91–100 of 167 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contempt of court is not a life sentence. It ends the moment the defendant complies. Whereas a sentence for a "10 years in jail for not revealing password" charge would not be vacated when you decide to reveal the password.
What if the defendant has genuinely forgotten the password?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're dramatically over-simplifying by using one example to claim it's law. That is not the US law, that's one individual instance. In fact it's unsettled legal territory. The Supreme Court has yet to settle it, and they will very likely be the final word.
That one precedent sets the most reasonable expectation of what U.S. law means in practice, unless and until overturned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with that statement because they have fundamentally different purposes. Free speech affects my ability to improve society. Right to privacy affects my ability to cover my own ass.
Free speech in a country that goes authoritarian is very harmful for your career. People in power have connections, they can make it hard for you to make a living without even breaking the law, just asking the right people for a favor. Anonymity is one of the things that make people more likely to say what's need to be said. Without protection of privacy - very few people will exercise their free speech when things g…
That said I understand people who are afraid that loss of privacy would be asymmetric but I don't think that would happen. Celebrities and public figures will always have less privacy than everyone else.
Has anyone created a mobile OS that has a feature where if a certain password is entered on the unlock screen that it boots up a dummy desktop while silently encrypting or erasing the phone in the background?
It doesn't seem so easy to do reasonably. Somebody can compare your call log/messages to data they got from your provider. It still seems like a nice idea, but it doesn't really give you plausible deniability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it is possible to say that you have Truecrypt installed. Then the LEO just asks for the second password.
> Then the LEO just asks for the second password. But it's entirely _optional_ to use. They cannot prove there is a second password.
Which means you shouldn't install any such software unless you're going to have those hidden partitions and are willing to let LE have access.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it is possible to say that you have Truecrypt installed. Then the LEO just asks for the second password.
Which is why you have 10 passwords, only 1 of which has the important stuff on it. You are industiguisable from someone who has 9. What, are the police just going to keep you in jail? What if you really ARE innocent? Jail for life then, because they didn't find anything incriminating?
I don't want the "bad guys" getting away with their activities either, but I don't want some jackass in a volatile country to obtain my confidential data because the authorities are too incompetent to store it securely on their servers. It's just begging for identity theft and black-mail. Time and time again we've been shown that even the most sensitive data can't be secured properly (e.g. Equifax, Google, Yahoo, Anthem, NSA/CIA hacks and leaks).
I also don't want some corrupt cop having a bad day make up an absurdly false reason to go through my private life. It's bad enough with people getting drugs planted by corrupt cops; authorities just can't be trusted and there is no proper oversight to make sure they're acting ethically.
The only way to fight this is by developing tools to counteract these measures in a reasonably intelligent manner. Hidden multi-layer partitions, hidden "remote" hosts, encrypted decoys that show faux private content so it appears you're cooperating when real content is hidden, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article mentions both child abusers and terrorists yet the laws will rarely be used for that. Mandatory metadata retention was also bought in for the same reasons and has barely appeared as evidence in any subsequent cases, despite >300,000 warrantless metadata requests last year, overseen by a handful of public servants behind closed doors, in a country of 25 million people. Another very concerning law is about…
Regarding your example of this person being forced into a mental institution, are you able to provide a source? I'm interested in learning more especially as I'm living in Australia, this is quite terrifying indeed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article mentions both child abusers and terrorists yet the laws will rarely be used for that. Mandatory metadata retention was also bought in for the same reasons and has barely appeared as evidence in any subsequent cases, despite >300,000 warrantless metadata requests last year, overseen by a handful of public servants behind closed doors, in a country of 25 million people. Another very concerning law is about…
> she was then deemed a "fixated person", which involved incarceration without charge, being taken to a mental institution and forcibly injected with anti-psychotic drugs for months. Eventually a judge decided she could go home. All media coverage of it is banned in Australia until the trial is finished, which has been postponed at every hearing for over a year now Holy shit. Maybe I'll stop complaining about the US…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If LEO find you're using Truecrypt, do you think they'll not realize that you might have a hidden drive and ask for that password too??
Well, then you give them your second password, and it is fine, because you actually have 3 passwords. The police can't just keep saying "we didn't find anything, therefore you MUST have ANOTHER double secret password!". At that point you are indistinguishable from someone who is innocent.
Seriously, other people aren't dumb.