Judge: Fifth Amendment doesn't protect encrypted hard drives

Post by ctdonath » Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 2:08 PM UTC

nknight wrote: post #71

ctdonath wrote: post #51

It's a variant of what's called "rubber hose cryptology": sometimes it's technologically a lot easier to just beat the password out of someone (smacking the soles of one's feet with a rubber hose apparently being a rather effective technique). I draw the line using a "rag doll" model. They can compel fingerprints, physical keys, DNA, etc. insofar as they can manipulate your limp unresitive (albeit uncooperative) body…

This is a very clear and compelling (so to speak) way of thinking about the problem, and one I don't think I've ever heard before. Is this an independent invention of yours or is there literature to be found on the "rag doll" model?

Post by BCM43 » Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 2:34 PM UTC

repsilat wrote: post #60

tedunangst wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they restore the hard drive from the cloned image they made before entering the password and ask you once more for the password. This time, with feeling.

There might be a market for keeping your keys on some service "out there". Boot your computer, type in your password, your computer sends the password to the key service. If the password is correct they send back the key, if the password is the destruct codes they delete the key. No amount of hard-drive cloning will stop this. Paired with some other optional measures ("we delete the password unless you send an email…

Post by gte910h » Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 5:47 AM UTC

nknight wrote: post #117

WettowelReactor wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it depends on what you destroyed. If the data is provenly destroyed there are limits to what you can be charged with. If what your hiding is worse this still maybe a viable option. If however the data is still recoverable with your cooperation I believe you could be jailed in contempt indefinitely (until you cooperate).

The longest contempt detention I'm aware of was a very bizarre case involving a guy named Richard Fine who was jailed for something less than 18 months. It was a civil case, and as far as I know he never argued that the information he was being ordered to produce would incriminate him in a criminal matter. His attempts to secure his release involved some conspiracy-theory-level ranting that probably contributed great…