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

281–290 of 413 posts

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

#281

Post by emidln »

cesarb wrote: post #254
paulddraper wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Encrypted drives can be opened without the password. Difficulty varies of course, but it can be done (e.g. iPhone).

> Encrypted drives can be opened without the password. No, they can't. The way it's done is by trying many passwords until the right one is found. Once you have the right password, you can use it to decrypt the drive's contents, but then you are "opening it with the password". (IIRC, there were some bad "hardware encryption" HDDs where the password wasn't actually used to encrypt the drive's contents, just verified a…

Yes they can. It's not my fault the government has access to shit hardware or that it'll take a really long time. Encryption is just a really big combination lock with a very long series of inputs.

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

#282

Post by bobbington »

hackuser wrote: post #55
bobbington wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The supreme court is unelected, and are the supreme authority in this nation, above president and congress. the solution is simple - make the supreme court stand up to elections. America has had atrocious decisions from the supreme court. In Dred Scott, they said black people have no rights because they are black. In Roe v Wade, the abortion laws of 47 states were struck down by 5 oligarchs. No matter what you believ…

I don't see U.S. (or any) elected officials, including Congress and the White House, making better decisions. All have made atrocious decisions. The argument in the parent is well-worn, but it fails serious consideration if it ignores the facts that the U.S. courts interpret laws made by the elected officials, that the judges are appointed by elected officials, that their unelected status is established by elected of…

Power corrupts. Unelected officials in office for life are at particular risk.

i still think the people should be supreme. Right now, there is no legal way for the people to fight an outrageous decision. They can't elect somebody new in 4 years.

Thomas Jefferson was adamantly opposed to said judiciary, because it made the constitution a "thing of wax"

The whole reason behind federalism was that states would have different ideas of what is good and should implement that. that way you could get away from states with bad laws. Today the Supreme Court and other judges completely ignores the constitution.

If they say the sky is green, nobody can correct them save Death itself.

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

#283

Post by bobbington »

Steko wrote: post #79
bobbington wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The supreme court is unelected, and are the supreme authority in this nation, above president and congress. the solution is simple - make the supreme court stand up to elections. America has had atrocious decisions from the supreme court. In Dred Scott, they said black people have no rights because they are black. In Roe v Wade, the abortion laws of 47 states were struck down by 5 oligarchs. No matter what you believ…

If 47 states still wanted abortion to be illegal, they could certainly have made a constitutional amendment through their elected representatives in Congress and state legislatures. The fact is the restrictions were quickly eroding at the time of Roe and 20 states had already passed laws making specific exceptions including 3 where it was legal.

Yeah but in Dredd Scott the Supreme Court did a massive backpedal on blacks rights, overturning state law that favored them. The question is the same. Back then they argued Over whether a black person is a person. Today they argue over whether a foetus is a person.

My question is why should 5 unelected people decide the answer for a nation? I say let states decide for themselves. The reason is people feel very strongly about their opinions, and I think forcing your opinion of what is right on many people is a bad place to be.

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

#284

Post by Allower »

jaredklewis wrote: post #170
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…

Your interpretation of the 5th amendment is quite different than it has been historically interpreted by the courts. For example, in a trial, the prosecutor might subpoena some documents and you cannot refuse to turn over those documents, unless doing so would trigger a 5th amendment assertion. Turning over the documents implicitly testifies to at least two important pieces of information: that the documents exist an…

Don't be retarded, you are basically saying one cannot plead the 5th regarding their password, but they CAN plead the 5th regarding their password hint. This is abusrd

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

#285

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#286

Post by _archon_ »

harryh wrote: post #264
ryan_j_naughton wrote: post #151

Thought experiment: What if there were an encryption system whereby if a user inputs one decryption key, the encrypted data decrypts to one set of values and if the user uses a second key, it decrypts to a second set of values. Sure, in order to encode both sets of data into a single encrypted result would require more storage space, but that is a small price to pay for protection against self incrimination from our…

Thought experiment: What if you kept two sets of bank records for your business. One set of bank records were truthful and demonstrated your guilt. The others were falsified and demonstrated your innocence. What would happen if, after your bank records were subpoenaed, you hand over the falsified records? Well, you'd be committing a crime. Maybe you get away with it, or maybe law enforcement figures it out and you ge…

Hmm... I believe there may be a distinction here. Decrypting to the false virtual contents would be more like presenting a copy of the bank records that were correct, but the file had been corrupted and the data was unusable. However, the corrupted but true records had been created before the subpoena (not trying to obstruct) and were handed over in good faith.

You wanted the contents of this drive? Here they are!

The owner of the drive is definitely in a legal and moral grey area, but it would be supremely difficult to prove mens rea in this case.

Interesting thought experiment: What happens when someone fills a hard drive with junk data and then encrypts it, then gets subpoena'd for the unencrypted contents of the drive?

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

#288

Post by naasking »

Terribledactyl wrote: post #141
naasking wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then that seems to undermine the whole argument, because they actually are requiring the suspect to incriminate himself.

Each photo in possession is a separate crime and they, presumably, know about and want a single photo. However different legal doctrines say, if they find more in the normal course of events, they are now admissible and can be used to create new charges.

> However different legal doctrines say, if they find more in the normal course of events, they are now admissible and can be used to create new charges.

Sure, but that's not the case here. They apparently already know he possesses a certain number of such photos, and now are now trying to compel him to incriminate himself further.

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

#290

Post by vilhelm_s »

nl wrote: post #124
SCAQTony wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...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

There is law review paper[0] about this song.

> And I know my rights, so you go’n need a warrant for that . . . If this Essay serves no other purpose, I hope it serves to debunk, for any readers who persist in believing it, the myth that locking your trunk will keep the cops from searching it. Based on the number of my students who arrived at law school believing that if you lock your trunk and glove compartment, the police will need a warrant to search them, I surmise that it’s even more widespread among the lay public. But it’s completely, 100% wrong.

Caleb Mason, "JAY-Z’S 99 PROBLEMS, VERSE 2: A CLOSE READING WITH FOURTH AMENDMENT GUIDANCE FOR COPS AND PERPS", http://web.archive.org/web/20130216120816/http://slu.edu/Doc...

Post reply on HN