just automation. Using that logic killing someone with a car isn't the person's fault since the car did the actual killing. It's about who is controlling the thing, not the actual thing itself.

>We can jail people for not providing the key to a regular safe, even though the cops could break into it.

That is true with physical keys, but not combinations. It doesn't matter to police whether a suspect provides a key or not because the cops can work around that. In the case of encryption, they cannot. A cypher is a combination more so than a key.

Here is an article on revealing a combination of a safe vs. a key. In it, judges agree that revealing a combination delves into the mind while a physical key does not. A distinct difference when dealing with self incrimination. Collecting evidence from the mind (a combination) is self incrimination.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/crime/2012/01/05/why-criminals-s...

>Shouldn’t the cops have more power in the situation where they have no alternatives?

Perhaps in a dictatorship.

Re: Man Who Refused to Decrypt Hard Drives Still in Prison After Two Years

#115

Post by roblabla » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 3:29 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #88

supergirl wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol why not just call him and say "hello, this is Steve Jobs from Apple, you have won $100M for being a loyal Apple user. All you need to do to get the prize is unlock your Mac to prove it is yours"

I'm not claiming it's a perfect solution, but what other options are there? Here's the only other options I see: * Detaining this individual indefinitely without charge. * Charge based on limited anecdotal evidence. * Release without charge. Can you think of other suggestions? Which of the available options do you think is best? Best being a balance between the rights of the individual and the laws of the state.

Sometimes, justice doesn't carry out fully. Cases fail for a variety of reasons. We sometimes fail to charge the guilty. The reason why it works this way is simple : it's better than charging the innocent.

What should happen in this case IMO is that they should charge him with whatever they have right this moment, and if it fails, release him. Infinite detaining of individuals should be impossible, no matter what. This is dangerous.

Re: Man Who Refused to Decrypt Hard Drives Still in Prison After Two Years

#116

Post by Simon_says » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 3:31 PM UTC

stinkytaco wrote: post #84

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #54

I think, importantly and regardless of the crime itself, I would like to ask: what can be done here and how did we get to this point? We have someone who has been in prison indefinitely who hasn't been charged with anything. What can be done about this situation even if we raise awareness? Also, how did we get to the point where this is legal?

I think this is not the hill you want to die on. Everything points to this guy being guilty and the court of public perception would not be on your side. Though it does seem possible that they are using this case to set a precedent for future, less clear-cut cases.

> Though it does seem possible that they are using this case to set a precedent for future, less clear-cut cases.

Possible? Try exceedingly likely. That's why it should be fought here, with an unpopular defendant.

Re: Man Who Refused to Decrypt Hard Drives Still in Prison After Two Years

#117

Post by Powerofmene » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 3:32 PM UTC

When the FBI used the All Writs Act against Apple to attempt to force Apple to bypass the password functions of an iPhone or develop a backdoor method of access, the courts ruled that decryption was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment "if the contents were a foregone conclusion."

So if "foregone conclusion" is the criteria that must be met, I have to ask how the contents of this man's external hard drive could be conclusively a foregone conclusion. Maybe he did download thousands of images. What if he no longer possess them? He could have deleted them. The police have been known to make mistakes and have made high profile mistakes' i.e., the Atlanta Olympics bombing when they all but destroyed Richard Jewell.

What if he decrypted it and there was no child porn but there were records of say a store selling drugs etc on the dark net? Then he would have incriminated himself for something they had zero knowledge about because the court issued this writ.

The government states that his sister acknowledges him showing her many explicit photos. Did she turn in her brother? Why would a man show his sister pornographic images? Did she tell anyone around the time this happened that this occurred? Seems to me to be unusual at the least for the government to hang their hat on something uncorroberated. If the sister had access to the computer' who is to say that she did not download the images. He could have seen them and deleted them. Seems that a mere he said -she said is enough to have the government invade your privacy and demand you willingly set aside your consistutional protections or risk going to jail when you have not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime.

We have to be very careful when we start seeing civil liberties and constitutional protections erode. Tech companies have been under siege from the government's use of the All Writs Act in the last two decades and as long as they are successful, I do not foresee them changing their methods.

Re: Man Who Refused to Decrypt Hard Drives Still in Prison After Two Years

#118

Post by alistproducer2 » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 3:33 PM UTC

CP is a wedge tool for politicians. Want to get around the Constitution while having public opinion on your side? Use a pedophile. I don't have a problem sending people to jail who produce the stuff, but the idea that I could put images in someone's computer, call the cops, and get them put away didn't sit right with me.

This case in particular is troublesome. There are lots of bogus claims by the prosecution like being able to confirm the CP via hashes despite the content being encrypted. If they truly had a strong case against this guy, they'd go to trial.

Re: Man Who Refused to Decrypt Hard Drives Still in Prison After Two Years

#119

Post by derekp7 » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 3:35 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #59

cabaalis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much for that whole constitution thing anyway.. They can just create some "act" that overrides it! And nobody will complain because the person affected is the bad guy, until they come for them.

It doesn't override the Constitution, though. He's not compelled to testify against himself. In a pre-computer society, we'd understand the Fifth Amendment as allowing you not to testify to your crimes, but not allowing you to refuse the police the right to search your house with a court-signed warrant, simply because you keep incriminating things in the house. It might exploit a loophole, though (and I also think th…

But if the police found a document written in what looked like gibberish, they couldn't compel you to translate the document to English. In this case, they have executed the warrant, and found an electronic document filled with gibberish.

Re: Man Who Refused to Decrypt Hard Drives Still in Prison After Two Years

#120

Post by sjy » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 3:36 PM UTC

ivanbakel wrote: post #21

xtanx wrote: post #11

"Investigators said content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content." If the disk is encrypted how can they match file hashes? Do they encrypt known CP files with the FileVault key and then compare? If so, isn't that enough to convict him?

Hashes might not fall under being "beyond reasonable doubt" - I'd be interested to see the legal history, if any, of them being used in convictions. There'll always be the argument of the pigeonhole principle. On a similar note, I wonder if this will spur interest in a kind of file-doping program to confuse hashes of drive contents. A few pixels won't make a difference if you're planning on just viewing some images.

Whether a person's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt is a question of fact for the judge or jury deciding a particular case, and not something that can be determined by precedent. But given that people are regularly convicted of historical sex offences based solely on the credible testimony of the victim, it is difficult to imagine that a judge or jury would find a person not guilty of possessing a particular file solely on the basis of the pigeonhole principle.