Encryption Passphrase Protected by the 5th Amendment 537
Takichi writes "A federal judge in Vermont has ruled that prosecutors can't force the defendant to divulge his PGP passphrase. The ruling was given on the basis that the passphrase is protected under the 5th amendment to the United States Constitution (protection against self-incrimination)." The question comes down to, is your password the contents of your brain, or the keys to a safe.
I was wondering... (Score:2)
Re:I was wondering... (Score:5, Informative)
If the subpoena is requesting production of the files in drive Z, the foregone conclusion doctrine does not apply. While the government has seen some of the files on drive Z, it has not viewed all or even most of them. While the government may know of the existence and location of the files it has previously viewed, it does not know of the existence of other files on drive Z that may contain incriminating material. By compelling entry of the password the government would be compelling production of all the files on drive Z, both known and unknown.
By giving the government his password, the judge held, that the defendant was incriminating himself by opening up all of his files that weren't pertinent to the investigation. That was my take on it. *I am not a lawyer, but I scored high on critical reading on the SAT's, for what it's worth.
Re:I was wondering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite the opposite. By giving the password the defendant may incriminate himself by opening files containing incriminating (and pertinent) information, but unknown to the government prior to that.
Re:I was wondering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank God...FINALLY, a score for US privacy rights...and upholding our Constitutional rights!!!
You just don't see that much any more.....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wanna bet? (Score:2, Insightful)
Any takers...?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wanna bet? (Score:5, Funny)
Uhh ... no (Score:5, Informative)
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
How the hell did the parent post get a +5 informative of all things?!
Re:I was wondering... (Score:5, Funny)
Now if that isn't proof i don't know what is!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're saying "he can't be made to release incriminating files that are nothing to do with the case", while the poster you're replying to is saying "he can't be made to release incriminating files even if they are related to the case".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's exactly right. As far as I understand, the main concern is that by opening the disk he would potentially give the government access to the incriminating files not seen by the customs agents.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems like a fair law to me.
Re:I was wondering... (Score:4, Insightful)
So if they can be compelled to testify against themselves, what methods
are appropriate for that? Nothing life-threatening, surely, but perhaps a bit
of waterboarding is in order?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish you were being ironic. But I fear you actually mean this.
Re:I was wondering... (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, if you have the right to not incriminate yourself, then they can't force you to "confess". And if it happens, then any convictions should be turned over by a higher courts assuming that things go according to plan. This also carries the problem of blocking a criminal investigation but the necessity of not being forced to confess out ways the setback to criminal investigations. Many people support this idea if not simply because they don't want the cops showing up at their front door demanding you to tell them something you did that was illegal and later claiming it was part of an investigation.
As for me, I think it is a necessary evil that protects people in many ways above any benefit from a criminal investigation. If there is sufficient cause for the criminal investigation, then there will be other evidence outside that aspect that will eventually show up if it isn't already there.
One way they get around the 5th amendment is to grant immunity from prosecution for anything found or disclosed which seems to have the same effect of the 5th amendment. Something like that would be useful in convicting others involved by letting one person escape justice.
Re:I was wondering... (Score:4, Interesting)
Here they are saying that he has files that they know nothing about. Because those files are unknown, he is protected from having to provide them.
Thinking about it, I'm surprised that we haven't heard of cases getting thrown out because of computer evidence collected outside of the scope of any search warrant poisoning too much of the subsequent evidence. I could imagine a warrant to look on your computer for a warez program they think you have turning up an ssh known_hosts file entry for a warez server. Since they weren't looking for that evidence (maybe because they thought the computer had not been networked, or was not involved in warez transmission, just storage) then they can't use it, and if they then go hunting the logs of that remote server to find the connection that can't be used either because it was evidence they only knew to look for because of evidence they weren't allowed to have anyway. And because you can't un-know information once you have tainted evidence you have to show that any subsequently gathered evidence did not come from knowledge of that evidence or at least would have eventually been discovered by other means.
However I must offer the following disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (nor do I do anal like so many of you non-lawyers), but I have watched a lot of Law & Order. Disclaimer: Not being a lawyer, much
Re:I was wondering... (Score:5, Insightful)
You advocate punishing people for not confessing a crime?
Get a grip.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The point of the ruling is that the password has to be treated like testimony (which cannot be forced), rather than a physical object, like a safe key, which the defendant may be forced to surrender.
Re:I was wondering... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the warrant is to gain access to, for example "the twelve pornographic photographs known to be in the safe" that does not allow the investigators to also review the contents of all the accounting books also in the safe.
Since the original officers who looked at the images probably have no idea which files they were, I suspect that they will rifle through EVERYTHING in that drive if they had the opportunity, just to make sure they found the ones he saw.
By doing so they will likely find other things that may pose a problem to the owner of the drive the government now possesses, and US law has always said that one can't be made to incriminate themselves.
Very picky points, but in this case I actually think the judge may be right within very narrow confines.
(If the original investigator can remember the actual file names/paths, I suspect the defense could be asked to product THOSE files, but lacking that...)
--
Tomas
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I was wondering... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so painfully obvious that I'm somewhat concerned that it took so long for a judge to rule in this manner. On the other hand I am relieved it has finally happened.
Re:I was wondering... (Score:4, Insightful)
Obvious to an intelligent person perhaps (Score:3, Insightful)
This is so painfully obvious that I'm somewhat concerned that it took so long for a judge to rule in this manner.
Obvious to you and I maybe, but Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas never met an unreasonable search.
If prosecutors can jail reporters indefinitely until they hand over their sources, how is it that much different for the government to imprison someone for not turning over their encryption keys? The only difference I see is one may incriminate someone else and the other may incriminate you.
Re:I was wondering... (Score:5, Informative)
But I'm nice and I found it an interesting read, so I will summarize it. There are a great many of cases involving what and when the government can force someone to turn over documents. Generally, things which don't represent what's in your mind can be forced over. An example would be a key to a lock as compared to a combination lock. The former exists, and is known to exist, and the latter's turnover requires the suspect to devolve information contained within his mind, which would be tantamount to testifying.
In this case, there is some splitting of legal hairs, and my description will be less than sound. While IANAL, I am marrying one
As I already rambled here, the government argues that they knew of the files, and that they had already seen the files. As such, the defendant needed to turn over the password. Something similar has been done previously, where the government knew that a suspect had a document in his possession,and the court forced its turnover. In this case, however, the judge unacknowledged that the prosecution has seen only a small number of the files on the encrypted drive, and that they were almost certainly incriminating. As such, the judge decided that he couldn't order the defendant to turn over the password as the governmetn would have access to new files it knew nothing about.
So, the lesson here is to just not talk to the police without your lawyer present, and don't fricking enter passwords to your files without a court order.
But but but! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But but but! (Score:5, Funny)
Liberals!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh shit, did I say that out loud?
If not anything else... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If not anything else... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If not anything else... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If not anything else... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmm, that brings the question, did we waterboard Gonzales? If not, why not?
Re:If not anything else... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If not anything else... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If not anything else... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Eggs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting development (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm....
Well the government of Vermont can't at least.
Re:Interesting development (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm....
Well the government of Vermont can't at least.
It was a Federal judge.
It was also probably not worth bothering the NSA with. I wouldn't take this to mean much of anything about how quickly the Feds can crack PGP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting development (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting development (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is anything that you should have learned from reading all of those articles about quantum computing, is that it's friggin HARD. Any quantum device complicated enough to even be remotely useful in breaking encryption is many decades away. This is because it will take centuries of man hours and armies of graduate students in multiple fields to crack this nut. There still need to be tens of thousands of PhD's written on related topics before you can even dream of starting construction.
In order to have a secret working quantum computer, the US government would have had to have been actively working on the technology since long before traditional silicon computing took hold... hell, long before the idea of quantum computing for decryption even tickled our imaginations. They would have had to independently train a clandestine army of engineers and physicists that far outclassed our brightest minds in academia. These people would have had to replicate ALL of our modern advances decades earlier (which, btw. is not apparent from any other military technology). The resources required for a project like this are simply staggaring, and I estimate that the financial costs would have EASILY been in the trillions of dollars.
We certainly do spend enormous amounts of capital on military R&D in the USA, and there are many important technologies where the military is years ahead of commercial efforts. However from numerous projects that have bee declassified over the years, this advantage usually only involves the effective weaponization / improvement of currently existing/proven technologies. The military is only ahead in the little details of practical implementations, and not the fundamental scientific principles. In short, claiming the existence of some secret quantum computer is akin to claiming the US military had Joint Strike Fighters before the Wright brothers even made their first flight.
Re:Interesting development (Score:5, Insightful)
In case you still have no concept of how big this number is, there are estimated to be around 10^80 atoms in the universe, which is around 2^266. That means that each of your four billion computers is having try 2^1740 keys for every atom in the universe.
To put it another way: Let's assume each of your four billion computers is a few orders of magnitude faster than anything I know of and can try four billion keys a second, giving you a total of around 2^64 keys tried per second. This means you can do around 2^76 per day. At this rate (and don't forget that we are assuming that you have almost as many computers that are orders of magnitude faster than anything real as there are people in the world) it will take you 2^1972 days to do an exhaustive search (although on average it will only take you 2^1971 days to find the key). For those following at home, that's around 2^1962 years. For reference, the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, which is a shade under 2^34 years.
In summary, if every atom in the universe was a computer that ran orders of magnitude faster than anything we can build today, and it ran for the life of the universe to date, you would not be able to crack a single 2048-bit message. If, however, you have a quantum computer, then you might be able to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, I really don't know if this is possible, but how come you couldn't take all the possible keys in a 2048 key, and split them up amongst enough computers in a cluster (Do I hear Beowulf anyone?) so that the total time to try all possible keys is down to a day or less?
No, it is not possible. The total number of possible keys in a keyspace of 2048 bits is an astronomically large number. 2 raised to the 2048th power, to be exact. On average, you will get lucky and crack it after having gone through only half of the keyspace, or 2**2047 keys.
I don't have any numbers on current top performance for testing keys, but let's assume that the Government has computers capable of trying one million keys per second. That being the case, you would need (2**2047) / (1000000 keys/s
Better use of a botnet? (Score:2)
It makes for a fine organised crime recipe:
(1) targeted theft
(2) decryption of interesting data with distributed botnet cracking
(3) sale or blackmail?
(4) Profit!
Replace (1) with 'politically motivated arrest'/'espionage'/'anti terror' and (2) with "expensive NSA room heaters" and you have in principle the same mechanism, but "legal"..
BTW, can't see why it would take long to boot up unless you kick the various components sequentially to prevent a powe
Re:Better use of a botnet? (Score:5, Interesting)
What a lot of people fail to realise is that encryption can be made unbreakable even by brute force by simply choosing a large enough encryption key. What people also fail to realise is that 256 bit encryption doesn't take twice as long to crack as 128 bit encryption. It in fact takes 2^128 times as long to crack.
Let's for a second assume that 128 bit encryption is crackable by your own personal home computer in a period of 1 hour.
136 bit encryption would take 2^8 times as long (250 times as long)... so we use 250 computers, and crack it in 1 hour still.
144 bit encryption takes again 250 times as long, so instead we use 250 superpowerful server computers and crack it in 1 hour.
156 bit encryption takes another 250 times longer, so we use a top-secret government super computer the size of the Pentagon and still crack it in 1 hour.
164 bit encryption takes.. you guess it, 250 times longer to crack. All the governments in the world pool their top-secret super computers and crack your content in.. 1 hour.
172 bit encryption takes 250 times longer to crack. We use all the computers on the entire planet and manage to crack it in 1 hour.
180 bit encryption takes 250 times longer to crack. We use all those computers, but let them run 250 hours (10 days) instead.
188 bit encryption takes 250 times longer to crack. We let those computers run 6 years to crack your password.
192 bit encryption takes 250 times longer to crack... never mind, we're not THAT interested in your personal photo album.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
brute force attacks on a search space of 2^128 is boarding on consuming all of approximated
energy of all the stars in the Milky-way galaxy (imagine Dyson shells around all the stars
in our galaxy)
So in reality if a greatly less than brute force method is not found for such search spaces
then there is no real way of practically applying brute-force methods.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, only 500 years instead of 1500.
(Also, even if the NSA did have a quantum computer--as I understand it, it would need as many Qubits as the key it's trying to crack. We're not anywhere close to breaking strong encryption from any published experiments. There's little reason to believe the government could actually do it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting development (Score:5, Informative)
No, it doesn't tell you the second. If the government has the knowledge required to break the ciphers used by PGP, they would be very unlikely to reveal that for something as unimportant as this court case.
Personally, I strongly doubt that the NSA can break PGP, but this decision doesn't say anything one way or the other about the question.
Re: (Score:2)
They could using this legal judgment to make it look like they can't.
Re: (Score:2)
More people would keep using that which I could easily bypass that way.
Sad state. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a sad sad day in America that the truth of the 5th ammendment and the constitution itself is even called into question in this way. Thanks to the judge who supported the constitution, unfortunately there are laws shredding it up as we read this news.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955 [govtrack.us]
Welcome to the police state.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I looked through the text of the bill you referenced, but I found nothing in it to suggest "there are laws shredding it up". It looks like it is authorizing a few committees to study the formation of domestic "home-grown" terrorist organizations and cells.
Did I miss something?
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr120507h.htm
Remarks on Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, HR 1955
5 December 2007
Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.
Madame Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of
Re: (Score:3)
Excuse me? So you first misread my post (you missed a period), then you accuse me of whining and crying when I'm dead serious about a serious topic, then you put words in my mouth with a misspelled quote I did not say and top it all off by being disingenuous and you get moderate
Valuable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unenforceable anyway (Score:2)
animation?? (Score:2)
An officer opened the laptop, accessed the files without a password or passphrase, and allegedly discovered "thousands of images of adult pornography and animation depicting adult and child pornography."
Like it or not, the "adult pornography" is probably a red herring, so what is this "animation" business? Is that all they have on him? I've seen episodes of South Park that qualify as "animation depicting child pornography". I hope there's more to this case than was explained in TFA. If not, thi
It is more like a countermeasure (Score:2)
The law can convince you to incriminate yourself, and the evidence is admissible. You may confess a crime if you have one to confess. You have to state that it's by your own free will. However during trial if you fee so-moved, you can invoke the 5th amendment to disavow your earlier statements. This may be taken as hostile to the court, if not decided upon by prior consultation.
If other evidence already obtained points to you, the law can search you or your premises by obtain
Isn't that obvious? The 5th amendment (Score:2)
Could go either way (Score:2)
Or it could decide it is the equivalent of a lock. I know that the police can force a door for a search warrant - and they are trying to force the key to this drive. But according to the article, a defendant can be compelled to reveal a combination to a safe - basically the same thing: an item in memory that allows access to evidence.
Stickier is the issue of additional evidence.
Search war
A good ruling but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
About time (Score:2)
Good to see some people in power haven't lost all sense of reality.
Plausible deniability (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Plausible deniability (Score:4, Informative)
Q: Is it possible to use TrueCrypt without leaving any 'traces' on Windows?
A: Yes. This can be achieved by running TrueCrypt in traveller mode under BartPE. BartPE stands for "Bart's Preinstalled Environment", which is essentially the Windows operating system prepared in a way that it can be entirely stored on and booted from a CD/DVD (registry, temporary files, etc., are stored in RAM - hard disk is not used at all and does not even have to be present). The freeware Bart's PE Builder can transform a Windows XP installation CD into BartPE. As of TrueCrypt 3.1, you do not need any TrueCrypt plug-in for BartPE. Simply boot BartPE, download the latest version of TrueCrypt to the RAM disk (which BartPE creates), extract the downloaded archive to the RAM disk, and run the file 'TrueCrypt.exe' from the folder 'Setup Files' on the RAM disk (the 'Setup Files' folder should be created when you unpack the archive containing TrueCrypt).
write up at Volokh, by guys who are lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
This case is a very interesting overlap between 4th Amendment "right to privacy" cases and 5th Amendment "right not to self-incriminate" cases. I personally think that if the government can't break the encryption to "prove" what is hidden from them, they have no right to force the owner to do their work for them. People have a right to keep stuff private, and if they've hidden it effectively, then tough shit for the cops.
I acknowledge that child porn is inherently harmful to the children involved, and that laws targeting possession of child porn are therefore valid so far as they aim to protect children by destroying the market for the exploitative and harmful material. And there is no first-amendment protection for child porn. But the cops still can't break into your house without a warrant just because they they think you have pictures of naked kids inside, and they can't wiretap your internet connection without a court order (heh, they can't LEGALLY, even though it's probably going on right now OMGHI2NSA). Those are 4th amendment rights. But the 5th amendment kicks in to say that even with a court order and a valid warrant, the cops in your house can't force you to tell them which floorboard is the loose one with the bloody knife hidden under it. If you refuse to tell them, they have to find it on their own-- and if they can't find it, they can't use it as evidence against you. That's exactly how the 5th amendment is supposed to work.
A police force with the power to compel self-incriminating testimony becomes the enemy of any citizen who wishes to lawfully express dissent with any policy of government. The 5th Amendment is the most powerful safeguard citizens have against confessions extracted via torture finding purchase in US courts.
From the decision itself (lifted from that post at Volokh Conspiracy), bolded emphasis is mine:
Horrible case law (Score:3, Interesting)
Encryption keeps getting easier and easier to use - someday my job wont be possible without good case law forcing defendants to give up encryption keys. The only other option is to step up the use of no-knock search warrants and live acquisition. Problem is... when a daughter accuses her step-dad of molesting her and taking pictures - there is usually a family fight long before law enforcement gets involved. This leaves the subject days to encrypt and clean any evidence he has.
I know that most people think that the police go around taking peoples' machines without any cause but I can tell you from my experiences (and the experiences of everybody else I've run into in this field) we don't go around looking for new cases. We are completely understaffed, under-budgeted, and flooded with horrible crimes. Plus, its not easy to get a search warrant. You need to satisfy probable cause in order for the judge to sign off on your warrant.
Re:Horrible case law (Score:5, Interesting)
But as a society, we place a higher priority in personal liberty than on catching the maximum number of criminals. There are states that invert these two concepts: we call them "police states". I, for one, would rather live in a society where a few guilty people walk free because we can't crack their encryption than live in one where I can hide nothing from the government. It's a question of priorities.
Re:Horrible case law (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately this situation is becoming more and more common in the practice of law today. For example, imprisoning someone for "contempt" is unjust. Where is the accused's right to a trial? There is none. What about appeals? There are none, you are in jail until you grovel enough to satisfy judge. No evidence...no trial...just the judge's opinion. God forbid you ever have to stand in front of a judge who decides to grind his ax on your ass.
Back about 40-50 years ago, law enforcement and prosecutors could be held liable for misconduct. Then came the so called "shield" laws, which gave immunity to prosecutors and law enforcement in the event of misconduct. We are finally seeing the result of these 'fine' laws; Convictions being overturned because of fabricated evidence, withheld evidence, and tampering of witnesses by officers of the court. Peoples lives are being ruined because some court officers feel it is more important to get a conviction at all costs, instead of by the weight of the evidence. These 'shield' laws protect the wrong doer from any kind of repercussion. Nifong, of the Duke rape case infamy, is an exception to this, mostly because he was so vocal about the case, calling national attention to the case. However, while his career is in shambles, he has yet to pay any restitution to the boys he so vehemently accused, or face perjury charges for the false claims he made in court.
All in all, there are a lot of reasons to keep government out of the personal affairs of it people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. This is about the most obviously correct court opinion I've ever heard of.
I get search warrants for the data on the machine. Therefore it should be held under the same rules as getting access to a safe or a house.
Right - you can get a warrant for a safe, but if they've moved the safe, you can't force them to tell you where it went.
someday my job wont be possible without good case law forcing defendants to give up encryption keys
Boo-hoo.
Problem is... there is usu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You contradict yourself two short sentences later.
"Therefore it should be held under the same rules as getting access to a safe or a house."
It is, and this is where you contradict yourself and support the judge's (correct) conclusion. See oliphaunt's posting above regarding the Supreme Court's decisions in regards to combination safes. [slashdot.org] For convenience, I'll reproduce the relevant portion of his posting here:
In distinguishing testimonial from non-testimonial acts, the Supreme Co
Self destructing passwords... (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether or not they believe you is another story, and you might be in jail until they finally make their minds up.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether or not they believe you is another story, and you might be in jail until they finally make their minds up.
Even if the 5th ammendment didn't exist, the state could not compell you to divulge information that you don't have. The state also cannot prove that you do have information. even if they can prove that you ever had the information they want, people forget things all the time. Any juror is likely well aware that people forget important things all the time. Practically everyone has discovered
The spirit of the 5th amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
I always thought the 5th amendment served two main purposes:
1. Prevent the government from compelling individuals to confess (through torture, or other means).
2. Give weight to confessions by ensuring that they were not obtained through torture.
Perhaps it will be illustrative to take the computer out of it, since we tend to get distracted by the technology. To me it seems pretty clear that if someone is arrested carrying a letter that was encoded with a cipher with information that may or may not be relevant to the case, that the person could not be compelled under law to explain how to decrypt the letter, whether to law enforcement or in court. Of course that couldn't stop the officials from attempting to break the cipher. But just because modern encryption is more difficult to crack than a hand cipher, I don't believe that changes the nature of the situation.
There's a bit more to it (Score:4, Interesting)
People who actually forget their passwords (Score:4, Insightful)
What if someone actually did forged their long, complicated pass phrase? In that case, prosecutors would be trying to force someone to divulge a passphase that they don't even know.
On several occasions, I have briefly played around with encryption programs and made an extra copy of unimportant stuff and then encrypted it. Since it was usually just for practice, I did not always bother writing the passphrase down on the sheet of paper which lists all my passwords and passphrases. I may have not always got around to deleting those encrypted practice files and they may still exist somewhere on one of my old hard disks or on a USB key or somewhere or in the box of CDs that I have burned. I would have no idea what the password or passphrase was for those old practice encryption files.
I could easily imagine some prosecutor putting me in jail for not being able to come up with a passphrase to some old encrypted practice file. Then eventually, after getting out of jail, perhaps I would eventually find the passphrase on some old scrap of paper and they would discover that it was just an encrypted folder full of dozens of free 80 year old Gutenberg.net ebooks.
A person, such as myself, who has have never actually bothered to use encryption on a routine daily basis, would someone who is most likely to forget their passphrase. Perhaps I should dispose of all my old hard disks or wipe all the data with Darik's Boot and Nuke [sourceforge.net] Of course, if there were indications that someone has recently used their encrypted partition, folders or files recently, that would be different. A recent time stamp on the file or folder would be one such clue.
Unintended consequences... (Score:3, Interesting)
Suddenly, you're given a free flight to Kazakhstan [sp], to meet with Borat. Oh, yeah. you've now become a non-entity while they waterboard you to try to get your passphrase out of you.
Like others have said, waterboarding is great for extracting a confession. Or, if you are so hard-core, they decide that they just need to kill you or let you rot in a hole somewhere far, far away.
Or, less sinister, they just pass laws that say, "failure to surrender encryption keys or passphrases is determined by law to be an admission of guilt", just like not submitting to a breathalyzer or blood test is treated as admission of guilt in DUI in some states, which works just fine in a civil or administrative court. And conviction of certain civil or administrative crimes suddenly allows you to be tried later for new criminal laws where the administrative/civil judgments are used as justification to throw you into prison big time.
But, they just might take the easy way out: while investigating certain crimes (child porn, white collar crime, conspiracy, "terrorism", etc.), discovery of encryption products on your computer results in automatic civil seizure and forfeiture of computer hardware.
Well, anyone following instructions on MSDN can easily throw together programs that encrypt files using the encryption facilities in the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
National security, man. If I give true statements, the terrorists win. Laws are just quaint scribbles on silly pieces of paper in this post 9/11 world.
In certain circumstances... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like any other serious crime the police should be investigating it correctly and building a case without needing to look around the suspects' house first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Truecrypt binaries somewhere
2. A partition that is unformatted.
3. Optional: you are known to be technical enough to find and read a how-to on using Truecrypt to create a hidden partition.
Thats enough to point that you have an encrypted hidden partition.
The good thing about Truecrypt vs. say LUKS is that you can't tell the file container is an encrypted file container. (LUKS scares the crap out of me with its multiple passwords)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)