181–190 of 284 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reference?
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/153537p.pdf Despite Doe’s refusal, f orensic analysts discovered the password to decrypt the Mac Pro Computer , but could not de crypt the external hard drives. [...] The Forensic examination also disclosed that Doe had downloaded thousands of files known by their “hash ” values to be child pornography. 3 The files, however, were not on the Mac Pro, but i nstead had been stored o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The one thing that's different with computers is that usually the police can just break into your house (or a safe, or something like that) if you refuse to give them the key, and encrypted drives have no other alternate route in. So you wouldn't be kept in prison indefinitely for refusing to comply with a warrant; you'd just get your door knocked down. This isn't really new with computers. People have been writing…
This isn't really new with computers. People have been writing in code since time immemorial. What would have happened two hundred years ago if some defendant had been using a book cipher and the police don't know which page of which book is the key? I'm guessing that they would have brute-forced it. The complexity is much lower than the modern case as is the number of potential keys. I can imagine someone spending a…
In an era before digital computers?
That still isn't any different. Nothing stops the police from hiring someone to break the encryption. They may not be able to do it but that is no different than before. Many ciphers that are broken today were not broken decades or centuries ago -- good luck brute forcing even 56-bit DES in 1975. It's completely plausible that AES will be considered insecure some years in the future even if nobody can break it today.
So the police no longer need to plant drugs. They can just plant encrypted hard drives to which you have 'forgotten' the password. Hard-drives containing hashes of 'bad' pics. And then you can spend your life in jail (unless you plead guilty) ?
This. And what if you genuinely forget the password to one of your encrypted drive. Couldn't it be used to incriminate you on whatever charge?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What if he no longer possess them? He could have deleted them. If that's the case he should give the FBI the key. That way he'll prove he wasn't possessing child pornography.
Or maybe he is a firm believer that there is no faster way to erode our constitutional protections than to voluntarily surrender them. Or maybe he believes that damn pesky constitution (sarcasm) applies to everyone including the government when it comes to search and seizure, and to himself when it comes to right to due process of law, and the protection against self incrimination to name just a few. Or maybe there i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So the police no longer need to plant drugs. They can just plant encrypted hard drives to which you have 'forgotten' the password. Hard-drives containing hashes of 'bad' pics. And then you can spend your life in jail (unless you plead guilty) ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They aren't even asking him to tell them the password, just to enter the password to decrypt. How are you distinguishing one from the other? What makes compelling someone to speak the password aloud different from compelling them to type it with a keyboard?
Well, the government has made a distinction for physical security [1]. So it's probably not too much of a jump to make. That case is probably the closest case law to this one we have, though the facts aren't quite the same (the police didn't have as much evidence for what might be on the phone in that case). [1]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/court-rules-agai... EDIT: Worth pointing out that line in tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they're in possession of the original files they can just look at the files to see what they contain.
Sure. My point was more that they might possibly not want to openly admit that they are in the possession of the original files. I'm sure law enforcement has lists with hashes of incriminating files, but I'm not sure if they are allowed to keep the original files. Even if they are, maybe they just want to avoid public discussion about it.