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

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

bleepingcomputer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 284 posts

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

#191

Post by e40 »

sw00pur wrote: post #147
Powerofmene wrote: post #117

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…

> 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.

If he deleted them, there might be remnants of the files which are recoverable. That would be the same as possessing them.

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

#192

Post by roblabla »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #126
roblabla wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Th…

I agree that indefinite detention of individuals without charge is dangerous, and I would not advocate for that. However, it's important to understand the precendence that would be set by the case you describe. Assuming that the evidence outside of what's stored on the encrypted hard drive is flimsy, and the charges are dropped, are we then open to the idea of untouchable criminals? If all it takes to be a criminal t…

In addition to what kortex said, the man here could be charged for a variety of things. The police already have damning evidence of the crime, apparently, through the presence of hashes (the dubious validity of their claims notwithstanding)

Refusing to comply is not a valid reason to lock someone up forever. You can charge him with contempt to court if you need to.

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

#193

Post by gscott »

Powerofmene wrote: post #117

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…

If they have a large family inheritance then she would have plenty of reason to falsely turn him in.

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

#194

Post by plandis »

sw00pur wrote: post #147
Powerofmene wrote: post #117

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…

> 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.

He claims he doesn't remember his password.

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

#195

Post by [deleted] »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #155
DanBC wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One reason they want him to unlock the drive is to protect children. Each of these images is a child that has been abused. Some of these are historic cases, and the child is now safe. But some of these are new, and the child is still living with the abuser, and the abuse is continuing.

Isn't that what plea bargaining is for?

[deleted]

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

#196

Post by goodcanadian »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #183
goodcanadian wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I'm guessing that they would have brute-forced it. 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 AE…

200 years ago they did not have computers to do the encryption either; encryption schemes were comparatively simple. Also, the scenario suggested that the police had the code book, but simply did not know which page.

Code breaking predates computers by millennia.

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

#197

Post by jsjohnst »

gshulegaard wrote: post #134
shaggerty wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says that there are hashes of known child pornography content on the drive.

Not quite. Investigators said they had found he had downloaded thousands of files whose hash values matched known child pornography [1]. The files were not found on his computer so they wanted to decrypt his external drive to see if they were there... Which makes more sense to me...I believe it is unlikely that hash values would remain intact through encryption. [1] https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/…

Wow, that link is really damning. As the passwords he willingly did give up showed CP content on his iphone, I'm unwilling to give him the benefit of the doubt on the drives.

That said, it's entirely possible still he forgot the passwords to the drives.

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

#198

Post by Tech-Noir »

dTal wrote: post #79
Pharylon wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But children were abused to create these photos.

A 9 year old girl was napalmed to create this photo. Should it be illegal to possess? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg

Really? The reason she was napalmed was to create that photo? You're sticking with that?

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

#199

Post by Clubber »

sjy wrote: post #145
Clubber wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

That article relies on Doe v. United States , 487 U.S. 201 (1988)[1], in which the Supreme Court found that a suspect could be compelled to sign a form authorizing banks to disclose records of any accounts over which he had a right of withdrawal, because 'neither the form nor its execution communicates any factual assertions, implicit or explicit, or conveys any information to the Government.' Applying that decision,…

No, I meant judges in this particular case, not all judges. This is the key part.

We do not disagree with the dissent that “[t]he expression of the contents of an individual’s mind” is testimonial communication for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. … We simply disagree with the dissent’s conclusion that the execution of the consent directive at issue here forced petitioner to express the contents of his mind. In our view, such compulsion is more like “be[ing] forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents” than it is like “be[ing] compelled to reveal the combination to [petitioner’s] wall safe.”

Being compelled to reveal the combination to a wall safe they consider a violation of the 5th amendment. Revealing the combination to a wall safe is much more like revealing a password than surrendering a key.

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

#200

Post by jsjohnst »

Powerofmene wrote: post #133
shaggerty wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says that there are hashes of known child pornography content on the drive.

But that does not mean he downloaded them if someone else has access to his computer nor does that mean they are still there. I read the article to mean that the police have proof that hashes of known child pornography were downloaded and are not on the computer so they are assuming that they were downloaded to the external hard drive. How can they see what files are sitting on a password protected encrypted drive? W…

Read this link:

https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/rawlsopin...

Specifically the top paragraph on page 7. If you can get through that paragraph and still give him the benefit of the doubt, then you are more open minded than I am.

Post reply on HN