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

Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 190 posts

Re: Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

#181

Post by feralchimp »

ataggart wrote: post #159
feralchimp wrote: post #101

I'm a government-should-leave-reasonable-people-the-hell-alone libertarian and a crypto-is-the-shit kind of guy. I also think warrants for searches of encrypted media are totally legit, and think the hair splitting over "typing in the password without anyone seeing it" vs. "being compelled to dictate the password" is completely pointless. 1. Not every vocal Utterance qualifies as Testimony, and the only person who ge…

Individuals should not be compelled to actively participate in their own prosecution. This is the spirit of the 5th Amendment.

I appreciate that the adversarial method of trial has given rise to that and other threads of argument on behalf of defendants; I'm just not buying it in this case.

It's an absurdly low bar for "active participation." He's not being asked to compute the AES decryption on 3x5 cards, or help the prosecution find the spot where the laptop is buried in the woods. When you're caught, you're forced to empty your pockets. If your 'pockets' include 1TB of incriminating data, that's your bad.

Is one also actively participating in his own prosecution when he fails to resist arrest? How about when he agrees not to leave the country as a condition for posting bail? After all, he's had that vacation to [insert non-extradition country here] for months! Why should he change his plans to benefit the prosecution?

Re: Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

#182

Post by arantius »

viveksec wrote: post #144
ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #3

The problem here is what are they going to find that ISN'T Illegal? Everyone has cracked software, pirated movies, & torrents. Then there's content that isn't illegal but very personal: chat logs, email archives, contact lists, usernames & passwords, FTP info, master passwords to everything, OH and my entire life's worth of inventions and ideas. I'm not saying they'd steal them but remember, we're talking about the A…

This sounds airtight. The analogy with the physical safe is completely destroyed by True Crypt's hidden partitions. Any lawyers want to comment on this ?

> This sounds airtight. The analogy with the physical safe is completely destroyed by True Crypt's hidden partitions.

Because it's impossible for a safe to have an extra hidden compartment?

Re: Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

#183

Post by jrockway »

3143 wrote: post #166
jrockway wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read that it's tied to a particular grand jury session, which is something like 18 months. Either way, the longest contempt sentence ever was 14 years, which is nothing compared to what you'll get if the government convicts you of laundering money, selling drugs, possessing child porn, or all the other crimes that you might have documented on your computer.

Why would you want that person to be able to avoid going to jail just because he was smart enough to use encryption?

Because I believe in the right of a person to be secure in his papers. If you've done something illegal, the government should be able to make its case without needing your computer. If they can't, what you've done is, to me, not illegal. The people that wrote the Constitution seem to agree.

Re: Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

#184

Post by jrockway »

pygy_ wrote: post #154
IgorPartola wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. You could do even better: keep your computer on at all times and keep everything you do in RAM. No encryption is necessary here, just a $100 UPS and your laptop's own battery. The problem with all these comments about "what if I give half of my phrase to a friend?" or "what if I write it in the dust at the entrance to my house and the FBI wipes it away when they bust in?" is that it doesn't really address the c…

This is probably good enough for most cases, where ham-fisted cops will pull the plug to seize the computer. But RAM isn't instantly wiped when turned off. The capacitors take some time to discharge, and it is possible to quickly snatch a RAM stick and put it in a device that will preserve its content and allow to read it later on. If the strategy you propose becomes more prevalent, law officiers will adapt.

If the strategy you propose becomes more prevalent, law officiers will adapt.

As will the encryption software. Good luck dumping my L1 cache.

Re: Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

#185

Post by gte910h »

yew wrote: post #78
gte910h wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mirror drives as part of evidence collection

. . . which is subsequently rendered useless by the TPM erasing itself. (The standard procedure is to encrypt the drive using a key stored in the TPM. The TPM then decrypts the drive when provided with the proper authentication. If the designated security policy is violated the TPM destroys the key, rendering the drive's contents useless.)

They're mirroring the drive. Why wouldn't they mirror the TPM too? Or are you contending they're tamperproof?

Re: Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

#186

Post by gte910h »

IgorPartola wrote: post #117
jpol wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminal contempt would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the elements of proving the defendant's failure to provide the encryption key would include (1) showing that the key exists and (2) showing that they key is in the defendant's possession.

One example would be a witness sees you enter your passphrase and unlock your system, no?

You mean a witness testifies they saw you unlock a system that looks a bit like the one they are seeing in front of them at trial?

Witness testimony is incredibly unreliable in practice, but courts LOVE that crap. So someone basically could get locked away in contempt forever because someone thinks they saw you unlock a system you can't actually unlock...

Re: Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

#187

Post by jangusa »

timdev2 wrote: post #162
jangusa wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Providing the password to a safe that contains incriminating documents actually is testimonial in nature because it requires you to disclose information you have in your mind (see above). As such, any information that the government obtains by compelling you to give them the password cannot be used against you in a criminal trial. The judge in the case being discussed here got it wrong, and his decision will be overt…

But as the article mentioned: "Prosecutors in this case have stressed that they don't actually require the passphrase itself, and today's order appears to permit Fricosu to type it in and unlock the files without anyone looking over her shoulder." So the state is arguing that they're not demanding the password, only the plaintext. Still seems fishy, but it's not clear that it's testimonial. I suppose one could argue…

The production of decrypted plaintext by means of an encryption key stored in your mind falls squarely within the rule on production of documents from U.S. v. Hubbell, discussed in jpol's comment above. It therefore seems quite likely the state will lose on appeal.

Re: Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

#188

Post by X-Istence »

Jimmie wrote: post #142
X-Istence wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They make devices that can safely transfer power from the wall socket to a UPS so that they can take the device with them. Take a look at this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erq4TO_a3z8

Can you not just use a laptop?

I don't understand your question.

Re: Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

#189

Post by yew »

gte910h wrote: post #185
yew wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

. . . which is subsequently rendered useless by the TPM erasing itself. (The standard procedure is to encrypt the drive using a key stored in the TPM. The TPM then decrypts the drive when provided with the proper authentication. If the designated security policy is violated the TPM destroys the key, rendering the drive's contents useless.)

They're mirroring the drive. Why wouldn't they mirror the TPM too? Or are you contending they're tamperproof?

They are intended to be tamperproof, yes. Mirroring the contents of a TPM is an exercise in hardware deconstruction where you also have to worry about setting of auto-erase traps. It's not impossible by any means, but it's not standard procedure and there's no guarantee it will actually work.

Re: Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

#190

Post by yew »

gte910h wrote: post #185
yew wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

. . . which is subsequently rendered useless by the TPM erasing itself. (The standard procedure is to encrypt the drive using a key stored in the TPM. The TPM then decrypts the drive when provided with the proper authentication. If the designated security policy is violated the TPM destroys the key, rendering the drive's contents useless.)

They're mirroring the drive. Why wouldn't they mirror the TPM too? Or are you contending they're tamperproof?

They are intended to be tamperproof, yes. Mirroring the contents of a TPM is an exercise in hardware deconstruction where you also have to worry about setting off auto-erase traps. It's not impossible by any means, but it's not standard procedure and there's no guarantee it will actually work.
Post reply on HN