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

Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 180 posts

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#31

Post by LanceH »

Forbo wrote: post #25
gamblor956 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have to prove that you remember the passphrases. They just have to show that the encrypted devices/partitions/whatever were in your custody at the time of encryption. Then you have to (a) show why you weren't the one to encrypt the devices or (b) make a 5th Amendment argument about why you don't have to turn over the encryption key during which time you may be incarcerated. "I forgot" is generally not a va…

> "I forgot" is generally not a valid defense. The number of times that people invoke "I don't recall" while giving testimony under oath says otherwise.

When they start applying these standards to politicians, then I'll be ok with it trickling down the people.

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#32

Post by [deleted] »

gamblor956 wrote: post #12
1000units wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alleged crime. And this is braindead simple application of the Fifth Amendment. The courts are a joke.

This is not braindead simple 5th amendment stuff. Among the unsettled the questions in this case: (1) is providing a decryption key a testimonial act? (2) are the contents of the drives would constitute testimony protected by the 5th Amendment? Courts have come to different conclusions on both questions. Experts disagree on both questions. Even the precursor question (is requiring a defendant to provide the combinati…

[deleted]

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#33

Post by etrabroline »

Supermancho wrote: post #2

I wish people would stop linking to Tech Dirt, when there are alternatives ( https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-... ). Tech Dirt is a self-proclaimed rumor mill site, similar to the The Sun.

Advocacy groups wear their bias on their chests proudly. "Neutral" news purveyors hide their bias behind misleading headlines and selective reporting. I would much prefer to read about something related to digital privacy in Tech Dirt. Not that I have anything against arstechniaca in particular.

Can you link me to an example of a false rumor Tech Dirt has spread?

EDIT: As danso points out, this issue probably wouldn't even have been reported by ars if Tech Dirt hadn't done the actual work of digging up the court documents, so complaining about the admittedly outraged tone of their articles is just petty.

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#34

Post by [deleted] »

etrabroline wrote: post #33
Supermancho wrote: post #2

I wish people would stop linking to Tech Dirt, when there are alternatives ( https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-... ). Tech Dirt is a self-proclaimed rumor mill site, similar to the The Sun.

Advocacy groups wear their bias on their chests proudly. "Neutral" news purveyors hide their bias behind misleading headlines and selective reporting. I would much prefer to read about something related to digital privacy in Tech Dirt. Not that I have anything against arstechniaca in particular. Can you link me to an example of a false rumor Tech Dirt has spread? EDIT: As danso points out, this issue probably wouldn'…

[deleted]

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#35

Post by [deleted] »

etrabroline wrote: post #33
Supermancho wrote: post #2

I wish people would stop linking to Tech Dirt, when there are alternatives ( https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-... ). Tech Dirt is a self-proclaimed rumor mill site, similar to the The Sun.

Advocacy groups wear their bias on their chests proudly. "Neutral" news purveyors hide their bias behind misleading headlines and selective reporting. I would much prefer to read about something related to digital privacy in Tech Dirt. Not that I have anything against arstechniaca in particular. Can you link me to an example of a false rumor Tech Dirt has spread? EDIT: As danso points out, this issue probably wouldn'…

[deleted]

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#36

Post by incompatible »

LanceH wrote: post #31
Forbo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I forgot" is generally not a valid defense. The number of times that people invoke "I don't recall" while giving testimony under oath says otherwise.

When they start applying these standards to politicians, then I'll be ok with it trickling down the people.

It's really a different situation. The ruling party is basically above the law in the US, thanks to presidential pardons and control of the impeachment process.

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#37

Post by harikb »

gamblor956 wrote: post #14
1000units wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My most important passphrases are very complicated, and I lose the ability to reproduce them from muscle memory (the only place they exist) after a few days of non-use. How can you prove passphrases are remembered?

They don't have to prove that you remember the passphrases. They just have to show that the encrypted devices/partitions/whatever were in your custody at the time of encryption. Then you have to (a) show why you weren't the one to encrypt the devices or (b) make a 5th Amendment argument about why you don't have to turn over the encryption key during which time you may be incarcerated. "I forgot" is generally not a va…

Hypothetically, he might have remembered his real password but the Government didn’t protect the bit-rot capable hard drive and it is the hard drive that is now bad. May be sector level checksums and probabilities rule them out but it is possible in the grand scheme of things

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#39

Post by tsimionescu »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #29
thaumasiotes wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rawls argued that producing a password for the hard drives would amount to an admission that he owned the hard drives. But the 3rd Circuit rejected that argument. It held that the government already had ample evidence that Rawls owned the hard drives and knew the passwords required to decrypt them. So ordering Rawls to decrypt the drives wouldn't give the government any information it didn't already have. Of course…

They can't require you to personally admit to it, but if they know about a notebook where you wrote it they can require you to give up the notebook. (The rule makes more sense if you think about it in terms of financial crimes; it'd be hard to ever prosecute someone for fraud if they didn't have to give up their books.)

The GP's point was that, if the bar for the 5th amendment is that you may be required to provide testify against yourself as long as the government already knows the piece you are required to testify about, it's not clear how that wouldn't apply to you being required to admit your guilt when the government has sufficient evidence that you are guilty.

I'd also note that giving the government your books is required by financial laws as a condition do being allowed to do business, it's not testimony or your general obligation of cooperating with an investigation.

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#40

Post by TacticalCoder »

gamblor956 wrote: post #14
1000units wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My most important passphrases are very complicated, and I lose the ability to reproduce them from muscle memory (the only place they exist) after a few days of non-use. How can you prove passphrases are remembered?

They don't have to prove that you remember the passphrases. They just have to show that the encrypted devices/partitions/whatever were in your custody at the time of encryption. Then you have to (a) show why you weren't the one to encrypt the devices or (b) make a 5th Amendment argument about why you don't have to turn over the encryption key during which time you may be incarcerated. "I forgot" is generally not a va…

> "I forgot" is generally not a valid defense.

Am I the only here who had to re-install Linux after x weeks or months of uptime because the LUKS password was forgotten? It happened to me more than once.

How is it "generally not" (but sometimes yes?) a valid defense when it's a fact that people are losing their passwords?

The internet is full of messages like: "I forgot my LUKS password but remember it had the name of my dog in it" (not advising to do that btw), "Is there a way to crack my own password?"

P.S: I've got backup of all my files and configuration files, so re-installing Linux ain't a problem: theft / flood / fire / full-disk encryption password lost... I wouldn't lose anything.

Post reply on HN