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

TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

forums.truecrypt.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 200 posts

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#61

Post by dryicerx »

bhickey wrote: post #50
chc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it actually trivial to encrypt arbitrary text in such a way that it could be decrypted to the source text or a different but still meaningful alternate text? That sounds really hard to do. Is this indeed a solved problem and I just don't know about it?

The short answer on this is no. Check out unicity distance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicity_distance

That's assuming the same algorithm is used throughout.

You can use one algorithm to encrypt/decrypt the original content. But you can use a different algorithm (with a different key) that would output a different output.

The secondary algorithm would be one that given a some text (ciphertext from the original encryption) along with the desired output, would return a suitable key. The most basic example to prove the point would be XOR.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#62

Post by tzs »

danielsoneg wrote: post #54
yllus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't find anything either, and the fact that he doesn't include that in the letter sort of implies that it's something that'd immediately lose him any sympathy or backing, doesn't it?

Three things: First, the guy could be accused of choking babies to death with child porn and that wouldn't make a damn bit of difference as far as his, and the rest of our, fundamental rights are concerned. Second, accused (or even indicted) is absolutely different than convicted, which itself bears an indirect relationship to 'true'. Third, courts typically don't post private proceedings on the internet - you'd be a…

> I imagine it'd be really bloody difficult to find a whole lot about that online, and in either case I can't imagine any sane lawyer giving him the green light to post on the internet details about a case for which he's already being held in contempt.

I can't imagine a lawyer giving him the green light to post on the internet asking people who don't know anything about the case to spam the judge and prosecutor, either.

In fact, he states that he doesn't have a lawyer.

If he expects people to write letters, he needs to explain WHY they need to write letters. That requires telling us what the case is actually about.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#63

Post by pavel_lishin »

speckledjim wrote: post #26
jemfinch wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fifth amendment and encryption issues are already worked out. Just like you can be compelled to open a safe, you can be compelled to decrypt a volume. A self-destroying drive would likely get you a conviction for obstructing justice, just like shredding the contents of a safe would.

A safe is obviously a safe. It obviously contains something. Encrypted data isn't so clear cut. It's trivial to make a datastore that has several encryption keys, so that you could give out one key, and it'd "decrypt" to some boring stuff, whilst keeping the real data, and the alternate key, secret. It'd also be trivial to devise a decryption algorithm, and key, which "decrypts" anyones hard drive to reveal illegal i…

> It'd also be trivial to devise a decryption algorithm, and key, which "decrypts" anyones hard drive to reveal illegal images even when none are really there...

How trivial? Remember that the whole hard drive must be consistent, including a file system. Fifty gigabytes of garbage followed by a 2-megabyte photograph followed by fifty more gigabytes of noise is not plausible.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#64

Post by pavel_lishin »

praptak wrote: post #28
mdonahoe wrote: post #11

Until the 5th amendment and encryption issues get worked out, these drives should delete themselves upon unauthorized access.

This would require a costly hardware-based solution. If such a solution were to become popular, the law enforcement would certainly find ways to prevent it, e.g. x-ray the disks before switching power to find the crypto chip + thermite bomb.

And what would they do with it, and who says it would be a thermite bomb? It could be an integral part of the hardware.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#65

Post by runningdogx »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #59
checker wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't there statutes against forced self-incrimination by the court? I am definitely not a lawyer.

ptomato's and jgmmo's answers are both right (I think), but seem a little contradictory. If I can be compelled to provide physical evidence, why can't I be compelled to provide mental evidence, e.g. testimony about my crime?

The legal apparatus you identify is based on the 5th amendment, interpreted through the lens of mythological, historical ideas of how "thought" is different from information recorded external to the brain.

If you think things are confusing now, wait until merely sticking electrodes on someone's head and making them think about certain things by talking to them, without requiring any voluntary response, can generate usable evidence.

Requiring someone to reveal a passphrase or access procedure to reveal encrypted or otherwise secured evidence, external to the brain, is the tip of the iceberg.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#66

Post by windsurfer »

lisper wrote: post #44
chc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it actually trivial to encrypt arbitrary text in such a way that it could be decrypted to the source text or a different but still meaningful alternate text? That sounds really hard to do. Is this indeed a solved problem and I just don't know about it?

It is trivial. Just encrypt the true plaintext and the alternate plaintext with separate keys and place the results in a container. To decrypt, try both ciphertexts and return the one that validly decrypts with the provided key.

Or better yes, 50'000 containers of varying sizes, 49'998 of which are filled with random data.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#67

Post by VladRussian »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #56
VladRussian wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don't get it. Is "you have the right to remain silent" limited only to oral means of communication? Or does it include the right to remain silent with respect to any means of communication, including writing, keyboard typing, sign language gesturing, etc ...?

"the right to remain silent..." etc is the Miranda Act which applies when you are taken into custody but before you have been formally charged with a crime. It really just boils down to not having to say anything to the police without legal representation present. That no longer applies since he is now before a court and we can assume he has legal representation (or he was offered it and has refused). To answer your…

i was under impression that the right to remain silent is valid even before the court. Anyway, googling it, stumbled upon interesting reading :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#United_States

"...the U.S. District Court for Vermont ruled that because the defendant had already cooperated as far as he had and already potentially incriminated himself, by stating his ownership of his laptop and providing law enforcement with partial access to it prior to his arrest, that he must now surrender complete access to all information on that laptop, even encrypted and potentially self-incriminating or confidential information.[20] Because the defendant had cooperated in part already, the Court ruled that the defendant must continue cooperation and provide the decrypted and potentially harmful information to the government..."

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#68

Post by andrewcooke »

chc wrote: post #36
speckledjim wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A safe is obviously a safe. It obviously contains something. Encrypted data isn't so clear cut. It's trivial to make a datastore that has several encryption keys, so that you could give out one key, and it'd "decrypt" to some boring stuff, whilst keeping the real data, and the alternate key, secret. It'd also be trivial to devise a decryption algorithm, and key, which "decrypts" anyones hard drive to reveal illegal i…

Is it actually trivial to encrypt arbitrary text in such a way that it could be decrypted to the source text or a different but still meaningful alternate text? That sounds really hard to do. Is this indeed a solved problem and I just don't know about it?

that's now what is being suggested (i think). typically how it's done is to have separate pieces of information, related to different keys. you can then make a system that (1) produces the data associated with a valid key and (2) does not reveal how many valid keys there are.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#69

Post by dedward »

lisper wrote: post #44
chc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it actually trivial to encrypt arbitrary text in such a way that it could be decrypted to the source text or a different but still meaningful alternate text? That sounds really hard to do. Is this indeed a solved problem and I just don't know about it?

It is trivial. Just encrypt the true plaintext and the alternate plaintext with separate keys and place the results in a container. To decrypt, try both ciphertexts and return the one that validly decrypts with the provided key.

It's trivial cryptographically, but from a security point of view, it's not necessarily trivial at all.

If we assume the courts can order you to decrypt the drive (and without debating that point) - one has to consider that the court may be fully aware that the system has multiple hidden volumes, either by eyewitness testimony, 3rd party evidence (check out truecrypt's warnings on their site about full system encryption and what to watch out for. Things like finding the same windows installation doing every update twice. There are all kinds of information leaks that COULD pop up.

I'm not saying it's impossible - just as strong cryptography, which is easy and is all over, doesn't mean all our data is secure, neither would a more complex system like this protect someone from the legal system.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#70

Post by aaronblohowiak »

checker wrote: post #43
jordanb wrote: post #31

Depending on what's on the drive, obstruction of justice might carry a much less onerous penalty than what he'd otherwise be facing. For instance, if it's child porn, he'd be labeled a sexual predator for life. If it's state secrets, he'd be facing treason and espionage charges. If it's mp3s.. financial ruin on top of the felony charge..

Aren't there statutes against forced self-incrimination by the court? I am definitely not a lawyer.

That exists to prevent the state from coercing a wrongful confession out of you. Compelling the truth out of you has no such moral hazard. I am not a constitutional scholar.
Post reply on HN