This is why you always have TrueCrypt use multiple volumes. This is exactly what plausible deniability is for.
The key is to put some stuff that's reasonably embarrassing in the fake volume, like nude pictures of yourself or weird fetish porn.
TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court
71–80 of 200 posts
Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court
#72This is why you always have TrueCrypt use multiple volumes. This is exactly what plausible deniability is for.
I've always wondered how people would answer the "Your volume is 512MB, but this truecrypt file is 2GB. Explain please". question.
I guess they can't prove that there is a hidden volume, but I thought with Truecrypt they could not prove whether a file was actually a Truecrypt volume in the first place?
Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Searching for all posts by Bella1 that contain "Matthew", "jail", or "letter" doesn't find a previous letter. The closest thing is this post that provides case information (such as the case number, etc): http://forums.truecrypt.org/viewtopic.php?p=94607#94607
I tried looking up the case number in PACER ( http://www.pacer.gov/ ) but when I went to register I saw that they charge 8 cents for every page returned, that is every page of a document clicked on as well as every page linked to in a search result. Transparency comes with a price tag these days I guess.
They're public documents, too.
But this is why the RECAP project exists - to jail-break the PACER documents you pay for: https://www.recapthelaw.org/
Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The truth you can tell is only a fraction of a larger truth encompassing the entire universe of facts for a case the government may be investigating. Even if your portion of that truth is completely free of any wrongdoing, when combined with the rest of the facts that may include lies or mistakes by other witnesses or incorrect analysis of physical evidence, you can end up getting into trouble for telling the truth.
But we have never held, as the Supreme Court of Ohio did, that the privilege is unavailable to those who claim innocence. To the contrary, we have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's "basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.' " Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 421 (1957) (quoting Slochower v. Board of Higher Ed. of New York City, 350 U. S. 551, 557-558 (1956)) (emphasis in original). In Grunewald, we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth. 353 U. S., at 421-422.
-- Supreme Court in Ohio v Matthew Reiner, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US...
Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court
#75This is why you always have TrueCrypt use multiple volumes. This is exactly what plausible deniability is for.
I've always wondered how people would answer the "Your volume is 512MB, but this truecrypt file is 2GB. Explain please". question. I guess they can't prove that there is a hidden volume, but I thought with Truecrypt they could not prove whether a file was actually a Truecrypt volume in the first place?
In truecrypt, the volume would report 2GB, not 512MB, and you have to be careful not to put in more than the invisible limit, otherwise the hidden portion will be corrupted/overwritten.
Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court
#76This is why you always have TrueCrypt use multiple volumes. This is exactly what plausible deniability is for.
I've always wondered how people would answer the "Your volume is 512MB, but this truecrypt file is 2GB. Explain please". question. I guess they can't prove that there is a hidden volume, but I thought with Truecrypt they could not prove whether a file was actually a Truecrypt volume in the first place?
[deleted]
Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court
#77LoseThos uses compression, not encryptian.
God is God. The term is "miracle" not "magic". This passage, http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians14.h... , clearly indicates some phenomina happened.
God says, "sowing separateth Ergo proudly descend resolutely Nebridius' fatherless anyone ."
Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 p…
That probably won't work: you need the combination of the algorithm + the key to get your data out. Of the 4 possible combinations, only 2 will yield valid data.
If you give a password, the cops will know what algorithm they must use (2 trials at most). Even if they don't know before hand which algorithm points to the real data, they can notice that it doesn't use all data.
With your method, you can at best cast doubt: is the data not extracted real data encrypted differently (algorithm or key), or random data that the software insert by default to give everyone plausible deniability?
Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court
#79First, there isn't enough information to know what it is this person has (or has not) done.
Secondly, the fifth amendment of the US Constitution allows you to refuse to provide testimony which you feel may incriminate you. Generally encryption pass phrases do not count as testimony, the legal system treats them as keys. And that would be covered under the fourth amendment which says the government cannot compel to you to give access to your property for search unless they have probable cause.
If they do have probable cause, they get a warrant which gives them the power to do the search temporarily and only for what they think exists. So if you get a warrant to search your hard drive for something, you are compelled to give them the password just like you are compelled to let them into your house if they have a warrant to search for something like drugs or guns or counterfeit plush toys.
However sometimes the courts do see it as a fifth amendment issue [1] and that has been under debate for a while. (As far as I can tell the legal theory is similar to the police not being able to compel you to tell them where you left the body in a capital crime.)
Disclaimer I am not a lawyer this isn't legal advice, and I've not followed up the cited case to see if it made it to the supreme court or not. Any circuit level decision would not be binding on different circuits.
[1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9854034-38.html
Follow up on the Boucher case: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/United_States...
Where the fifth amendment defense was overturned.
Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't there statutes against forced self-incrimination by the court? I am definitely not a lawyer.
It's called the Fifth Amendment. "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
The password that you are requested to provide to the court is not incriminating. There is no law against having passwords or using passwords. The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply. The incriminating part is the data on the drive ... and you are not being requested to testify ... it's there and has already been confiscated by the police using a legal warrant.
This situation stinks, for sure. If you want to protect yourself, use shadow volumes. Far better solution than questionable legal arguments.