Judge: Fifth Amendment doesn't protect encrypted hard drives
arstechnica.com
Judge: Fifth Amendment doesn't protect encrypted hard drives
1–10 of 135 posts
Re: Judge: Fifth Amendment doesn't protect encrypted hard drives
#2Any technologies exist that let you have multiple encrypted OS's on multiple keys? For example, 1 key could boot up one OS and another key could boot up a different OS. Seems like it'd be difficult to prove that you booted one or the other...
Re: Judge: Fifth Amendment doesn't protect encrypted hard drives
#3Any technologies exist that let you have multiple encrypted OS's on multiple keys? For example, 1 key could boot up one OS and another key could boot up a different OS. Seems like it'd be difficult to prove that you booted one or the other...
Yes. The term for that is plausible deniability. It is implemented (probably among others) in truecrypt: http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability
Re: Judge: Fifth Amendment doesn't protect encrypted hard drives
#4Any technologies exist that let you have multiple encrypted OS's on multiple keys? For example, 1 key could boot up one OS and another key could boot up a different OS. Seems like it'd be difficult to prove that you booted one or the other...
[deleted]
Re: Judge: Fifth Amendment doesn't protect encrypted hard drives
#5Just out of curiosity, what's the case-law like if she had encoded these documents and stored them on paper?
I certainly don't want to see mandatory decryption, but at the same time it doesn't make sense to let an accused completely skip out on discovery by simply truecrypt-ing the evidence either.
Re: Judge: Fifth Amendment doesn't protect encrypted hard drives
#6Any technologies exist that let you have multiple encrypted OS's on multiple keys? For example, 1 key could boot up one OS and another key could boot up a different OS. Seems like it'd be difficult to prove that you booted one or the other...
I can see the legal issues that would be forthcoming if you refused to share the key to allow for access or agree to type it in yourself. Obstruction and all that.
I'm wondering what the legal ramifications might be if you set a secondary key that would wipe the drive in the most secure method possible and then provide that key. Or even the alternate boot sequence as suggested.
Re: Judge: Fifth Amendment doesn't protect encrypted hard drives
#7Any technologies exist that let you have multiple encrypted OS's on multiple keys? For example, 1 key could boot up one OS and another key could boot up a different OS. Seems like it'd be difficult to prove that you booted one or the other...
Yes. The term for that is plausible deniability. It is implemented (probably among others) in truecrypt: http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability
Plausible deniability is a much larger concept than that. Also if they know you're using Truecrypt, the "deniability" of the existence of a 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) OS goes down significantly.
Re: Judge: Fifth Amendment doesn't protect encrypted hard drives
#8Yesterday's link, to the original source: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3502850
Re: Judge: Fifth Amendment doesn't protect encrypted hard drives
#9Any technologies exist that let you have multiple encrypted OS's on multiple keys? For example, 1 key could boot up one OS and another key could boot up a different OS. Seems like it'd be difficult to prove that you booted one or the other...
I can see the legal issues that would be forthcoming if you refused to share the key to allow for access or agree to type it in yourself. Obstruction and all that. I'm wondering what the legal ramifications might be if you set a secondary key that would wipe the drive in the most secure method possible and then provide that key. Or even the alternate boot sequence as suggested.
>I'm wondering what the legal ramifications might be if you set a secondary key that would wipe the drive
Destruction of evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence
Re: Judge: Fifth Amendment doesn't protect encrypted hard drives
#10Just out of curiosity, what's the case-law like if she had encoded these documents and stored them on paper? I certainly don't want to see mandatory decryption, but at the same time it doesn't make sense to let an accused completely skip out on discovery by simply truecrypt-ing the evidence either.
To me, the most convincing argument is, what if you legitimately forget your password?
If that alone gets you thrown in jail, then you're going to be jailing a lot of innocent people. On the other hand, if that does not get you thrown in jail, then one can simply claim to have forgotten the password without repercussion.
Personally, I'd rather let people hide evidence by encrypting it than jail people for being forgetful, since those seem to be the only two choices.