TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court • Hacker News Board

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#151

Post by cheez » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 7:14 AM UTC

gst wrote: post #99

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…

"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." Does US law requ…

If you don't want to replace your door, I'm sure.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#152

Post by AndyKelley » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 7:20 AM UTC

According to wikipedia, in order to prove contempt, the prosecutor must have:

  * Existence of a lawful order
  * The contemnor's knowledge of the order
  * The contemnor's ability to comply
  * The contemnor's failure to comply

It seems to me that the prosecutor cannot prove the contemnor's ability to comply, in the case of a forgotten password.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#153

Post by ryoshu » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 7:20 AM UTC

cantbecool wrote: post #148

dunmalg wrote: post #138

"I changed the password every 3 days and never memorized it. Current password was on a post-it on my monitor. Did you guys lose the post-it?" Simple as that, right? They can't compel you to remember information you never had in memory. It's probably too late, as he's likely admitted to remembering the password. Dumb move.

They will probably request a lie detector test to be taken; ultimately, he will probably fail it. Great idea though.

Polygraphs are pseudoscience. The judge /might/ rule a polygraph as admissible evidence -- most will not, because of its inaccuracies -- but a "lie detector" is a gimmick.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#154

Post by true_religion » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 7:32 AM UTC

cantbecool wrote: post #148

dunmalg wrote: post #138

"I changed the password every 3 days and never memorized it. Current password was on a post-it on my monitor. Did you guys lose the post-it?" Simple as that, right? They can't compel you to remember information you never had in memory. It's probably too late, as he's likely admitted to remembering the password. Dumb move.

They will probably request a lie detector test to be taken; ultimately, he will probably fail it. Great idea though.

Lie detectors cannot be used as evidence in a court.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#155

Post by HeyLaughingBoy » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 9:12 AM UTC

VladRussian wrote: post #67

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

i was under impression that the right to remain silent is valid even before the court

It is. That's what I meant by being in custody (arrested).

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#156

Post by proexploit » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 9:16 AM UTC

blahblahblah wrote: post #108

cookiecaper wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an interesting discussion on the matter from a few months ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1762157 It seems that the primary contention here is whether a password constitutes physical evidence, which must be supplied upon the production of the correct edicts, or whether it constitutes "testimony", which I interpret to mean non-recorded ideation or mental processes. Supposedly the same argument could ap…

"Supposedly the same argument could apply to a safe combination, hence a defendant cannot be compelled to reveal a combo but can be compelled to open the safe." Can the defendant even be compelled to open a safe? Suppose you have a case in which the defendant has either specifically disclaimed ownership of the safe in question or disclaims any knowledge of the combination or has flatly refused to either confirm or de…

I believe the police have the right to open the safe, but you aren't required to open it for them. If the police came into your house and said "show us every hidden object" so we can decide if it is illegal. You wouldn't be required to comply.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#157

Post by darklajid » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 9:24 AM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #150

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…

Assume a case like TrueCrypt's hidden volumes, where multiple keys decrypt different content. Could you use the key to decrypt the fake content, and then when asked if that key was the "real key", refuse to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds?

That's the whole point of this feature as far as I can tell: It should be impossible (ignoring flaws in the software/system) to know if there's a hidden volume. You give the key to the decoy, smile and ask if you can comply in any other way and move along. The english phrase that I see connected to this all the time seems to be plausible deniability [1]?

Since hidden volumes are an optional feature and - again, in theory - cannot be proven to exist, you can always claim that this is the only password. Even if the judge/attorney knows a thing or two about true crypt.

1: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Plausible_den...

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#158

Post by michael_dorfman » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 10:05 AM UTC

This is one of those stories where I wish we had a bat-signal to summon grellas.

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#159

Post by sdfjkl » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 10:12 AM UTC

gst wrote: post #32

shareme wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not familiar with US law. In most European countries (that do not have specific crypto laws) you neither need to give the judge any information (except your name and address), nor help the prosecutor (i.e., the judge cannot order you to open a safe, but of course he can try to break the safe hismelf).

There was a similar issue in the UK recently: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11479831

Re: TrueCrypt User Held in Contempt of Court

#160

Post by gst » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 10:55 AM UTC

sdfjkl wrote: post #159

gst wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not familiar with US law. In most European countries (that do not have specific crypto laws) you neither need to give the judge any information (except your name and address), nor help the prosecutor (i.e., the judge cannot order you to open a safe, but of course he can try to break the safe hismelf).

There was a similar issue in the UK recently: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11479831

Yes, UK and (afaik) France have special laws that require you to surrender cryptographic keys.