71–80 of 239 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
bbc.co.UK
But some people are ASKING about the US, and everything I've said above is as it pertains to US law. Which is a worthwhile discussion anyway, as US readers are the largest single group of HN readers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you provide some citations for your claims here? I'd really like to review them.
Wikipedia has this to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher On February 19, 2009, Judge Sessions reversed the magistrate's ruling and directed Boucher "to provide an unencrypted version of the Z drive viewed by the ICE agent.
It'd be similar to confessing to murder, telling the cops where the body is, and then invoking your right to remain silent, and expecting them not to look for the body under "fruit of the poisonous tree" logic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But some people are ASKING about the US, and everything I've said above is as it pertains to US law. Which is a worthwhile discussion anyway, as US readers are the largest single group of HN readers.
Apologies... If you had replied to a question, I wouldn't have felt compelled to post that. But in the UK, it's illegal to refuse to give up your password.
Encryption and password privacy is an entirely unsettled area of US law. The courts can probably compel you to enter your password (to decrypt a drive, or what have you), while you can maintain that the content of your password can be protected under the 5th. So, for instance, say you had encrypted files of plans to build a bomb and detailed schematics of the White House. The judge can order you to decrypt the files…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TrueCrypt already has this feature: http://www.truecrypt.org/hiddenvolume
Presumably the UK police are aware of this feature, which could lead to a more interesting situation when you can't prove that you've really unlocked to the deepest level.
Although file-hosted TrueCrypt volumes (containers) do not contain any kind of "signature" either (until decrypted, they appear to consist solely of random data), they cannot provide this kind of plausible deniability, because there is practically no plausible explanation for the existence of a file containing solely random data. However, plausible deniability can still be achieved with a file-hosted TrueCrypt volume (container) by creating a hidden volume within it.
Encryption and password privacy is an entirely unsettled area of US law. The courts can probably compel you to enter your password (to decrypt a drive, or what have you), while you can maintain that the content of your password can be protected under the 5th. So, for instance, say you had encrypted files of plans to build a bomb and detailed schematics of the White House. The judge can order you to decrypt the files…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apologies... If you had replied to a question, I wouldn't have felt compelled to post that. But in the UK, it's illegal to refuse to give up your password.
What happens if you say you forgot the password, and the files in question haven't been accessed in over a year? This is a question in my initial post that's still relevant to UK jurisprudence; an answer to which could move the conversation forward in a way far more productive than imagining I didn't know the article was about something that happened in the UK.
How do they know it's a 50 character password?
How do they know it's a 50 character password?