So 365 days or so, just not indefinite.
Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
131–140 of 180 posts
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more like they can make you open a safe. It's too bad for you if you kept someone's head in that safe.
No, it's not more like making you open a safe. Telling someone the encryption key is being compelled to act as a witness against yourself, which the 5th amendment provides protection against (if used).
No it's not. The information you provide (the password) is not admitted as evidence in the trial. It's more like being compelled to act as a confidential informant against yourself.
There's no prospect of this being used to bring about a wrongful conviction through coercing a confession.
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#133mods: can we edit the title to mention that this is about the US? US law != global law.
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#134The idea of being locked up for not handing over a password terrifies me. I was deployed a few years ago and living in the conexes. I was bored and decided to go all out on encrypting everything. I picked a completely random 16 character password (I piped the output from /Dev/urandom through some tr command that only allowed typeable characters through) and committed it to muscle memory. I used this laptop every day…
It's enough that I fill unused drives with /dev/random. Good luck to me proving that it is not encrypted data (and vice versa). Headers are irrelevant, they are no different than a paper label on the hdd saying "encrypted".
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#135>>Since that day, more than four years ago, Rawls has been held in federal custody. Rawls seeks release arguing that 28 U.S.C. § 1826 limits his maximum permissible confinement for civil contempt to 18 months.
This much jail times ruins almost everyone, think of the mess it makes in your life /job/relationship /fiances. But I guess it beats doing xx years if you provide the passwords and evidence found there is used.
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law often uses the "reasonable person" as a standard to measure such responsibilities. So would it make sense for a reasonable person to forget a password they typed in only yesterday (and/or perhaps many times before)?
So would it make sense for a reasonable person to forget a password they typed in only yesterday Judging by our password reset request tickets, I can say "yes" I've even forgotten a password just minutes after typing it. And I can't even tell you my desktop password despite typing it a dozen times a day for nearly 6 months. I once tried to give my wife the password over the phone and I couldn't do it without a keyboa…
I think all of these are taken into account. The defendant is usually given opportunity to just type the password to decrypt the drive.
Usually only passwords are assumed to be remembered that are used many times with no sign of changing it.
Still, the defendant can claim that the whole ordeal of arrest and trial took a serious toll on his/her memory. Of course the judge might or might not believe it.
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#137The idea of being locked up for not handing over a password terrifies me. I was deployed a few years ago and living in the conexes. I was bored and decided to go all out on encrypting everything. I picked a completely random 16 character password (I piped the output from /Dev/urandom through some tr command that only allowed typeable characters through) and committed it to muscle memory. I used this laptop every day…
It's enough that I fill unused drives with /dev/random. Good luck to me proving that it is not encrypted data (and vice versa). Headers are irrelevant, they are no different than a paper label on the hdd saying "encrypted".
Usually they establish the presence of encrypted stuff via witnesses and via thumbnails left in cache and logs, symlinks, etc. referring to it.
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#138The problem with this new territory is exactly the unsettled issue of whether providing a password is testimonial and protected. The protection against self-incrimination is/was a protection against being put on trial and being forced to say or give testimony that you took part in or committed a crime. It is not a protection against any and all evidence from being produced against you. In a previous age, not saying w…
In Germany is rule is simply that you are not required to do anything to actively help our own prosecution. They want to take your fingerprints? You don't need to help by lifting your arm. They want you to open a safe? No need to tell them the combination, through they will crack it open if you refuse. Same with encryption keys, you don't need to say anything. Telling the truth? As the accused you're allowed to lie i…
Unrelated and commented on the dupe thread but there is a similar case going on in the EU right now that is set to be appealed at the European Court of Human Rights. Last week the highest court of Belgium ruled that passwords to IT systems were not covered by the right not to incriminate one-self. And they also ruled that you could be jailed for up to 3 years for refusing to provide said passwords. This was in the case of an alleged drug dealer refusing to unlock his iphone. There is no appeal left for him at the national level and he's now set to appeal the decision at the ECHR which if not overruled might finally set the precedent for the whole EU. This little story deserves some follow up imho.
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#139The problem with this new territory is exactly the unsettled issue of whether providing a password is testimonial and protected. The protection against self-incrimination is/was a protection against being put on trial and being forced to say or give testimony that you took part in or committed a crime. It is not a protection against any and all evidence from being produced against you. In a previous age, not saying w…
In Germany is rule is simply that you are not required to do anything to actively help our own prosecution. They want to take your fingerprints? You don't need to help by lifting your arm. They want you to open a safe? No need to tell them the combination, through they will crack it open if you refuse. Same with encryption keys, you don't need to say anything. Telling the truth? As the accused you're allowed to lie i…
> As the accused you're allowed to lie in court however you want.
Really? I'm interested to know how this works, and how it is not perjury.
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#140> The Fifth Amendment gives witnesses a right not to testify against themselves. 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…
Are there no legal precedents for this? I mean the non-digital equivalent must have occurred already. Somebody has some secret books, and/or information. And buries them in the desert.
Were they required to reveal the location?