Possible Precedent: Accused Americans Can Be Forced To Decrypt Their Encrypted Data

[Jetster]

Seriously do you really think the Gov needs your password? In the most resent cases of Russian spy's that were caught do you think there data was not encrypted?

 

[qubit]

Seriously do you really think the Gov needs your password? In the most resent cases of Russian spy's that were caught do you think there data was not encrypted?

Yes they do. Strong encryption is just that - strong. And if you're thinking of back doors from the likes of Symantec, then there's always open source solutions, which definitely won't have it.

Even from Symantec though, there's no backdoor, as you can see from this article.

 

[twilyth]

The Supreme Court recently decided that cops can't put a tracking beacon on a suspect's car without a warrant. So I don't think there's much doubt that this judge will be overturned.

Imagine that we had more advanced fMRI's that could read your thoughts. Could you be forced to submit to an fMRI exam? No - no more than you can be compelled to testify.

If you had a journal written in a secret language you invented, could you be forced to decrypt it? I seriously doubt it.

People always talk about their computers as being an extension of their memory, and for good reason - because it is.

 

[Horrux]

Here's what I would do if I were the judge.
Tell the woman that the 5th amendment does stand and she is not required to reveal (or enter) the password. (That would be unconstitutional)
However, the data is key to the case against her, so she is to remain incarcerated (in jail) while the laptop is sent to the DOJ computer forensics department and they uncrypt it. Unfortunately the DOJ has a huge backlog of work, so it could be awhile.
After all, they do have just cause to hold her and deny bail if they determine her a flight risk.

Guilty until proven innocent. I don't like it. I say, put everyone who seems somewhat suspicious into FEMA camps and incinerate them. Dead or alive.

 

[Jetster]

The 5th protects your testimony against yourself. Not evidence that is legally obtained. If your ordered to decrypt and you refuse then that's contempt. Which may be a lesser penalty though

I still stand by that there are gov agency's that can open your data like it was a can of beans

 

[qubit]

I still stand by that there are gov agency's that can open your data like it was a can of beans

Do you have any proof or evidence of this that you could link to?

Note that I'm not just challenging you on this to be awkward, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was some truth to it and I'd like to know more.

 

[Jetster]

Ok so Im no expert by far. But i remember back in the 80s there were standards for data encryption. This was facilitated by the NSA. So this may very be untrue at this time. Not sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Encryption_Standard

 

[Horrux]

The 5th protects your testimony against yourself. Not evidence that is legally obtained. If your ordered to decrypt and you refuse then that's contempt. Which may be a lesser penalty though

I still stand by that there are gov agency's that can open your data like it was a can of beans

I remember years ago quantum computing was going to get used for such purposes. Then today, maybe 15 years later, QC has officially almost not progressed. I can imagine government agencies have developed it entirely and kept it to themselves.

If it were true and became known that some governments can decrypt anything easily, there would be panic.

It might be true, too.

Oh and the same thing happened with hardware neural nets. In the '80s there was tons of research on them that was so advanced, there is no reason at all there aren't sentient AIs around. Well... There probably are, in a secret government agency somewhere...

 

[newconroer]

Here's what I would do if I were the judge.
Tell the woman that the 5th amendment does stand and she is not required to reveal (or enter) the password. (That would be unconstitutional)
However, the data is key to the case against her, so she is to remain incarcerated (in jail) while the laptop is sent to the DOJ computer forensics department and they uncrypt it. Unfortunately the DOJ has a huge backlog of work, so it could be awhile.
After all, they do have just cause to hold her and deny bail if they determine her a flight risk.

This is a very clever tactic and hopefully deployed in this case.

The worse that happens? She's pinned down for a while.
The best that happens? They exhaust resources and conclude there is no evidence and she walks.

If they let her off on a technicality, her innocence will never be proven.

For some people that's ok, but it's those type of people who are usually guilty.
For other persons, whom are often innocent, having a clear name and a clear conscience is paramount and they will not rest until exonerated.

Sounds like she's the first type...

 

[Horrux]

This is a very clever tactic and hopefully deployed in this case.

The worse that happens? She's pinned down for a while.
The best that happens? They exhaust resources and conclude there is no evidence and she walks.

If they let her off on a technicality, her innocence will never be proven.

For some people that's ok, but it's those type of people who are usually guilty.
For other persons, whom are often innocent, having a clear name and a clear conscience is paramount and they will not rest until exonerated.

Sounds like she's the first type...

How on earth can you know that people who haven't been... wait... "PROVEN innocent"??? Are actually guilty?

I thought the point was to prove someone guilty, not innocent, which should be a given, UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY...

Your post perfectly demonstrates the kind of mentality that makes this world such a shit place most of the time, thanks.

 

[m1dg3t]

Your post perfectly demonstrates the kind of mentality that makes this world such a shit place most of the time, thanks.

The same could be said about you. Here is a woman who is known to have frauded people out of their hard earned money and you are arguing against prosecuting her! Incredible....

You should run for office, you'd fit right in

 

[Kreij]

@Horrux : What I posted does not make a presumption of either innocence or guilt.
It is simply a delaying tactic in the search for applicable evidence to prove something one way or the other. It is no different than the ploys used by the defense lawyers to stall cases until they can get all their ducks in a row.

 

[TheMailMan78]

What can be locked can be unlocked. Someone wrote those algorithms. Someone knows the key and you can bet the US Government has a whole key chain.

The Supreme Court recently decided that cops can't put a tracking beacon on a suspect's car without a warrant. So I don't think there's much doubt that this judge will be overturned.

Imagine that we had more advanced fMRI's that could read your thoughts. Could you be forced to submit to an fMRI exam? No - no more than you can be compelled to testify.

If you had a journal written in a secret language you invented, could you be forced to decrypt it? I seriously doubt it.

People always talk about their computers as being an extension of their memory, and for good reason - because it is.

Until the US. Government deems drug dealers terrorists then they fall under the NDAA and it wont matter.

 

[m1dg3t]

Every GM car has "Onstar" and coincidentally the US government own's GM, it was part of the masterfully planned/executed "bail-out". Think about it

 

[Horrux]

The same could be said about you. Here is a woman who is known to have frauded people out of their hard earned money and you are arguing against prosecuting her! Incredible....

You should run for office, you'd fit right in

SHE IS INNOCENT until proven guilty. I don't care what you *THINK* she might have done.

Do you not understand the importance of due process? Do you not understand the extreme evils that politicians and "the law" will unleash on innocent people as a result of erosion of due process?

I'll grant you, she probably did it. But when you erode a legal right, it sets a precedent, and I don't care what you say, holding someone prisoner for years while they decrypt the evidence is a breach of rights and due process.

You are demonstrating the great unconsciousness of the masses, allowing "the law", i.e. governments free rein in destroying your rights and liberties. And then some years down the line, those same astonishingly stupid masses will go "how did we get to this hell?". Duh, you were applauding all the way, trading in your freedom for some illusion of "security". Ha.

@Horrux : What I posted does not make a presumption of either innocence or guilt.
It is simply a delaying tactic in the search for applicable evidence to prove something one way or the other. It is no different than the ploys used by the defense lawyers to stall cases until they can get all their ducks in a row.

In this case, years or possibly decades in jail on a suspicion makes her a case of guilty until proven innocent. Do you have any idea how long it would take with current tech to decrypt a DriveCrypt++ encrypted volume? 30 years or so, I think, with the strongest supercomputer officially built...

Holding a person in jail for decades waiting for proof is CERTAINLY treating her as guilty until proven innocent. I'm not defending mortgage fraud. I'm defending due process and rights from erosion and the devolution into totalitarianism.

What can be locked can be unlocked. Someone wrote those algorithms. Someone knows the key and you can bet the US Government has a whole key chain.



Until the US. Government deems drug dealers terrorists then they fall under the NDAA and it wont matter.

Knowing that the algorithms are based on unidirectional mathematics, I can almost guarantee you that no one knows the key. And about the NDAA, it only has to be the merest SUSPICION of ASSOCIATION with, not "terrorists" but "anti-American activities" to allow the military to go in there and indefinitely detain these people without the slightest due process, charges, lawyer, or phone call. In other words, some military personnel only need suspect that the activity might be used to finance some activity that might be called "anti-American", or might constitute in itself an "anti-American" activity to go and arrest.

 

[TheMailMan78]

SHE IS INNOCENT until proven guilty. I don't care what you *THINK* she might have done.

Do you not understand the importance of due process? Do you not understand the extreme evils that politicians and "the law" will unleash on innocent people as a result of erosion of due process?

I'll grant you, she probably did it. But when you erode a legal right, it sets a precedent, and I don't care what you say, holding someone prisoner for years while they decrypt the evidence is a breach of rights and due process.

You are demonstrating the great unconsciousness of the masses, allowing "the law", i.e. governments free rein in destroying your rights and liberties. And then some years down the line, those same astonishingly stupid masses will go "how did we get to this hell?". Duh, you were applauding all the way, trading in your freedom for some illusion of "security". Ha.



In this case, years or possibly decades in jail on a suspicion makes her a case of guilty until proven innocent. Do you have any idea how long it would take with current tech to decrypt a DriveCrypt++ encrypted volume? 30 years or so, I think, with the strongest supercomputer officially built...

Holding a person in jail for decades waiting for proof is CERTAINLY treating her as guilty until proven innocent. I'm not defending mortgage fraud. I'm defending due process and rights from erosion and the devolution into totalitarianism.




Knowing that the algorithms are based on unidirectional mathematics, I can almost guarantee you that no one knows the key. And about the NDAA, it only has to be the merest SUSPICION of ASSOCIATION with, not "terrorists" but "anti-American activities" to allow the military to go in there and indefinitely detain these people without the slightest due process, charges, lawyer, or phone call. In other words, some military personnel only need suspect that the activity might be used to finance some activity that might be called "anti-American", or might constitute in itself an "anti-American" activity to go and arrest.

My point is someone wrote those algorithms. They are not random.

 

[Horrux]

My point is someone wrote those algorithms. They are not random.

Yes, but even knowing the algorithms doesn't make it any easier to decrypt whatever was encrypted with it. There are highly secure PKI (Public Key Interchange) encryption systems that are open-sourced. The encryption key is even given out to everyone who wants it. It simply cannot be used to create a matching decryption key.

Have a look here, and please keep in mind that she most likely uses DriveCrypt++ which is over 1334-bit encryption:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_attack

They estimate that a 256-bit key would take 50,955,671,114,250,072,156,962,268,275,658,377,807,020,642,877,435,085 years to brute-force.

- Factor in an estimated tech progression level of, say, 1 billion times more powerful computers (chop off the 9 digits at the end)
- Then add a few thousand digits at the beginning of the number due to key length... In reality it's probably millions of digits, but I can't be bothered to calculate it, which would be difficult given the humongificiousness of the numbers to begin with.

And you have your estimate.

To me, that's too long a jail time on mere suspicion.

 

[Steevo]

rainbow tables and OpenCL makes almost any modern high end gaming rig a supercomputer.


Its just a question of is the expense to find that data worth the result.


M1dg3t, the abuse of the system is no doubt wrong, however the history of guilty until proven innocent has proven far more disastrous for people. I will take a few criminals going free on technicality than living in fear constantly.

 

[twilyth]

SHE IS INNOCENT until proven guilty. I don't care what you *THINK* she might have done.

Do you not understand the importance of due process?

Exactly. It's because of that kind of mob mentality people are predisposed to that we have a constitution to begin with.

As for code-cracking. Even free software will defeat the NSA. I use truecrypt container volumes that are encoded with 3 different algorithms and a key so long I can rarely type it in without making a mistake.

However codes will all be toast if quantum computing ever gets off the ground, so score one for the Luddites there.

 

[silkstone]

How on earth can you know that people who haven't been... wait... "PROVEN innocent"??? Are actually guilty?

I thought the point was to prove someone guilty, not innocent, which should be a given, UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY...

Your post perfectly demonstrates the kind of mentality that makes this world such a shit place most of the time, thanks.

The law has no provisions for probable cause?

Ok, analogy here. If you steal something and the government believe that you have got it in your safe, they are within their rights to confiscate your safe and compel you to open it, if you do not you would be obstructing.

Digital, physical, there shouldn't be a difference.

 

[twilyth]

The law has no provisions for probable cause?

Ok, analogy here. If you steal something and the government believe that you have got it in your safe, they are within their rights to confiscate your safe and compel you to open it, if you do not you would be obstructing.

Digital, physical, there shouldn't be a difference.

Actually, I think you're wrong unless you can provide authority to the contrary. They can simply crack your safe if they have probable cause. If you happen to have a safe that's uncrackable, tough shit.

 

[Horrux]

The law has no provisions for probable cause?

Ok, analogy here. If you steal something and the government believe that you have got it in your safe, they are within their rights to confiscate your safe and compel you to open it, if you do not you would be obstructing.

Digital, physical, there shouldn't be a difference.

Wrong.

Actually, I think you're wrong unless you can provide authority to the contrary. They can simply crack your safe if they have probable cause. If you happen to have a safe that's uncrackable, tough shit.

Right. That's exactly how probable cause works. But no one can force you to do something to incriminate yourself. That's what the 5th protects you against.

 

[silkstone]

How on earth can you know that people who haven't been... wait... "PROVEN innocent"??? Are actually guilty?

I thought the point was to prove someone guilty, not innocent, which should be a given, UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY...

Your post perfectly demonstrates the kind of mentality that makes this world such a shit place most of the time, thanks.

Actually, I think you're wrong unless you can provide authority to the contrary. They can simply crack your safe if they have probable cause. If you happen to have a safe that's uncrackable, tough shit.

orly? I was under the assumption that you had to provide access to property to law enforcement officials if they had probable cause to believe it was involved in a crime.

I am no lawyer, but seriously, the law should have provisions for common sense.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

 

[twilyth]

orly? I was under the assumption that you had to provide access to property to law enforcement officials if they had probable cause to believe it was involved in a crime.

I am no lawyer, but seriously, the law should have provisions for common sense.

People probably do provide access to property so as to prevent it's destruction from the attempt to break in. that doesn't mean they are obliged to do it.

 

[silkstone]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

So just take it to the grand jury?

Indictment is different?

"Whether a crime is "infamous" is determined by the nature of the punishment that may be imposed, not the punishment that is actually imposed;"

I find this part interesting