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

81–90 of 200 posts

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#81

Post by danielsoneg »

tzs wrote: post #62
danielsoneg wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, eith…

That's true. I've no strong opinons on the veracity of the man's claims, but I'm certainly not intending to write any letters without extremely strong and verifiable evidence that his story is as he claims. My point was just that the nature of the charges in the case and our ability to find anything about them have next to no bearing on principles in question, nor does the moral composition of the author, and I think there's danger in the idea that they would.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#82

Post by pilom »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #79

First, 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 yo…

Good summary, the only difference between this and the house key example is that you can "forget" the password. When you "forget" there is nothing they can do besides say you are unstable and hold you in contempt of court.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#83

Post by ChuckMcM »

pilom wrote: post #82
ChuckMcM wrote: post #79

First, 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 yo…

Good summary, the only difference between this and the house key example is that you can "forget" the password. When you "forget" there is nothing they can do besides say you are unstable and hold you in contempt of court.

True, and shredding a key would be no different than shredding evidence. You could be charged with destroying evidence but not the crime the evidence supported.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#84

Post by runningdogx »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #79

First, 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 yo…

What if your passphrase to your truecrypt container (let's say it contains, for the purpose of this thought experiment, child pornography) is the true statement: "I am [for this thought experiment] a child pornography collector."

Wouldn't it be a violation of the 5th amendment to be compelled to provide that passphrase, because it is an admission against interest and therefore would be admissible if you disclosed it? Wouldn't it also serve to waive 5th amendment privilege, and possibly put you at risk of being forced to take the stand?

If it were an admission of a different crime, a court could grant you immunity on those unrelated charges, but if it is relevant to the crime the government is investigating by asking you to reveal your passphrase... how can anyone, luddite judge or not, separate "key" from "testimony" in that circumstance?

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#85

Post by rjh29 »

runningdogx wrote: post #84
ChuckMcM wrote: post #79

First, 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 yo…

What if your passphrase to your truecrypt container (let's say it contains, for the purpose of this thought experiment, child pornography) is the true statement: "I am [for this thought experiment] a child pornography collector." Wouldn't it be a violation of the 5th amendment to be compelled to provide that passphrase, because it is an admission against interest and therefore would be admissible if you disclosed it?…

I don't see how providing a passphrase is an admission of anything. You're not stating a fact, you're just providing the passphrase, which could be anything (true or false).

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#86

Post by xelfer »

mahyarm wrote: post #75
ajg1977 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Truecrypt can have hidden volumes, the truecrypt file may be split into 1.5gb / 0.5gb. The truecrypt file reports 2GB, but different passwords mount different the different sized volumes, hence putting in the 512MB password will mount a 512MB volume of a 2GB file.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#87

Post by dvogel »

shareme wrote: post #15
Luyt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The user received a subpoena duces tecum requiring him to type the passwords or pass phrases necessary to produce the encrypted contents of drives seized 6 months earlier. The true crypt user has attempted to comply but he is still being held in contempt." Did he forget his TrueCrypt password?

Its a criminal case.,..which basically means if he judge requests a document that is encrypted on a hd than defendant cannot refuse or they are in contempt

The 5th amendment was written specifically for criminal proceedings. Why does the judge's request override his right to refuse being a witness against himself?

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#88

Post by dvogel »

ptomato wrote: post #53
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.

I'm not one either, but laws against self-incrimination do not mean you can withhold/destroy evidence.

To charge someone for withholding evidence, wouldn't you have to show that they had the evidence? For example, in the case of a deleted file, you would have to show that they deleted the file after being charged. Else deleting any file ever would potentially be a crime. Now consider the case there that file is the encryption key.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#89

Post by xijhing »

rjh29 wrote: post #85
runningdogx wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if your passphrase to your truecrypt container (let's say it contains, for the purpose of this thought experiment, child pornography) is the true statement: "I am [for this thought experiment] a child pornography collector." Wouldn't it be a violation of the 5th amendment to be compelled to provide that passphrase, because it is an admission against interest and therefore would be admissible if you disclosed it?…

I don't see how providing a passphrase is an admission of anything. You're not stating a fact, you're just providing the passphrase, which could be anything (true or false).

5th amendment is the right against self-incrimination. The response could provide self-incriminating evidence of an illegal act punishable by fines, penalties or forfeiture. Giving a password to your encrypted database could easily be interpreted as testifying against yourself as defined in the 5th amendment.

Relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik#at=950

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#90

Post by dvogel »

runningdogx wrote: post #84
ChuckMcM wrote: post #79

First, 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 yo…

What if your passphrase to your truecrypt container (let's say it contains, for the purpose of this thought experiment, child pornography) is the true statement: "I am [for this thought experiment] a child pornography collector." Wouldn't it be a violation of the 5th amendment to be compelled to provide that passphrase, because it is an admission against interest and therefore would be admissible if you disclosed it?…

Compliance doesn't require that you provide them with the passphrase. It simply requires that you provide access to the material. Typing your password into the computer to let them copy the material would suffice.
Post reply on HN