Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by CiPHPerCoder » Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 3:10 PM UTC

JoeSmithson wrote: post #160

adgasf wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the key is not evidence then how can they prove that they got the incriminating files from the encrypted drive?

A forensic scientist would testify that they extracted the files from there. It is exactly the same as when a confidential source gives up an address (for example) the source never gets into evidence.

The whole point of strong encryption is to prevent adversaries (including forensic scientists) from extracting any information without possession of the key.

If the key involves a password that you, a human, have memorized in your squishy pink organ, it's privileged under the Fifth Amendment. (This hasn't been tested in court yet, of course. There's no precedent to fall back on.)

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

#162

Post by sandov » Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 3:30 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #107

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To lock up people forever for such things is to me unthinkable. There is no established responsibility to remember you password, or keep it safe. Memory failures are not very predictable

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)?

By that standard, an innocent, unreasonable person would go to jail.

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

#163

Post by cgriswald » Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 4:03 PM UTC

nulbyte wrote: post #153

joering2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicans who found Mr. Trump not guilty have stated its in part because of lack of evidence otherwise. Everyone welcome to keep downvoting, but I will remain certain in USA you are innocent until proven guilty. You don’t have to prove your innocence. And many cases - even the big ones like Casey Anthony, OJ, Zimmerman, now Weinstein - prove that fifth amandment works.

You are not innocent until proven guilty; you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You are guilty, or you are innocent, from the beginning; only, we admit uncertainty in the presence of reasonable doubt, which evidence and argument need erode to prove guilt.

I'm afraid it's not quite so absolute. Consider a murder case in which the defendant admits to killing a person, but pleads self defense. It is certainly a fact that he killed the person, but whether it was self defense or not (i.e., whether he is guilty or innocent) depends entirely on the interpretation of the law and the events that occurred. Absent a finding of law, his guilt or innocence simply can't be established. If we hold the presumption of innocence and the absolute idea that he either is guilty or not, then we would have to conclude he is innocent, rather than taking the more rational view that we simply don't know.

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

#164

Post by bougiefever » Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 4:16 PM UTC

It's no mistake that they select the most unsympathetic people to try to weaken the protections for us all.

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

#165

Post by Johnny555 » Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 4:29 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #136

Johnny555 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think you've ever worked at a corporate help desk -- people do forget passwords, even ones they've used for months - they'll swear up and down that the AD server is wrong.

I once helped a professor decrypt a zip file by brute forcing the password (it was only 6 characters long). He swore it was his wife's name and that the file must be corrupt because he surely knows how to type her name. Turned out that it was a misspelling of her name, and he said "Oh right, I misspelled it to make it harder to guess".

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

#166

Post by pdonis » Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #77

joering2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which of course is not how justice works, at least in USA. Here you are innocent until proven otherwise. Mere decline to produce a notebook (with or without evidence of crime in it) is in no way shape or form an admission of guilt or a proof of itself good enough to find you guilty. Look no further than the most important case of modern history - impeachment of Donald J. Trump. During Senate hearing Mr. Trump’s lawye…

If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment? The mob takes the Fifth.

> If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?

Because innocent people do get wrongly convicted. If you don't want to be that innocent person, you might have to assert your rights, including your Fifth Amendment rights.

Note that the Fifth Amendment does not say that you can't be forced to incriminate yourself, as many TV courtroom dramas wrongly imply. Statements like "the mob takes the Fifth" are based on that kind of incorrect reading of the Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment actually says that you can't be forced to be a witness against yourself. A witness can provide testimony that looks incriminating even if the defendant is actually innocent, and such testimony can lead to an innocent person being wrongly convicted. The Fifth Amendment is there to help reduce the chances of that happening.

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

#167

Post by Johnny555 » Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 7:26 PM UTC

Ntrails wrote: post #156

Johnny555 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but if they know about a notebook where you wrote it they can require you to give up the notebook But if you wrote in a made-up language that only you know, can they force you to translate it?

How would you know the translation was accurate if it was done?

Good question, similarly how do you know the right encryption key was given, maybe there's a hidden volume that you can only see if you have the right key.

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

#168

Post by skrause » Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 7:31 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #139

skrause wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In Germany only witnesses are required to tell the truth (even without oath), but not the ones accused of a crime.

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

#169

Post by openasocket » Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 7:32 PM UTC

pbecotte wrote: post #73

gamblor956 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) is not obviously true. Even judges known to favor defendant's rights can't agree whether this would constitute a testimonial act. Claiming otherwise suggests that you don't understand how the law works, how the technology works, or both. (2) is not obviously false, because you're conflating two separate things: the encryption key and the contents of the encrypted device. Using the analogy of a locked safe: a pict…

I dunno what the law says. However, it is very easy to imagine a situation where someone LEGITIMATELY cannot decrypt the device. Is indefinite detention without even a criminal charge a valid punishment for that? We can make analogies all day "is it testimony? Is it like the code to a safe?"... But there is a real concrete fact that the government wants to be able to imprison someone indefinitely, without a jury tria…

The person isn't claiming they don't know the password though. The person is claiming they don't have to provide the password. If they claimed they don't remember the password the prosecutor would have to convince the judge he is lying about that.

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

#170

Post by 1000units » Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 7:34 PM UTC

CommieBobDole wrote: post #24

1000units wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the third time: the courts are a joke. edit: I hope every boot-licker that downvotes this comment gets to learn the hard way.

I don't think people are downvoting you because they disagree with your assertion that the court system is in some way bad, they're downvoting you because you're just basically saying 'courts sux man' with no further information, which adds nothing to the discussion. Also now they're probably downvoting you because you're calling them 'bootlickers'.

I led with substantive comments. The greater issue is nerds live in an overly comfortable fantasy world, and it's painful to acknowledge the true nature of the power structures we inhabit and are subject to, in all their ugliness. Much easier to distract yourself litigating the sophistry that blankets all of these things. God forbid somebody tugs on the blanket.