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

Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 413 posts

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#121

Post by fjdlwlv »

mjolk wrote: post #83
neltnerb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this were the case, they would provide him immunity in exchange for cooperation in prosecuting up the "food chain" like they do with mobsters.

I think this is just a thing that happens in the movies. Also, check out the source document and let me know if you think someone found guilty of the described acts deserves immunity.

What? It happens all the time on regular cirminal cases. Movies didn't​ invent "informants".

Immunity can mean being convicted for lesser offenses, or negotiating a less than maximal punishment.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#122

Post by bsder »

fencepost wrote: post #25

This is an interesting contrast to the article reported this past week about Nigel Lang, a black man in the UK who was accused of having or sharing child porn because of an extra digit added to an IP address during investigations[1]. One relevant section from the apology/explanation letter: "The issues around the downloading of IIOC [indecent images of children] are that statistically out of a cohort of offenders, th…

> The issues around the downloading of IIOC [indecent images of children] are that statistically out of a cohort of offenders, the predominant characteristic is that the offence will be committed in the main by white males. Only a very small percentage will be black, around 3%, and only around 2% will be female.

That's quite a remarkable statistic. I wonder why.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#123

Post by craftkiller »

mjolk wrote: post #110
killjoywashere wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand something, either their argument about hashes, or how whole disk encryption works. I assumed that whole disk encryption meant that the disk, unencrypted, has high entropy, so the whole thing equally looks like snow. Doesn't FileVault encrypt the whole disk? So, where's this hash?

The defendant provided the password to his iphone (that contained highly-unsavory media of his nieces), which contained an unlock code for his laptop (filevault backup decrypt key). He connected the external drives to this laptop, and when he'd transfer media from his laptop to the drives, logging would occur with the file checksums. The hash/checksum is on the laptop with the filepath to the identified external driv…

Wow, that's a lot against this guy, but hypothetically couldn't compelling him to decrypt his drives based on a file hash set a dangerous precedent where police can just plant file hashes somewhere to get access to anyone's drives? Sort of the high tech version of the drug dogs that would signal on cue.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#124

Post by nl »

SCAQTony wrote: post #51
paulddraper wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not as black and white as you make it. If there is a warrant to search my property, I am obligated to assist if required. E.g. open the gun safe. (Hey, speaking of guns...You know what other antedquated amendment from the Founding Fathers would be really convenient to ignore...) Now, AFAIK, no one has tested whether that still hold true of a combination safe, where the access substaintivly requires information f…

"...LOCKED CONTAINERS - AN OVERVIEW: John P. Besselman Senior Legal Instructor Law enforcement students often ask the question “can I search a locked container?” A better question to ask may be “when can I search a locked container?” The fact that a container is locked may not increase the possessor owner’s expectation of privacy but does limit the law enforcement officer’s access to the secured area. The ability to…

Personally, I find the Genius analysis of JayZ much more readable:

    Well, my glove compartment is locked
    So is the trunk in the back
    And I know my rights, so you gon' need a warrant for that
And the analysis: https://genius.com/17560

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#125

Post by number6 »

killjoywashere wrote: post #106
eridius wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument made in the article is that it's a "foregone conclusion" that there's child porn on the drives, so decrypting them isn't self-incriminating because they already know what's on the drive. That said, personally I don't buy it. What if there's evidence of other illegal acts on the drive too, ones the police don't know about? Then decrypting the drive would definitely be incriminating because it would tell p…

I'm not sure I understand something, either their argument about hashes, or how whole disk encryption works. I assumed that whole disk encryption meant that the disk, unencrypted, has high entropy, so the whole thing equally looks like snow. Doesn't FileVault encrypt the whole disk? So, where's this hash?

I hope it is not sha-1

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#126

Post by throwaway91111 »

rayiner wrote: post #87
smsm42 wrote: post #16

This reads as extremely bizarre. I mean, reading the fifth amendment makes it pretty clear - no one should be compelled to witness against oneself. However, it looks like the current executive and judicial are thinking "well, those Founders were just idiots for putting such an amendment in, clearly it'd be much easier to prosecute people if we could compel them to witness against themselves, so why don't we just igno…

It's not bizarre at all. "To be a witness against himself" is not metaphorical or ye olde English. It literally means what it says--the government can't force someone to testify against himself ( i.e. to provide a confession). If the Founders had meant to say that the government can't compel someone to cooperate in an investigation at all , they would have said that.

Ahh yes, they spell out their interpretation clearly in the companion manual to the constitution.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#127

Post by Godel_unicode »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #69
hackuser wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And for ease of reading, I'll reply to my own comment with other interesting issues: * "The fact remains that the government has not brought charges," [his attorney] Donoghue said in a telephone interview . It seems a warrant is at issue, if I understand correctly. * The contempt-of-court order against Rawls was obtained by authorities citing the 1789 All Writs Act. The All Writs Act was the same law the Justice Depa…

"My completely amateur thoughts: If they already can prove he has child porn, then they don't need the additional evidence. If they do need the additional evidence, then he is incriminating himself." That's a good point. They either have proof he downloaded child porn or they don't. They're definitely trying to do more than prove it. Probably set a precedent increasing their power as usual.

"so you, Mr expert witness, are telling me that hashes collide? What's that you say, there are actually people who actively look for and produce such hashes for fun?? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury..."

And so on. I'm pretty sure pedophile is near the top of the "you better make damn sure they don't get off" list.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#129

Post by Godel_unicode »

imh wrote: post #73
hackuser wrote: post #56

Some discussion overlooks that this is a special case: ... the appeals court, like the police, agreed that the presence of child porn on his drives was a "foregone conclusion." The Fifth Amendment, at its most basic level, protects suspects from being forced to disclose incriminating evidence. In this instance, however, the authorities said they already know there's child porn on the drives, so Rawls' constitutional…

I've never understood the foregone conclusion doctrine. If it's a foregone conclusion, the search should be unnecessary, not a special privilege. IIRC, he also stated that he has forgotten his password (and after 18 months, it has become believable).

The forgotten password is my concern here, God help you if you're an innocent person in this situation!

Edit: whether or not it's true in this instance.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#130

Post by gscott »

shard972 wrote: post #102
oxide wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the mandatory minimums for possession of child porngraphy? The zero tolerance? Our prisons fill with drug offenders, yet we give sex offenders a scarlet letter + probation?

I don't think drug offenders should be put in prison since it's a victimless crime. I think child porno while much more serious does invoke some of that chain of reasoning. To me there is a big difference between a guy who found some on the internet and someone who produces or pays for it. I would be wary of putting in minimum sentencing for such crimes unless it was only targeted towards those producing/paying as yo…

There was a sex offender who wrote on paper fictional stories of child sex and he was put back into jail for a violation of his parole (for writing it, never shared it).

If you have child pornography the law considers it the same as taking the photo and you can be sued civilly by the victims.

People love it when lawmakers make more laws.

Post reply on HN