Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Comments: 426 +-   UK Government Can Demand You Hand Over Encryption Keys on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:06AM

Posted by Zonk on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:06AM
from the shh-don't-give-them-ideas dept.
privacy
encryption
security
government
politics
iminplaya writes "The UK government can now demand that citizens hand over their data encryption keys - or face jailtime for obstructing justice. The law only applies to data on UK shores, and doesn't cover information transmitted via UK servers across the internet. 'The law also allows authorities to compel individuals targeted in such investigation to keep silent about their role in decrypting data ... The Home Office has steadfastly proclaimed that the law is aimed at catching terrorists, pedophiles, and hardened criminals--all parties which the UK government contends are rather adept at using encryption to cover up their activities.'"
story

Related Stories

Journal: Always a step ahead, those Brits by iminplaya (723125)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

UK Government Can Demand You Hand Over Encryption Keys 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • hmm (Score:4, Funny)

    by pak9rabid (1011935) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:09AM (#20822543)
    I guess when wire-tapping and CCTV just isn't enough

    • Life without public key cryptography (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yeah. The U.K. (along with most countries) has always impressed me as a country designed by the bureaucrats, of the bureaucrats, and for the bureaucrats. Unfortunately the U.S. has been heading the same way for a while.

      People forget that the U.S. Senate came close to outlawing Public Key Crypto back in September of 1991. This is why there was a rush to release PGP back in the summer of that year. It negated anything the Senate could do.

      One has to wonder what life would be like without public key crypto toda

      • Re:Life without public key cryptography (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Rei (128717) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @11:34AM (#20824755) Homepage
        Weren't the British planning to pass something like this years ago? I remember reading about it at the time. This law seems like it'd be either unenforcable (if the person can argue that they don't have or forgot the key), or asking for people to be set up (if they can't). Perhaps a less obvious version of the following:

        From: Anonymous Stranger (someone@outsidetheuk.com)
        To: Patsy (someone-else@inside.co.uk)
        CC: Law Enforcement HQ (help@police.co.uk)
        Subject: Confession

        Dear Patsy,

        I was just approached by an acquaintance who says he committed a crime for you. Not believing it, I asked for proof. He showed me this picture:

        (insert photo of apparent crime in progress)

        I was horribly disturbed when I saw this. Apparently, according to him, it's just a screenshot from a video of the crime and him talking about all of the details of it for you. When I asked why he felt safe keeping a video around, he said it's encrypted and that only you and he have the keys. I managed to swipe his USB memory stick, and sure enough, there's some big encrypted file on it. I'm attaching it below for you. Since the police will certainly be interested in what it shows, I'd advise that you hand over your encryption key to them immediately.
    • "I guess when wire-tapping and CCTV just isn't enough"

      The issue, of course, is that systems are being put into place that can be used against citizens who protest. By using "terrorism" to create fear, those who want corruption and control are building systems that can be used to give them more control. Laws that required centuries to build are now being thrown away with as little awareness by citizens as can be designed.

      The movie Zeitgeist explains it: The movie Zeitgeist (2007) [zeitgeistmovie.com] claims to explain it all, from an example of how people are controlled by myths, to how people who control government use fear to get more control, to why the U.S. government is pursuing a policy of hyper-inflation of the dollar now.

      The movie is free and can be downloaded using a BitTorrent client, burned to a CD (a DVD is not necessary), and most modern DVD TV players will play it.

      The Zeitgeist movie is very poor in some places, such as the opening sequences, and excellent in most places.

      Don't expect emerging consciousness of very difficult subjects like those in the movie Zeitgeist to be free of error. The movie correctly says that "resurrection after 3 days" is part of many ancient myths, with an astrological background. However, the movie also speculates that Jesus Christ may never have existed. That is beside the point. In fact, whether Jesus Christ existed or not, many people in the world thought that his ideas and the ideas of his follower Paul of Tarsus were an improvement over what they had before. Even many people who do not claim to be part of a religion think that.

      Those who want more information about how corrupters use fear can watch the free 3-Part BBC movie: The Power Of Nightmares: The Rise Of The Politics Of Fear (2004) [moviesfoundonline.com].

      For those who don't know, and want to know what is happening and why, those movies are an excellent and entertaining way to start.

      For people and their friends who invest in weapons and the manipulatable parts of the oil business, such as Cheney and the Bush family, controlling the government is how they make money and get more power. People from rich families often grow up believing that it is acceptable for them to kill people to get what they want. It is difficult, however, for the average person to believe that someone who already has a lot of money would kill others simply because he wants more money.

      I am surprised at how much conflict of interest is allowed in the U.S. and U.K. governments. Why are weapons and oil investors like Cheney and Bush allowed to decide about starting wars in countries that have oil? (Afghanistan may not have oil, but oil investors want to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.)

      Now the U.S. and U.K. governments are planning to start a war with Iran, another oil-rich country.

      TrueCrypt has "plausible deniability. I wondered why TrueCrypt [truecrypt.org] encryption software has "plausible deniability". I guess that is why. We will soon all be needing it.

      • Re:Zeitgeist says it is rich people wanting contro (Score:4, Interesting)

        by TheLink (130905) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @12:00PM (#20825223) Journal
        Truecrypt's plausible deniability is worthless or even dangerous.

        If you have Truecrypt installed it just means you're going to rot in jail till you can either:
        1) Convince the police that some random file you have that they are interested in is not encrypted.
        2) Decrypt the file somehow (even if it wasn't encrypted in the first place ;) ).

        You'd be better off downloading some legal porn (or something similarly frowned on but legal) and encrypt sets of them (without truecrypt) and write down the keys somewhere so you never forget or lose it. Then if the Gov says "hand over the keys" you hand over the keys, rather than say "I have no keys".

        A Gov like that is going to presume you're guilty of something.

  • Its very important that we all do this. (Score:3, Funny)

    by TechnoBunny (991156) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:11AM (#20822565)
    Unless we let the government have access to all our data then the terrorismists will WIN.

    After all, if you've nothing to hide then whats the problem? I for one will be printing out all of my data in hardcopy to send to the government, as I am a PATRIOT.

    After all - there was no terrorismisticals before the internet.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tomhudson (43916)

      "After all, if you've nothing to hide then whats the problem? "

      The problem is that people who SHOULD be hiding things, don't - like the whales on the beach (both sexes) who squeeze into too-tiny bathing suits.

      As for the encryption keys - "Gee, I forgot it." Prove otherwise. How many passwords have YOU forgotten?

      • Re:Its very important that we all do this. (Score:5, Funny)

        by UbuntuDupe (970646) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:38AM (#20822959) Journal
        Hm, I generally go with: "Oh, you don't need the key; just factor the semiprime. What, you bad at math or something?"

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by westlake (615356)
        As for the encryption keys - "Gee, I forgot it." Prove otherwise.

        Six months in the county lock-up will do wonders for your memory - which is what thi smart-ass response to the judge will get you.

        • Re:Its very important that we all do this. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Alsee (515537) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:19PM (#20829259) Homepage
          >I forgot it.

          Six months in the county lock-up will do wonders for your memory - which is what thi smart-ass response to the judge will get you.

          I happen to have something on my drive right now which for the last half year or so I have been *trying* to remember the password. I would delete it but for the slim chance I might be able to remember the password some day, or that a relevant cracking program might eventually be developed.

          Nazi fuckers like you and these UK government government deserve a chainsaw enema. Being "tough on crime" is a mental defect when you are blind/unphased about imprisoning innocent people in your Crusade.

          Oh wait, I forgot. Anything which makes it more difficult to catch and convict criminals must itself be made criminal. The fact that anyone ever posesses anything encrypted means they must already be a criminal.

          -

      • Re:Its very important that we all do this. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by arkhan_jg (618674) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @10:51AM (#20824105)
        That's the problem - forgetting the password is not a defence. Failing to hand it over when asked carries up to a 5 year jail sentence, as it's assumed whatever you're 'hiding' would cause you to be imprisoned. The basic premise, if you use encryption, is that you are guilty of something and it's up to *you* to prove otherwise by letting the police rifle through *all* your data looking for something incriminating. Failure to do so is evidence itself of guilt!

        This law was passed 7 years ago, and the home office has been quietly waiting for the original outrage to die down to see if they could get away with actually using the powers they were granted before 9/11 or 7/7. Of *course* they'll only use it against terrorists and pedophiles. Nothing to fear citizen, sleep soundly in your bed, safe in the knowledge we're only imprisoning bad men. After all, only bad men use encryption then forget the password...

        Of course, if you're a pedophile you're far better off taking the 2 years for failure to hand over your encrypted data, than to take the potentially decades in jail if you have incriminating photos and a sex offender offence that might well get you killed there. I don't think it'll be too long before the maximum sentence gets raised to be in line with the worst crime you might be assumed to have committed and hiding via encryption...

        • This is simply false (Score:4, Informative)

          by nasor (690345) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @01:42PM (#20826691)

          That's the problem - forgetting the password is not a defence.
          This is simply false. In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of the law from U.K. law enforcement is that it's almost impossible to enforce in most cases because the burden is on the police to prove that the suspect does actually have the keys and has not simply lost/forgotten them. The law quite explicitly states that the police must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the person actually has a key before any violation of this law can occur.

          • Re:This is simply false (Score:4, Informative)

            by julesh (229690) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:07PM (#20829039)
            The law quite explicitly states that the police must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the person actually has a key before any violation of this law can occur.

            That's not actually true. Here're the relevant sections, with added emphasis:

            49 (2) If any person with the appropriate permission under Schedule 2 believes, on reasonable grounds--

            (a) that a key to the protected information is in the possession of any person

            [...]

            53 Failure to comply with a notice

            (1) A person to whom a section 49 notice has been given is guilty of an offence if he knowingly fails, in accordance with the notice, to make the disclosure required by virtue of the giving of the notice.

            (2) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it.

            (3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if--

            (a) sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and

            (b) the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.


            The only precondition for issuing a notice is reasonable belief. The only condition necessary for an offence to occur is that the recipient of the notice didn't act on it, knew what he was required to do and knew he was not doing it. The only time it is required for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is in posession of the key is if the defendent has produced evidence that he is not.

            I believe you are in posession of a key with fingerprint 33a08b9d1e07, because somebody sent you a message that was encrypted with that key, and they wouldn't do that if they didn't think you could read it (reasonable belief). You have been issued with a section 49 notice requiring you to either decrypt the message or surrender your key. You can't do this because you don't have the key, and have no idea who sent you the encrypted message. Can you provide any evidence that you don't have the key? Because if you can't, I'm not required to prove that you do have it.

  • Been like this for years (Score:5, Informative)

    by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:12AM (#20822583) Homepage
    This law has been around for years. In fact, back when PGP was big, some UK residents on Usenet would have sigs saying something like, "If I revoke a key without explaining why, it is due to that law".

    • Re:Been like this for years (Score:5, Informative)

      by mikelieman (35628) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:15AM (#20822627) Homepage
      And the idea is why Rubberhose Crypto was developed.

      It had setup the system so that there could never be any confidence that ALL the encryption keys have been turned over.

      • Re:Been like this for years (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Maximum Prophet (716608) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:20AM (#20822709)
        If the government has no confidence that you've turned over *all* the keys, won't they just put you in jail indefinitly even after you've turned over the keys?

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by rucs_hack (784150)
          not so long as the keys they have allow access to all your encrypted data that they know about.

          I use a somewhat secure method to protect my personal data. Its a thing I like to call 'burning to dvd and not keeping it on my pc'.

          Yes I know dvd's can be stolen, but they have to find them first. Anyway, most of what I'm worried about isn't ephemorous threats of government snooping, but the far more likely possibility of my machine being hijacked by criminal types over the tubes.

    • Re:Been like this for years (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Chrisq (894406) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:26AM (#20822801)
      GnuPG has a --show-session-key command, so that when you are asked to reveal the key for an encrypted message you can comply with the law by revealing the session key that was generated for that specific message rather than your secret key. This complies with the letter of the law, so you can ask for a written order for each individual message. Of course if they are really serious at this point they will smile at your request and get out the rubber hoses....

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by julesh (229690)
      This law has been around for years. In fact, back when PGP was big, some UK residents on Usenet would have sigs saying something like, "If I revoke a key without explaining why, it is due to that law".

      The legislation was passed in 2000, yes. However the law was phrased so that it wouldn't become active until parliament provided a code of practice and announced a date for it to become active on. The last I heard there was a draft code planning to commence the law on 1 October 2007. I hadn't heard about th

  • Not exactly news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheRaven64 (641858) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:13AM (#20822613) Homepage Journal
    RIPA has had a lot of negative coverage since the idea was first raised. Someone at the time proposed emailing the Home Secretary with a few MBs of random data and the text 'here is the information on your opium import operation. The key is as we agreed' and then sending a tip to the police. If the Home Secretary does not disclose the key (which he doesn't have) then he is liable for 5 years of jail time. Or, the government could see how silly the act is and repeal it. Since the law just went into force, I expect civil liberties groups will start trying this soon.

  • Hand the keys over (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DuncanE (35734) * on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:15AM (#20822635) Homepage
    If a judge asked you to hand over the keys to your house.. or your car.. or your safety deposit box.. you are legally required to follow that order....

    Are we surprised that digital keys have the same requirement?

    And as for all the other (physical) keys you can refuse and let the courts (and a jury) decide.

    • Re:Hand the keys over (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:49AM (#20823145) Homepage
      Digital keys are not physical items. This is like them demanding that you hand over your thoughts. In the US, and many other countries, there are laws stating that you have the right to remain silent, and that you don't have to testify against yourself. If you don't hand over the keys to your house, car, or safety deposit box, there's other ways of retrieving such physical objects by just taking them from you. If you don't hand them over, and they have a search warrant, they are allowed to break the lock. They can't do that with thoughts in your head.

    • Re:Hand the keys over (Score:5, Insightful)

      by itsdapead (734413) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:52AM (#20823199)

      If a judge asked you to hand over the keys to your house.. or your car.. or your safety deposit box.. you are legally required to follow that order....

      But...

      1. That will typically require a court hearing "on the public record"
      2. Even a technically ignorant judge should be able to decide (a) whether its your house/car/box (b) whether its plausible that you have lost the keys (c) whether the police have a reasonable justification for wanting access and (d) whether the fact that you have a lock on your door or possess a saftey deposit box is, in itself, suspicious.

      Unfortunately, as soon as computer technology is involved, even some otherwise highly intelligent people instinctively turn off their brain and may be convinced that the existence of an encrypted file on your hard drive is tantamount to being found in possession of a giant underground bunker complete with piranha tank, spy-bisecting laser and fluffy white cat.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by julesh (229690)
      If a judge asked you to hand over the keys to your house.. or your car.. or your safety deposit box.. you are legally required to follow that order....

      Are we surprised that digital keys have the same requirement?

      The requirement is not the same. If a judge orders you to do something, and you state that you cannot, it is usually up to the judge (or prosecution) to show beyond reasonable doubt that you could do it before you can be punished for that offence. Under the RIPA, it is up to you to show that you c

  • Three Words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ricree (969643) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:17AM (#20822661)
    Truecrypt hidden volumes

    This is exactly the sort of situation that hidden volumes were created for. The government asks you to hand over your encryption keys? "Well sure officer, here's the key to my encrypted volume, but there really isn't anything on there besides some harmless porn (or anything else that might be plausibly embarrassing enough to keep hidden away)" Of course, it's probably only a matter of time before someone decides to make it illegal to possess programs that can create any sort of hidden volume, but that's another issue.

  • So, lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by R2.0 (532027) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:17AM (#20822665)
    A terrorist/pedophile/whatever is arrested, and his computer is seized. The authorities demand the suspect hand over the key, or he will face obstruction of justice charges and a year in jail. Does he

    a) Tell them to get bent, go to jail for a year as a symbol of government run rampant (face it, some "activist" will pick up his "cause")

    or

    b) Immediately hand over the key, which is then used to procure the evidence of his computer, putting him in jail for 20 years as an ACTUAL terrorist/pedophile.

    That's not even getting into the situation if one is NOT an actual pedorist. Terrorphile?

  • Solution? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cheesey (70139) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:17AM (#20822671)
    For private communications, don't send encrypted emails. If the encrypted email is captured by a wiretap, the fact that the ciphertext could be decrypted by the recipient is enough to allow the authorities to force that recipient to decrypt it.

    Instead, you should establish an encrypted connection, use it to exchange private information, then destroy the keys after the connection is closed. SSH is one protocol that does this automatically. That way, although a wiretap can record the ciphertext, the authorities cannot retrieve the encryption keys because they no longer exist. Your democratic right to privacy is preserved.

    I wonder if any instant messaging programs have implemented this? If so, do they consider the possibility of man-in-the-middle attacks as SSH does?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jedidiah (1196)
        Then you simply have no imagination.

        Not very well informed either.

        Governments have a nasty habit of taking innocuous data and trying to make something sinister out of it. They can either try to make something out of the information itself directly or choose to draw strange inferences out of it.

        Oppose the wrong law. Support the rights of the wrong types of people. Practice the wrong religion.

  • Intended usage (Score:3, Insightful)

    by feed_me_cereal (452042) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:18AM (#20822685)

    The Home Office has steadfastly proclaimed that the law is aimed at catching terrorists, pedophiles, and hardened criminals--all parties which the UK government contends are rather adept at using encryption to cover up their activities


    That's right, I seem to recall that Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman wrote about providing protection for pedophiles and terrorists in the motivation section of their paper on RSA.

  • What if...? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:35AM (#20822905)
    What if I don't have the keys but only store the data (i.e. I'm a backup service provider who stores data for people he doesn't even know by name or anything but IP address, which is fleeting at best)? What if I simply cannot remember the keys or, in case of keydisk/keyfile systems, have lost either (or destroyed because the archives are old backups no longer needed)? What if I don't remember which version of which cypher program was used to encrypt the keys (I tend to have that problem, actually, with a few archives...)?

    I don't have a problem handing the keys to the authorities provided they can give me a good reason they need them (I really don't enjoy handing out trade secrets, you know...), but what if I just simply and plainly cannot?

  • Dead-mans handle saves (Score:4, Interesting)

    by samjam (256347) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:35AM (#20822909) Homepage Journal
    Have an off-shore cron job to revoke your keys if you don't touch them often enough.

    When you are asked for the keys, refuse until you are arrested and unable to save the keys from being revoked.

    The revocation is the trigger that you have been asked.

    Sam

    • Variant (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jbeaupre (752124)
      Keep your encryption keys offshore.

      You have the password to unencrypt your offshore keys. This password cannot be demanded of you (jurisdiction). But when you want to use your encryption keys, your application asks for the password, retrieves the key, and performs your data decryption (locally or remote?).

      Decidedly more trouble than it's worth, but an interesting thought exercise.

  • How to screw someone (Score:4, Interesting)

    by linuxwrangler (582055) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:37AM (#20822943)
    1. Place files full of random data on their machines

    2. Tip off the authorities to their "terrorist plans"

    3. Watch them get five years for "refusing" to decrypt the "data"

  • Search warrants? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by osgeek (239988) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:41AM (#20823007) Homepage
    Does the UK have the concept of a search warrant?

    I know everyone gets their panties in a wad about the guvmint decrypting their data, but I'm somewhat okay with it if a court is involved in the issuance of a valid search warrant. It's not fundamentally different from the court-overseen right to come into your home and search the premises.

    You can't completely declaw the police or they'll be useless at any type of law enforcement.

  • The really evil part (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ribuck (943217) <roger@eiffel.demon.co.uk> on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:52AM (#20823197) Homepage
    The really evil part is that you can be forbidden from telling anyone that you were forced to decrypt your documents, under penalty of imprisonment. Without public scrutiny, this law is inviting abuse.

  • This law is NOT directed against terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Terje Mathisen (128806) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @10:11AM (#20823479)
    This is in fact very easy to prove:

    If te maximum jail time for not divulging encryption keys is significantly less than the time for actually being convicted of terrorism, then it should be obvious that real terrorists would never divulge such encryption keys.

    No, this law, and others like it in other jurisdictions, are simply there to give the police one more reason to force regular citizens to hand over their keys.

    If you actually do have something to hide from the authorities, the best idea is probably to look into http://truecrypt.org/ [truecrypt.org] and the capability of having hidden encrypted volumes.

    When forced, either by legal threats or by rubber hose interrogation, you can then divulge the primary key. On the primary volume you should store potentially embarrassing, but not really critical information. This should be sufficient to show that you had reason to hide said info, but not enough to put you in jail for a long time.

    If you happen to be located in a place like Myanmar/Burma, then you should also use TrueCrypt, for exactly the same kind of reason.

    Terje
    "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

  • What if your password incriminates yourself? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bender0x7D1 (536254) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @10:32AM (#20823781) Homepage

    I was wondering how the court would rule if your password contained information that would incriminate you in a different crime.


    For example, if your password was: "my_murder_victim_is_buried_under_my_patio" or "I_embezzeled_20million_into_account_123456789", wouldn't revealing the password violate your right against self-incrimination (at least in the US)?

    • Re:hidden volumes (Score:5, Informative)

      by malsdavis (542216) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:19AM (#20822699)
      Because the law wasn't designed to work like that. The police can't demand "hand over all your passwords so we can route around for anything illegal", it has to be a specific key to a specific piece of suspected evidence (e.g. Database or file). If you had hidden volumes on an encrypted disk they would have no way to know there was potential evidence there and therefore could not demand you hand over the password.

      This aspect of the law is routinely ignored on Slashdot to try and enhance the "evil" reputation of the law.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by R2.0 (532027)
        2 reasons I have a problem with laws such as this.

        1) They violate your rights against self incrimination. Per the US constitution, I cannot be compelled to testify or offer evidence against myself. What this law says is that I MUST testify against myself, in the form of giving up *knowledge* that I have for the state to use against me.

        2) While the warrant may be issued for a small piece of information, it has the potential to lay all your secrets bare. Let's say I am accused of child pornography, and tha

    • Re:Old News (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Salsaman (141471) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:23AM (#20822757) Homepage
      Thankfully, it appears it has yet to be used in a non-terrorism related case.

      Since part of the law prohibits telling anyone that you have had to hand over the keys, how can you be sure about that ?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by UbuntuDupe (970646)
        You're saying, it's illegal to tell people what semiprimes the government knows the factors of?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by julesh (229690)
      This laws was implemented years ago. The article author seems to know very little about the law in this respect, especially as it has barely changed since introduction in its 2000/20001. Thankfully, it appears it has yet to be used in a non-terrorism related case.

      No, the law was *made* years ago. It has yet to be used because it first entered into force yesterday. Give them time! :(

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TheRaven64 (641858)
      I have a few friends who work in police forensics. Trust me, they know about Trucrypt. Interestingly, security by obscurity doesn't work when you tell everyone about it...

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jesdynf (42915)
        Doesn't matter that they know about it. That's the *point*. They may "know" it, but they can't *prove* it.

        Remember, you should assume your adversary is fully conversant with every aspect of your encryption system except the key. Any "secret process" it relies on is a good sign that you don't have an encryption system, you have a filing cabinet with a very expensive picture of a padlock painted on the side.

        Your friends know about it. That's not the point. What they can *do about it* is the point.

      • Re:Truecrypt (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 49152 (690909) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:58AM (#20823289)
        I don't think you quite understand the principles behind "hidden volumes" in Truecrypt.

        The point is not that they don't know it is possible. The point is that it cannot be proven that there is a second encrypted volume within the first one.

        This makes it plausible to deny that it exist at all. If store some sensitive information in the outer volume, like some very embarrassing but not illegal pornography you can make a claim that this was the sole purpose of the outer Truecrypt volume. The law enforcement agency will have a hard time getting a judge to order you hand over keys to a hidden volume they cannot prove exist.

        Hidden volumes in Truecrypt got nothing at all to do with "security through obscurity", it's all about "plausible deniability". You can ask your friend in the police about that, if he has any experience with the security community at all he should be very well acquainted with this term.

        Of course, if you admit or in other ways make it provable that there exist an inner volume then all bets are off ;-)

        This will probably work in societies like USA and UK where the police have to follow certain procedures. In countries like Burma or China where they will just torture you until you confesses or dies, I'm not so sure about the value of this scheme.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by malsdavis (542216)
      "There are still people who think that freedom is too precious to be given to the people they are protecting it for. Damn."

      The problem is "Freedom" is a very abstract concept that can be easily twisted to mean both opposites. Speeches by infamous dictators like Hitler and Pol Pot often feature words like 'Freedom'. Most of the time it's not that people wish to deny Freedom, but that they disagree on what freedom is.

      i.e. Freedom to buy addictive drugs or Freedom from addictive drugs?
Search
Fascinating is a word I use for the unexpected. -- Spock, "The Squire of Gothos", stardate 2124.5

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.