181–190 of 200 posts
Just out of curiosity-- Does anyone know why it is important that a password can be more than 64 characters? Is he just saying "which makes it very hard to remember", or is there some legal significance to very long passwords?
(good point though, +reply, -op though.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
AIUI TrueCrypt has one hidden volume for every real volume, so it's reasonable for law enforcement to ask for the hidden volume if there's a real one. But what if there was a hard disk encryption system that allowed a large number of hidden volumes (say 1000), and a suspect provided police with keys for 5 of them -- how would the police know that there was any more? I think that this would give more effective plausib…
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).
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if they do put 2 and 2 together, now you have perjured yourself, not just refused to testify. Much worse. > Just jerk off to normal porn like everybody else, problem solved. sigh First they came for those accused of pedophilia, and I said nothing because I wasn't accused of pedophilia.
Ironic invocation of Godwin's Law?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under civil law, a finding that evidence was destroyed implies a finding of the fact that the destroyed evidence would have supported. I'm not sure how this would affect a criminal law proceeding, though I'm reasonably the prosecutor would be allowed to introduce that fact to prove guilt. (Ultimately it would be up to the jury to decide.)
How could the court know what fact it would have supported?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is withhold/destroying evidence in that case. it's there for anyone to see... encrypted. Can I go to federal prison if the police ask to me translate some paper in foreign language I happen to have in my pocket and i refuse/don't know the language?
No, you couldn't be compelled to translate a document in a foreign language. The police have another way to get the information - ask someone else who knows the language to do it. You would be making their job harder, but not impossible. In the case of an encryption key, you might be the only one that can assist the investigation. So you'd be hindering it. At least that's how I'd see it.
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…
You might also be missing something about TrueCrypt: plausible deniability. You can have different passphrases that unlock different things. You could provide them with a passphrase the only unlocks innocent documents when really you have CP stored using a DIFFERENT pass phrase -- any this would stand up to any cryptographical analysis -- they simply cannot PROVE that the CP exists or even that more encrypted data exists.
The analogy to a key isn't quite valid here; it's more like the doors in that hallway in the matrix. If you use key A in the door, you will get content A. However, you can use a different key, open the door, and it'll go somewhere else entirely. Also, if you rip the door off the wall, there is just the wall behind it. Crazy stuff, that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could the court know what fact it would have supported?
Because the plaintiff claimed it.
Plaintiff: "There was a dead-body in the toilet, but the defendant has been regularly flushing, thereby destroying the evidence and proving his guilt."
Judge: "Well, if you say it, it must be true!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" Providing a password is not testimony. You're not testifying to anything. " Where did you put your ex-wife's body Mr Johnson, we know you killed her? Just point at the map, you do not even have to say anything.
More like: "Give us the keys to this safe." and assuming they have a warrant, they can ask for such things.
You could have cat pictures encrypted with passphrase A and incriminating evidence (that stands up to the best forensic analysis currently available) encrypted with passphrase B and they wouldn't know which is which, if they unlocked ALL the data, or what.
Truecrypt is AMAZING and anyone holding onto stuff that might get them into trouble (esp. w/ foreign gov'ts) should use it.