UK can now demand data decryption on penalty of jail time

cheong wrote:

IMO the law is next to useless... Considering the real criminal could just use weird encryption algorithm to encrypt their data (I think most e-related crimes criminals can afford that) then rename the file to .DAT format. When the police come they can promptly hand out the key, and have the police scratching their heads to figure out what algorithm should be used to decrypt it...

phreaks wrote:



cheong wrote: IMO the law is next to useless... Considering the real criminal could just use weird encryption algorithm to encrypt their data (I think most e-related crimes criminals can afford that) then rename the file to .DAT format. When the police come they can promptly hand out the key, and have the police scratching their heads to figure out what algorithm should be used to decrypt it...

Hmm, you seem to be awfully aware of the various methods, are you one of those hardened criminals the article was speaking about that this law will protect us from?

Oh where to begin the refutation?

SecretSoftware wrote:

You cannot really legislate against technology. Period.

SecretSoftware wrote:

The hacking underworld have, and will always outsmart everything technologically speaking.

SecretSoftware wrote:

what I think is , how are they going to enforce that law?

SecretSoftware wrote:

What does this say about privacy in the digital world we live in today?

SecretSoftware wrote:

But these laws are fundamentally illegal, because they break the law of privacy that exists in most democratic constitutions.

More so, had you actually read the US Constitution... (you know, the little thing you claim has a section that makes "defaming a minority group of people's religious system" illegal) you'd run into something we call the 4th amendment which says:

United States Constitution: Fourth Amendment wrote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

SecretSoftware wrote:

I want to know what would happen to a British citizen who has a file that is encrypted, and they lost the key to decrypt it? Is it fair to jail these people for something that they cannot decrypt?

The Second Article wrote:

This law is applicable only to data physically stored in the United Kingdom and does not allow the U.K. government to intercept encrypted materials in transit.

SecretSoftware wrote:

So, on October 1 , a new law was passed in the UK that says this:

You can be jailed for 5 years if you fail to give the authorities (gestapo comes to mind), your encryption keys.

dahat wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: You cannot really legislate against technology. Period.

They aren't legislating against technology, they are not declaring the technology illegal, they are simply saying that you must comply with a legal demand for access (ie 'we have a warrant, open the safe').

SecretSoftware wrote: The hacking underworld have, and will always outsmart everything technologically speaking.

So... if criminals who choose to use weapons during the commission of a crime will always do so be it illegal or not... we should not have it be illegal?

SecretSoftware wrote: what I think is , how are they going to enforce that law?

Same way they do today, by arresting those who do not comply. Seems pretty simple doesn't it?

SecretSoftware wrote: What does this say about privacy in the digital world we live in today?

This is little different than the world we live in today. If the police have cause to search your home they will... should you refuse to let them in the door, they will break it down, only here instead of having the means to break down the door they require your assistance in getting in.

dahat wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: But these laws are fundamentally illegal, because they break the law of privacy that exists in most democratic constitutions.

Psst... the UK is not a democracy (nor is the US, but that's another post), they are a constitutional monarchy and their constitution is quite lacking with regards to enumerated limits of governmental power the way the US's is... as such there is less of a ‘right to privacy' there than there is here. Know why? They don't have a codified written constitution!

dahat wrote:



More so, had you actually read the US Constitution... (you know, the little thing you claim has a section that makes "defaming a minority group of people's religious system" illegal) you'd run into something we call the 4th amendment which says:

United States Constitution: Fourth Amendment wrote: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In short it means that at least in the US such a law would only be applicable with a warrant, which makes sense. As it is today in the US a judge can issue a warrant for the seizure of all PC's and data you own... but without the ability to decrypt the data, the seizure is almost worthless... making the requirement of surrendering of the keys logical... hell, refusing to turn over keys in such a case could be viewed similarly to actively preventing the execution of a search warrant and as your friend Andrew Mayer learned... it's good to follow the legal orders of the police.

dahat wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: I want to know what would happen to a British citizen who has a file that is encrypted, and they lost the key to decrypt it? Is it fair to jail these people for something that they cannot decrypt?

I guess you didn't read the second story you linked to which said:

The Second Article wrote: This law is applicable only to data physically stored in the United Kingdom and does not allow the U.K. government to intercept encrypted materials in transit.

As for what happens if someone loses the key... same thing that happens today if the police come looking for evidence which a subject claims no longer to have (access to)... they (the subject) hope and pray that they can prove to the satisfaction of the authorities that they are telling the truth.

blowdart wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: So, on October 1 , a new law was passed in the UK that says this: You can be jailed for 5 years if you fail to give the authorities (gestapo comes to mind), your encryption keys.

Of course it's still more lax than, for example, the DCMA. At least the RIP stuff is for the police (and the MOD police and Customs/Excise [side note the most powerful law enforcement organisation in the UK is Customs & Excise who can investigate the police themselves and the MOD police]). The DCMA allows companies to prosecute citizens for breaking their encryption.

BTW, Godwin in your first post. Well done sir, well done.

SecretSoftware wrote:



But the whole point of encryption is to hide something. Why would you go through all the hard work of encryption something, and only to be foreced to give the keys to it to begin with ?

This is an assult on privacy, and a rather bold assult , an in your face kind of assult on privacy.

They should really feel ashamed.

SecretSoftware wrote:


There are very specific situations where the law has to win. But in Law we have something called:

A person cannot testify or be compelled to testify against themselves. (that is why you have the right to remain silent, when you are being arrested).

SecretSoftware wrote:



dahat wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: But these laws are fundamentally illegal, because they break the law of privacy that exists in most democratic constitutions. Psst... the UK is not a democracy (nor is the US, but that's another post), they are a constitutional monarchy and their constitution is quite lacking with regards to enumerated limits of governmental power the way the US's is... as such there is less of a ‘right to privacy' there than there is here. Know why? They don't have a codified written constitution!

If the UK is not a democracy then what is it doing over in IRAQ? are you saying that MR Blair is trying to give the IRAQI people something that his own country does not already enjoy?

SecretSoftware wrote:

 
If the US is not a democracy then what is the US exactly? A fascist republic?

SecretSoftware wrote:


LOL. Absence of evidence is not evidence of guilt. The onus of proof is on the prosecutes to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that evidence exists and it points in such and such direction.

SecretSoftware wrote:


So , intimidating the public, will not work. Remember the public elect the leaders, and the leaders work as the public pleases.

SecretSoftware wrote:


Meanwhile, Encryption is the technology by which we maintain our right to privacy, and no one, I mean no one, can take that away.

What should remain a secret, should remain just like that. The founding fathers made that point clear in the document entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America".

SecretSoftware wrote:


Now you can sing and dance to bend or redefine the laws as written, but that will not eat with the people of this republic.

SecretSoftware wrote:


Does that make you a terrorist supporting 9ner? I think yes.

blowdart wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  Does that make you a terrorist supporting 9ner? I think yes.

Ad hominem attacks? Are you really that desperate?

SecretSoftware wrote:



Are you the same person as dahat? That P.S was directed to him.

Secondly, The US Is a democracy. Its a democratic republic.

SecretSoftware wrote:


And once you elect someone, you CAN impeach them if they violate the law.

Previous presidents were impeached.

SecretSoftware wrote:


But back to the main topic, from a technological prespective , how can you enforce this law?

SecretSoftware wrote:


Secondly, why are people OK with this law?, if they are ok with it, then why have encryption at all? Ban cryptosystems all together.

SecretSoftware wrote:


Finally, if you are telling me that UK is not democratic, then what is the UK doing in iraq? STEALING OIL? or spreading democrasy by the barrel of the GUN?

I mean you can't having both ways, THE QUEEN does not govern, she is just a historic figure, with no say in the affairs of Government.

blowdart wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  Secondly, why are people OK with this law?, if they are ok with it, then why have encryption at all? Ban cryptosystems all together.

Why have locks when there are search warrants? Stop avoiding this please.

SecretSoftware wrote:



The case of locks on doors is not applicable to cryptography. While it is true that a lock can represent an encryption scheme, its not applicable here.

Reason is this:

What is reasonable suspecion here? What does the officer present to the judge as reason that he or she wants the warrant to search what is inside the lock? In a typical senario, the judge would have to be presented with evidence , such as "well judge, we smelled illegal substance in some place with a lock and we need to unlock it to see where the smell comes from", or "well judge we hear a woman's voice screaming in a house that is locked, and we need a warrant to get to the bottom of this". This is reasonable, that means that the lock is only a physical lock, and not a true lock in the sense that it locks the inside from the outside (including sound,thermal etcc..(closed system)).

In the case of a file that is encrypted, there is no way an officer can "reaonably suspect" that such encrypted file has important national security information for examlple.  Because he has to present to the judge something real, something tangeable for the judge to issue the warrant.

Hence its not applicable here. Because an encrypted file is a totally closed system, that does not tell what its "locking" nor hints at it, where a reasonable expectation of privacy applies.

Hence, its not applicable.

SecretSoftware wrote:



Hence its not applicable here. Because an encrypted file is a totally closed system, that does not tell what its "locking" nor hints at it, where a reasonable expectation of privacy applies.

Hence, its not applicable.

blowdart wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  The case of locks on doors is not applicable to cryptography. While it is true that a lock can represent an encryption scheme, its not applicable here. Reason is this: What is reasonable suspecion here? What does the officer present to the judge as reason that he or she wants the warrant to search what is inside the lock? In a typical senario, the judge would have to be presented with evidence , such as "well judge, we smelled illegal substance in some place with a lock and we need to unlock it to see where the smell comes from", or "well judge we hear a woman's voice screaming in a house that is locked, and we need a warrant to get to the bottom of this". This is reasonable, that means that the lock is only a physical lock, and not a true lock in the sense that it locks the inside from the outside (including sound,thermal etcc..(closed system)). In the case of a file that is encrypted, there is no way an officer can "reaonably suspect" that such encrypted file has important national security information for examlple.  Because he has to present to the judge something real, something tangeable for the judge to issue the warrant. Hence its not applicable here. Because an encrypted file is a totally closed system, that does not tell what its "locking" nor hints at it, where a reasonable expectation of privacy applies. Hence, its not applicable.

Except that doesn't hold water. Consider the usual bete noir that is used when trying to make excuses to regulate the net; child p0rn and terrorism.

So the evidence presented would be "We know user X logged onto this child p0rn swapping web site at date X, time Y from their ISP logs", or "They are known to have swapped files with known pedophile Z" or "We know they attended terrorism training camps in country I" or "They purchased materials A, B and C used in bomb making". There's your scream evidence. It's not about assuming all encyrption hides criminality as you want to argue.

It most certainly IS applicable.

AndyC wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  Hence its not applicable here. Because an encrypted file is a totally closed system, that does not tell what its "locking" nor hints at it, where a reasonable expectation of privacy applies. Hence, its not applicable.

So, as long as I keep the bodies in an airtight, sealed container, nobody can request a warrant to look into it because a reasonable expectation of privacy applies?

That's useful to know.

SecretSoftware wrote:


No it does not. In the case of logging into site X, what ever X is, that information is not hidden, and if a computer hard drive is searched and a given file Y is encrypted in the hard drive of the computer that was used to login to a site X with , does not really show that file Y that is encrypted is related to logging into X (it could be a totally unrelated file that was sitting in the harddrive and might have been  created before loggin into site X). Logging (connecting to site X), is public information where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (unless by agreements). Any network sniffer can be used to find that out at the LAN.

SecretSoftware wrote:


But I am talking about, a file, say an email, or a letter to your grandmother, or some kind of a legal document, that user X encrypt , how is the officer going to suspect that this encrypted file hold valuable national security information, or valuable evidence to a legal case as opposed to another file?

SecretSoftware wrote:


See in the analogy you presented with the lock in a door, the officers cannot just pick and choose to get a warrant because of attribute X of the house (say color, or size).

SecretSoftware wrote:


With a cryptographically generated file , there is no way to sniff information about what is being encrypted (or locked), hence how is the officer going to convince a judge to issue a search warrant for the encrypted (locked) file content ?

Dr Herbie wrote:

Sorry Secret, I just don't get you distinction between illegal digital content and illegal physical content.

If a person is suspected of being a pedophile the courts can issue a warrant to search that person's house.  If they find a locked strongbox, they can request that the suspect opens that strongbox to see if it contains illegal video tapes. If the suspect refuses to hand over the keys to the strongbox they can be charged.

This new(ish) law means that the court can issue a warrant in the same way so that they can see into encrypted files to see if they contain illegal videos. If the suspect refuses to give the encryption keys they can be charged.


What's the difference between the locked strongbox and the encrypted file?  The strongbox may not contain illegal videos, it might be the deeds to the suspects property, but the warrant covers checking the contents.  The encrypted file may not contain illegal video, it might be the suspects bank details, but the warrant covers checking the contents.

I fail to see the difference in privacy issues, just because something is digital.

Herbie

blowdart wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  No it does not. In the case of logging into site X, what ever X is, that information is not hidden, and if a computer hard drive is searched and a given file Y is encrypted in the hard drive of the computer that was used to login to a site X with , does not really show that file Y that is encrypted is related to logging into X (it could be a totally unrelated file that was sitting in the harddrive and might have been  created before loggin into site X). Logging (connecting to site X), is public information where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (unless by agreements). Any network sniffer can be used to find that out at the LAN.

Actually no; in the UK your surfing habits are private; the Data Protection laws take care of that and a warrant must be raised for the police to have access to it.

SecretSoftware wrote:



Dr Herbie wrote: Sorry Secret, I just don't get you distinction between illegal digital content and illegal physical content. If a person is suspected of being a pedophile the courts can issue a warrant to search that person's house.  If they find a locked strongbox, they can request that the suspect opens that strongbox to see if it contains illegal video tapes. If the suspect refuses to hand over the keys to the strongbox they can be charged. This new(ish) law means that the court can issue a warrant in the same way so that they can see into encrypted files to see if they contain illegal videos. If the suspect refuses to give the encryption keys they can be charged. What's the difference between the locked strongbox and the encrypted file?  The strongbox may not contain illegal videos, it might be the deeds to the suspects property, but the warrant covers checking the contents.  The encrypted file may not contain illegal video, it might be the suspects bank details, but the warrant covers checking the contents. I fail to see the difference in privacy issues, just because something is digital. Herbie

how does suspicion arises in the first place?

In a physical world, the system is not mathematically closed, in a digital world , things can be mathematically closed so that what is hidden remains hidden and nothing hits at what the nature of the hidden stuff is. So how are you going to suspect a person in the first place?

I mean is it random search warrants? or is it warrants because something was "detected" and hence "suspected"?

I know that argument" if you have nothing to hide, then why not let us see". And that is what you are using here. But the truth is, people use encryption to hide things, hence they do have something to hide. Every one has a secret.

If someone is suspected to being a pedophile, then they certainly should be searched. But you cannot use this to apply universally. Suppose someone is not suspected of being a pedophile, and they have encrypted files in their hard drive, what criteria then do you get a warrant based on? Their skin color? race? how do you being the process of suspension?

It certainly is not the case that all people who encrypt things, are bad have bad motives, but there are bad people with bad motives who encrypt. So make laws to target the subset and not the whole, in a clear methodical rules that comprise the law.

SecretSoftware wrote:



Ok,  but how does the police ask for a warrant , if the data are private to begin with?? I mean if your surfing habits are private because of the Data Protection Laws, then what basis upon which the police can suspect you of wrong doing?

What gets the balance of probability started? what is it based on?

SecretSoftware wrote:

Why would anyone assist in their own rape? I mean that is like asking a woman who is about to get raped to assist the rapist.

SecretSoftware wrote:

There are very specific situations where the law has to win. But in Law we have something called:

A person cannot testify or be compelled to testify against themselves. (that is why you have the right to remain silent, when you are being arrested).

SecretSoftware wrote:

If the UK is not a democracy then what is it doing over in IRAQ? are you saying that MR Blair is trying to give the IRAQI people something that his own country does not already enjoy?

SecretSoftware wrote:

If the US is not a democracy then what is the US exactly? A fascist republic?

SecretSoftware wrote:

I think you need to get out more, better yet ask around which country your living in. You might be surprised in to find out that your living in  some forest in the amazon.

SecretSoftware wrote:

dahat wrote:  More so, had you actually read the US Constitution... (you know, the little thing you claim has a section that makes "defaming a minority group of people's religious system" illegal) you'd run into something we call the 4th amendment which says: United States Constitution: Fourth Amendment wrote: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In short it means that at least in the US such a law would only be applicable with a warrant, which makes sense. As it is today in the US a judge can issue a warrant for the seizure of all PC's and data you own... but without the ability to decrypt the data, the seizure is almost worthless... making the requirement of surrendering of the keys logical... hell, refusing to turn over keys in such a case could be viewed similarly to actively preventing the execution of a search warrant and as your friend Andrew Mayer learned... it's good to follow the legal orders of the police.

Read up on "HATE SPEECH, Character Assassination, Defamation Laws", these laws keep organizations like "The Anti-Defamation League" relevant in the Court systems.

SecretSoftware wrote:

LOL. Absence of evidence is not evidence of guilt. The onus of proof is on the prosecutes to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that evidence exists and it points in such and such direction.

SecretSoftware wrote:

So , intimidating the public, will not work. Remember the public elect the leaders, and the leaders work as the public pleases.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Meanwhile, Encryption is the technology by which we maintain our right to privacy, and no one, I mean no one, can take that away.

SecretSoftware wrote:

What should remain a secret, should remain just like that. The founding fathers made that point clear in the document entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America".

SecretSoftware wrote:

Now you can sing and dance to bend or redefine the laws as written, but that will not eat with the people of this republic.

SecretSoftware wrote:

PS:
Lastly, Do you suppord the existance of Israel even though it was founded using terror against British soldiers and local arabs who were serving in Palestine before 1948? Do you support groups like the Irgun

Does that make you a terrorist supporting 9ner? I think yes.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Secondly, The US Is a democracy. Its a democratic republic.

SecretSoftware wrote:

And once you elect someone, you CAN impeach them if they violate the law.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Previous presidents were impeached.

Yes they were... just not by the masses. But given that so much of this thread has to do with a British law... care to give modern examples of a PM or sovereign being impeached by the people directly?

SecretSoftware wrote:

But back to the main topic, from a technological prespective , how can you enforce this law?

See my previous comment.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Secondly, why are people OK with this law?

Because it is simply a codification of what already implied by existing law, the right of the government with probable cause to search your person, papers and data.

SecretSoftware wrote:

if they are ok with it, then why have encryption at all? Ban cryptosystems all together.

It's fascinating to me that you are also not accusing people who are ok with this law as also being against safes... because like your encrypted data, the government (with a warrant) has a right to access your safe... and should you refuse to open it or claim to have forgotten the combination... will cut it open.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Finally, if you are telling me that UK is not democratic, then what is the UK doing in iraq? STEALING OIL? or spreading democrasy by the barrel of the GUN?

Do you ever get sick of using emotional non sequiturs?

What are they (and the US) doing there? The short version is giving the Iraqi people something they haven't had in a very long time... some voice in the shape and direction of their government and the freedom from the kind of violence and oppression they'd known for so long.

Note I said 'some voice', as even the parliamentary system they now have (as copied from the British), parliament and the PM are pretty insulated from the will/demands of the people. Remember, under the UK system, the people don't even indirectly cast a ballot for PM, it's up to the parliament to elect that person.

SecretSoftware wrote:

I mean you can't having both ways, THE QUEEN does not govern, she is just a historic figure, with no say in the affairs of Government.

Apparently you've never heard of the mandate of heaven (granted its a Chinese concept, the underlying concept is still valid).

Bas wrote:

Speaking of laws, I love how Godwin's Law came into effect in the very second sentence in this thread. I know we can make it the very first sentence, nay, the very first word in the next thread, if we all work together.

phreaks wrote:



Bas wrote: Speaking of laws, I love how Godwin's Law came into effect in the very second sentence in this thread. I know we can make it the very first sentence, nay, the very first word in the next thread, if we all work together.

The Bas law is that he is going to point out the Godwins's everytime.

phreaks wrote:



Bas wrote: Speaking of laws, I love how Godwin's Law came into effect in the very second sentence in this thread. I know we can make it the very first sentence, nay, the very first word in the next thread, if we all work together.

The Bas law is that he is going to point out the Godwins's everytime.

SecretSoftware wrote:

But these laws are fundamentally illegal, because they break the law of privacy that exists in most democratic constitutions.

SecretSoftware wrote:

I want to know what would happen to a British citizen who has a file that is encrypted, and they lost the key to decrypt it? Is it fair to jail these people for something that they cannot decrypt?

Bas wrote:

Speaking of laws, I love how Godwin's Law came into effect in the very second sentence in this thread. I know we can make it the very first sentence, nay, the very first word in the next thread, if we all work together.

SecretSoftware wrote:

I think you people, like dahat, and few others, are insane. If the USA is not a democracy then what is a democracy ? is China a democracy? Is Russia a democracy? Is Japan a democracy? If its not the USA then what is?

I am begining to think that you are one of those Americans  who cant even point to the USA in a map, let alone know that it is a democracy.


I might respond later on, once I have more time.


PS:
You are trying to argue that we are some kind of sheep governeed by the sheep herders, and that we dont have a say in what our government does. In such a case, and in the light of this new law, what is the definition of privacy? why do we have privacy laws then?

See it does not make any sense anymore. These , as you argue, appointed officials, must be reading a different constitution than the one I have.

SecretSoftware wrote:

I think you people, like dahat, and few others, are insane. If the USA is not a democracy then what is a democracy ? is China a democracy? Is Russia a democracy? Is Japan a democracy? If its not the USA then what is?

SecretSoftware wrote:

I am begining to think that you are one of those Americans  who cant even point to the USA in a map, let alone know that it is a democracy.

SecretSoftware wrote:

I might respond later on, once I have more time.

Translation: I am unwilling and/or unable to respond in a mature manor with a well thought out and reasoned response.

Oh how we’ve come to know that response from you well.

Come on... indulge me. So many times you've claimed this or that is in the Constitution and yet never once have you been able to point to the specific line. Just this once... please? Or at least admit to what we've all come to know as true... you are a troll who ignores facts when presented to them and is incapable of well thought out arguments.

SecretSoftware wrote:

PS:
You are trying to argue that we are some kind of sheep governed by the sheep herders, and that we dont have a say in what our government does. In such a case, and in the light of this new law, what is the definition of privacy? why do we have privacy laws then?

SecretSoftware wrote:

See it does not make any sense anymore. These , as you argue, appointed officials, must be reading a different constitution than the one I have.

phreaks wrote:

America is a democracy, anyone that tries to argue differently clearly doesn't fully understand the terms they use.

phreaks wrote:

A Constitutional Republic (which the USA is) is an implementation of democracy.

There is a big difference between what people think of the USA (or UK) government is and what is actually written down.  And, as phreaks and I have gone over, even some of that is up for interpretation (Amendment 4 anyone?). 

Words like democracy are bandied about in the press because they were probably touched on in grade school, or on TV and they convey a simple idea.  Unfortunately, people don't actually stop to read the details of the constitution. 

Which leads us to SecretSoftware and his delusional ranting.  It's been well established that people can use the 5th amendment to avoid incriminating themselves, or the 4th to avoid unwarranted search and seizure, but once enough evidence has been gathered through other means, you don't get to hide behind the locked box any more. 

Sure, you can just not give them the key, but you'll do jail time until you do and it isn't an erosion of your rights, it an enforcement of the rights of the rest of us.

Otherwise, you could simply hide the bodies and get away with obvious crimes.

Or, like Tom Servo said, come up with some really good plausible deniability.

SecretSoftware wrote:



dahat wrote: Remember... there is NO FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE. That being said... let me put it to you this way... how can we be a democracy (of any kind) when a right as clear cut as voting and important to any democracy... is not actually codified in a document such as the US Constitution?

Clearly you did not read the constitution of the USA.

Please refer to the Voting Rights Act of 1965

You see this is why people feel they dont want to reply to your points because your making "much ado about nothing", you want me to waste my valuable time to explain to you elementary stuff that any US citizen would and ought to have known.

Its like going to Physics class of Level 10, with no physics background, and asking the Professor to explain it all to you in one hour. No one is going to baby sit you, go to the library and learn afew things about the democracy that is the United States of America.

Its no wonder that this happened.

Me not replying to your points, is not because I am unable to, its just that I dont have the time to teach you the basics or the history of this country. Go learn and then come debate.

Just Like That.

dahat wrote:

Remember... there is NO FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE. That being said... let me put it to you this way... how can we be a democracy (of any kind) when a right as clear cut as voting and important to any democracy... is not actually codified in a document such as the US Constitution?

ScanIAm wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  dahat wrote: Remember... there is NO FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE. That being said... let me put it to you this way... how can we be a democracy (of any kind) when a right as clear cut as voting and important to any democracy... is not actually codified in a document such as the US Constitution? Clearly you did not read the constitution of the USA. Please refer to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 You see this is why people feel they dont want to reply to your points because your making "much ado about nothing", you want me to waste my valuable time to explain to you elementary stuff that any US citizen would and ought to have known. Its like going to Physics class of Level 10, with no physics background, and asking the Professor to explain it all to you in one hour. No one is going to baby sit you, go to the library and learn afew things about the democracy that is the United States of America. Its no wonder that this happened. Me not replying to your points, is not because I am unable to, its just that I dont have the time to teach you the basics or the history of this country. Go learn and then come debate. Just Like That.

Seriously, guy, you need to chill right the f*ck out.

SecretSoftware wrote:



dahat wrote: Remember... there is NO FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE. That being said... let me put it to you this way... how can we be a democracy (of any kind) when a right as clear cut as voting and important to any democracy... is not actually codified in a document such as the US Constitution?

Clearly you did not read the constitution of the USA.

Please refer to the Voting Rights Act of 1965

dahat wrote:

Guess what... they don't. That's right, there is no federal right to vote.

Don't believe me? Again... find me that line in the Constitution or one of it's amendments (a common (and yet always unfulfilled) request from me I know).

Sure, there are a few that say that you cannot deny someone the 'right' to vote based on sex or race... but it is not clear on what grants that right in the first place. Why? Because it's up to the states to decide (see Tenth Amendment).

The United States Supreme Court wrote:

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.

SecretSoftware wrote:

You see this is why people feel they dont want to reply to your points because your making "much ado about nothing", you want me to waste my valuable time to explain to you elementary stuff that any US citizen would and ought to have known.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Its like going to Physics class of Level 10, with no physics background, and asking the Professor to explain it all to you in one hour. No one is going to baby sit you, go to the library and learn afew things about the democracy that is the United States of America.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Its no wonder that this happened.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Me not replying to your points, is not because I am unable to, its just that I dont have the time to teach you the basics or the history of this country. Go learn and then come debate.

dahat wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  dahat wrote: Remember... there is NO FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE. That being said... let me put it to you this way... how can we be a democracy (of any kind) when a right as clear cut as voting and important to any democracy... is not actually codified in a document such as the US Constitution? Clearly you did not read the constitution of the USA. Please refer to the Voting Rights Act of 1965

I already refered indirectly when earlier I said:

dahat wrote: Guess what... they don't. That's right, there is no federal right to vote. Don't believe me? Again... find me that line in the Constitution or one of it's amendments (a common (and yet always unfulfilled) request from me I know). Sure, there are a few that say that you cannot deny someone the 'right' to vote based on sex or race... but it is not clear on what grants that right in the first place. Why? Because it's up to the states to decide (see Tenth Amendment).

More entertaining though, you obviously missed the last section of the Wikipedia article you linked to which is titled No affirmative right to vote which even includes a SCOTUS quote from 2000:

The United States Supreme Court wrote: The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.

SecretSoftware wrote: You see this is why people feel they dont want to reply to your points because your making "much ado about nothing", you want me to waste my valuable time to explain to you elementary stuff that any US citizen would and ought to have known.

You can claim that if you'd like... however the fact that on the rare occasion you actually try to prove me wrong you fail (a common outcome I might point out), it seems to disprove your assertion here.

SecretSoftware wrote: Its like going to Physics class of Level 10, with no physics background, and asking the Professor to explain it all to you in one hour. No one is going to baby sit you, go to the library and learn afew things about the democracy that is the United States of America.

I really need to start a count of how many times you try to prove me wrong, utterly fail, even prove yourself wrong with the very links you provide and then engage in ad-hominem attacks afterwards when you think you've won as it to is a pretty common occurrence.

SecretSoftware wrote: Its no wonder that this happened.

Because YouTube (and broken links at that) are known for their accuracy.

SecretSoftware wrote: Me not replying to your points, is not because I am unable to, its just that I dont have the time to teach you the basics or the history of this country. Go learn and then come debate.

Bull(some word that wont be removed by the word filter), and something you've helped me demonstrate here repeatidly... every time you try to respond and prove me wrong and fail out right (as you did once again with your previous comment).

I've said it before and I'll say it again... I just love letting/helping someone dig themselves into a hole of their own ignorance and creation.

Miss Teen USA 2007 above.

The People in the USA have the RIGHT as written in the constitution, to VOTE. PERIOD.

You cannot dream up your own interpertations of the law, the law as it has been applied allows for people to vote as granted to them in the Constitution of the USA.

Now back to Miss Teen USA 2007,  hahahahaha.... and a hahahaha, and a hahahahaha.

Mwahahahahaha. I just cant help but laugh. Sorry!

SecretSoftware wrote:


I just showed you that you do not know the laws of the USA. You think you know something but you really don't. That is why I sit here and ROFL at your stupidity, just like I ROFL at  Miss Teen USA 2007 above.

SecretSoftware wrote:

The People in the USA have the RIGHT as written in the constitution, to VOTE. PERIOD.

SecretSoftware wrote:

You cannot dream up your own interpertations of the law, the law as it has been applied allows for people to vote as granted to them in the Constitution of the USA.

Now back to Miss Teen USA 2007,  hahahahaha.... and a hahahaha, and a hahahahaha.

Mwahahahahaha. I just cant help but laugh. Sorry!

brian.shapiro wrote:

So, ScanIam I just read the link you posted.

Although the Constitution does specify that the people qualified to vote for Congress members are the people qualified to vote for state legislatures. It also specifically says "the people of the state". If the Supreme Court ever ruled on it, they would say a Congressman that wasn't put into office by popular vote was unconstitutional.

However, the constitution does allow limits to the way the popular vote is conducted.

ScanIAm wrote:



brian.shapiro wrote: So, ScanIam I just read the link you posted. Although the Constitution does specify that the people qualified to vote for Congress members are the people qualified to vote for state legislatures. It also specifically says "the people of the state". If the Supreme Court ever ruled on it, they would say a Congressman that wasn't put into office by popular vote was unconstitutional. However, the constitution does allow limits to the way the popular vote is conducted.

Right, and I'll admit that the point dahat was making was that it just isn't specifically spelled out in the constition that we have the right to vote.  Actually after I found that page, I found a whole lot of things that aren't in the constitution that I'd guess MOST people would assume are.

The issue, then, becomes:  If it isn't specifically listed, can it be specifically denied?  I'd guess that there would be a revolt if voting was denied wholesale, but if it was done in steps, it could certainly occur.

We had the japanese internment in WWII for example and in florida, they still have issues with allowing ex-cons to vote.  All it takes is to demonize a sub-population, remove their right, lather, rinse, and repeat. 

By no means, do I think this is in store for us, but it is a scenario that could work.

brian.shapiro wrote:



The constitution doesn't provide universal suffrage without restrictions. It does provide that a vote representative of the people must be taken, implicity, when it says "chosen by the people". And the Supreme court would rule unconstitutional any election that wasnt representative of the people.

The reason the right for women to vote had to be put in , is because earlier men were assumed to be representing their wives legally. --- thus, excluding women was not a Constitutional violation.


edit:
Should also note that at first voting was done by "colleges", where landowners would be the ones voting. This was justified by the idea that landowners legally represented people who used their land. It would also have been logistically hard to get every single person to vote and count everyone's vote at that time in history.

Legal rights and representation are really what has , historically, defined voting rights in the US. In any case the "chosen by the people" will always stand. Its in the Supreme Court's interpretation what does not constitute 'chosen by the people'.

Wikipedia wrote:

There is not a universally accepted definition of "democracy", especially with regard to the elements in a society which are required for it.^[1] Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy.

Isshou wrote:

I hate politics...


Brian, you are starting to understand, but you're not exactually correct. Elections of the President/Vice President are not actually done by the public (surprise).

dahat wrote:

Phreaks Wrote...

 America is a democracy, anyone that tries to argue differently clearly doesn't fully understand the terms they use.

Care to cite a counter example then?

Article2, Section 1 wrote:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

dahat wrote:

Tell you what... go back and read some of the papers of some of the founding fathers and see what they thought of democracy... they were almost afraid of it and viewed it as little more than mob rule.

Wikipedia wrote:

"Democracy" and "Republic"

In 18th century historical usages, especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" was associated with radical egalitarianism and was often defined to mean what we today call direct democracy. In the same historical context, the word "republic" was used to refer to what we now call representative democracy.
 
For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority.

Madison was seeking to distinguish between a direct democracy and a representative democracy, but his choice to do so using the words "democracy" and "republic" had no basis in prior usage of the words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#.22Democracy.22_and_.22Republic.22
 

Dahat wrote:

Negative.

While the United States has a strong democratic tradition... it is by no means a democracy.

Given the people do not directly vote on issues, we are not a direct democracy.

Given the electors who the people vote are free to vote for whatever they want, regardless of the will of the people (see faithless electors in the case of the electoral college system), we are not a represenative democracy.

dahat wrote:

I'll leave you with one more quick example (and my last with you if you are unwilling/unable to provide counter examples to any of what I’ve discussed here)... Remember... there is NO FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE.

dahat wrote:

That being said... let me put it to you this way... how can we be a democracy (of any kind) when a right as clear cut as voting and important to any democracy... is not actually codified in a document such as the US Constitution?

brian.shapiro wrote:

Thats right, electors are not guaranteed by the Constitution to be elected by a vote of the people.

But explicitly, House of Representatives, members are to be elected by the people:

...

And this was extended to the Senate with the 17th amendment:

You are half correct though... the Constitution plus the 17th amendment do talk of the congress and senate being elected by the people of each state... it assumes something that required the later passage of the 19th to get closer to... universal suffrage.

Even then, the Constitution says what criteria a person may not be denied their franchise, not who starts with it in the first place. Again, that is a states decision... even though most tend to have fairly universal terms (with the exception of restoration after a felony sentence has been served), such a 'right' is a de facto one that can easily be ignored or thrown out at any time, unlike a de jure one that is codified at the highest levels and explicitly protected.

brian.shapiro wrote:

This was done on purpose

phreaks wrote:


Hmm, you seem to be awfully aware of the various methods, are you one of those hardened criminals the article was speaking about that this law will protect us from?

cheong wrote:



phreaks wrote:  Hmm, you seem to be awfully aware of the various methods, are you one of those hardened criminals the article was speaking about that this law will protect us from?

No. What I want to point out is they're wasting taxpayer's money to create law that is not technically enforcible.

Think of the safe example, what if the owner give the police the safe's key, but refuse to tell you where the safe is hiding in? Granted the safe could be found with the aid of trained dogs and enough manforce, they might eventally find the safe. But for encrypted documents, there are thousands different method to do encryption (including those low-tech tricks like throwing lots of meaningless characters in the passage then do ROT-whatever on extended-ASCII code bases after encrypting it). And for each known encryption methods, slightly tweaking/adding additional parameter would create different encryption/decryption result, so God knows how many ways exist for encrypting things. If the criminal/suspect remain silence about the encryption method, I don't think the police can find enough people/resources to find out how to decrypt it.

I don't think I can outsmart those people, if I can think of these, I bet they also can.

brian.shapiro wrote:

dahat,

I'm saying though that even before those amendments were passed, Constitutionally, you needed a legally permissible ground to prevent someone to stop voting.

Go beyond thinking of the "white male landowners" that wrote the Constitution, and start thinking of the social and legal framework that existed when the Constitution was written. It would be irrational to expect the framers to act outside the legal framework of the society they lived in.

As I tried to describe, in each case someone was not included in the vote, there was a specific legal reason. Whether being indentured, or something else.

The constitutional amendments that passed later basically codified this to mean what we now term "universal suffrage"

phreaks wrote:



brian.shapiro wrote: dahat, I'm saying though that even before those amendments were passed, Constitutionally, you needed a legally permissible ground to prevent someone to stop voting. Go beyond thinking of the "white male landowners" that wrote the Constitution, and start thinking of the social and legal framework that existed when the Constitution was written. It would be irrational to expect the framers to act outside the legal framework of the society they lived in. As I tried to describe, in each case someone was not included in the vote, there was a specific legal reason. Whether being indentured, or something else. The constitutional amendments that passed later basically codified this to mean what we now term "universal suffrage"

Yup, hence the Bill of Rights, et al.

I take offense to Dahat implying that I read up on the founding fathers, when he can't even put their intentions into context.

ScanIAm wrote:



But context isn't law.  We can debate all day about what they were thinking, but when it comes to getting arrested, or being able to vote, it is only the law that matters.

brian.shapiro wrote:



ScanIAm wrote:  But context isn't law.  We can debate all day about what they were thinking, but when it comes to getting arrested, or being able to vote, it is only the law that matters.

Intent is taken into consideration by judges when they interpret law.

ScanIAm wrote:



phreaks wrote:  brian.shapiro wrote: dahat, I'm saying though that even before those amendments were passed, Constitutionally, you needed a legally permissible ground to prevent someone to stop voting. Go beyond thinking of the "white male landowners" that wrote the Constitution, and start thinking of the social and legal framework that existed when the Constitution was written. It would be irrational to expect the framers to act outside the legal framework of the society they lived in. As I tried to describe, in each case someone was not included in the vote, there was a specific legal reason. Whether being indentured, or something else. The constitutional amendments that passed later basically codified this to mean what we now term "universal suffrage" Yup, hence the Bill of Rights, et al. I take offense to Dahat implying that I read up on the founding fathers, when he can't even put their intentions into context.

But context isn't law.  We can debate all day about what they were thinking, but when it comes to getting arrested, or being able to vote, it is only the law that matters.

ScanIAm wrote:



And that's why we can debate it.  It's also why we have various courts that do the same.  But you're going to be very disappointed if you try argue the nuances of, for example, DUI law with the officer that arrests you.  Even worse, if you are turned away at the voting booth, you have very little recourse.

Judges take into account matters that might affect the livelyhood of the accused (or the accuser), but in the case of voting issues, it takes something similar to a civil suit to get your point across.

No?

eblonk wrote:

Although it has become off-topic by now, allow me to go back to the problem of the forgotten decryption key.
I came very close to that a few weeks ago. We have to put a password on the harddisk in the BIOS. It didn´t give any warning about the password being wrong. When using it, it failed.
Turned out the format I used wasn´t correct.
It was thus:
I typed: Abcd12.Efgh34 (not really, but you get the picture).
However, as I found later, I could not use punctuation and 7 characters max. It was accepted and without any warning changed into dEfgh34. It took me some time to figure that out, going through all possibilities there were, especially because no one knew what the rules were, not even the maximum size.
I can imagine there might be people who would never come up with it and have their harddisk locked forever (over here, if you have this problem, they give you a new disk and put the old one out of use). They´d have to hope they get a judge or jury that understand the situation (I´d never gamble on that happening).

cheong wrote:

I have a question:

Suppose someone unknown email encrypted files to you through public relay, and said you can use the key that he told you previously to open it (but in fact you don't know the sender at all), then unfortunately some police happens to be authorized to search your house/company, and they found that email... of course you don't have the key, will you get into trouble?

Somehow I was thinking of the possibilities of this law to be used to get other company in trouble...

blowdart wrote:



cheong wrote: I have a question: Suppose someone unknown email encrypted files to you through public relay, and said you can use the key that he told you previously to open it (but in fact you don't know the sender at all), then unfortunately some police happens to be authorized to search your house/company, and they found that email... of course you don't have the key, will you get into trouble? Somehow I was thinking of the possibilities of this law to be used to get other company in trouble...

I know; that was one of the arguments against. One of the campaigners sent encrypted messages to a bunch of MPs then pointed out how liable they now were.

phreaks wrote:



blowdart wrote:  cheong wrote: I have a question: Suppose someone unknown email encrypted files to you through public relay, and said you can use the key that he told you previously to open it (but in fact you don't know the sender at all), then unfortunately some police happens to be authorized to search your house/company, and they found that email... of course you don't have the key, will you get into trouble? Somehow I was thinking of the possibilities of this law to be used to get other company in trouble... I know; that was one of the arguments against. One of the campaigners sent encrypted messages to a bunch of MPs then pointed out how liable they now were.

Why would a terrorist be compelled to hand over their keys anyway?
They are willing to cause mass destruction and accept whatever consequences... and ppl expect them to hand over their keys on threat of 5 years jail?

Terrorism as a term is being used as a tool to implement these types of legistlations, when really they will never be used against 'terrrorism'.

Animal rights activist hit with RIPA key decrypt demand

Mark Brown wrote:

Nice of the trash rag of a tech journal site to not provide the details on why they want her keys.

You should know better than to read that pseudo-news site.

SecretSoftware wrote:



Mark Brown wrote: Nice of the trash rag of a tech journal site to not provide the details on why they want her keys. You should know better than to read that pseudo-news site.

Is it not obvious? They want to rape people's right to privacy.

This law is immoral.

I mean why not ban Cryptography all together, and jail RSA founders.

Better yet, let all people go to work with "See-through" cloths.

Saves the Gov't a lot of money as they don't have to buy those expensive "see-through" X-Ray scanners.

Article wrote:


"Now apparently they have found some encrypted files on my computer (which was stolen by police thugs in May this year) which they think they have 'reasonable suspicion' to pry into using the excuse of 'preventing or detecting a crime'," she writes.

SecretSoftware wrote:



Mark Brown wrote: Nice of the trash rag of a tech journal site to not provide the details on why they want her keys. You should know better than to read that pseudo-news site.

Is it not obvious? They want to rape people's right to privacy.

This law is immoral.

blowdart wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  Mark Brown wrote: Nice of the trash rag of a tech journal site to not provide the details on why they want her keys. You should know better than to read that pseudo-news site. Is it not obvious? They want to rape people's right to privacy. This law is immoral.

"Right to privacy".

So show me where that right is enshrined in the UK consitution.

Article 8: Right to privacy

(1) Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

SecretSoftware wrote:



The incorporation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) creates a general right to respect for privacy

Article 8: Right to privacy

(1) Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

SecretSoftware wrote:



Mark Brown wrote: Nice of the trash rag of a tech journal site to not provide the details on why they want her keys. You should know better than to read that pseudo-news site.

Is it not obvious? They want to rape people's right to privacy.

SecretSoftware wrote:

This law is immoral.

SecretSoftware wrote:

I mean why not ban Cryptography all together, and jail RSA founders.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Better yet, let all people go to work with "See-through" cloths.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Saves the Gov't a lot of money as they don't have to buy those expensive "see-through" X-Ray scanners.

SecretSoftware wrote:



Article wrote:  "Now apparently they have found some encrypted files on my computer (which was stolen by police thugs in May this year) which they think they have 'reasonable suspicion' to pry into using the excuse of 'preventing or detecting a crime'," she writes.

Learning to read, helps

Mark Brown wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  Article wrote:  "Now apparently they have found some encrypted files on my computer (which was stolen by police thugs in May this year) which they think they have 'reasonable suspicion' to pry into using the excuse of 'preventing or detecting a crime'," she writes. Learning to read, helps

My reading is just fine. Still doesn't explain what crime she committed that the police would need to see encrypted information on her computer.

cheong wrote:

Let just bet what will be next: Perheps if they think you have evidence that you've commited a crime and you don't give it out, you'd commit a crime?

Wouldn't that be more simple?

SecretSoftware wrote:

From the article, it seems like she is just a random individual that they wanted to test the new law on.

SecretSoftware wrote:

But I could be wrong.

SecretSoftware wrote:

My problem here is, why force someone to give their encryption keys, under threat of jail time?

It has been said numerous times by multiple people that this is little different than a regular search warrant. Don't want to let the police into your house? Fine, you'll be charged with obstruction and your door will be broken down. This is just a codification of that for the digital age.

... or are you saying that a person should be able to prevent the police with a warrant from searching their house because the purpose of the locks on the doors is to keep people out?

SecretSoftware wrote:

Does not that defeat the whole purpose of cryptography?

SecretSoftware wrote:

Private keys needs to be private.

TFA wrote:

it allows police to demand encryption keys or provide a clear text transcript of encrypted text.

SecretSoftware wrote:

What if a Company has secrets, and they are suspected by Police, to have committed a crime (think Exon Mobile or the others).

SecretSoftware wrote:

Why should anyone be compelled to "give evidence against themselfs"?

SecretSoftware wrote:

or break the whole purpose of cryptography use?

SecretSoftware wrote:

You see it does not make sense to me.

SecretSoftware wrote:

How do they suspect that an encrypted file has anything to do with a given crime?

SecretSoftware wrote:

They might be non related, and so them asking for her crypto-keys is illegal under the law, because there is no evidence in plain site for the police to see, and suspect something.

SecretSoftware wrote:

So this law is anti-antithetical to a democratic system's values.

dahat wrote:



Wow, you don't even read or think about the crap you post here do you?

SecretSoftware wrote: From the article, it seems like she is just a random individual that they wanted to test the new law on.

Yes, because the police had absolutely no authority or reason to seize her PC in the first place and said "oh what the heck, lets grab her PC when she's not looking, sit on it for a few months and then demand her keys."

SecretSoftware wrote: But I could be wrong.

Could be? I honestly cannot say there has been a case here where you HAVE NOT been wrong.

SecretSoftware wrote: My problem here is, why force someone to give their encryption keys, under threat of jail time?

That's not your only problem... cause another one of them is your not reading what is said here.

It has been said numerous times by multiple people that this is little different than a regular search warrant. Don't want to let the police into your house? Fine, you'll be charged with obstruction and your door will be broken down. This is just a codification of that for the digital age.

... or are you saying that a person should be able to prevent the police with a warrant from searching their house because the purpose of the locks on the doors is to keep people out?

SecretSoftware wrote: Does not that defeat the whole purpose of cryptography?

Again you miss the point. Cryptography (just like locks and safes) are intended to keep out most people... but NOT make it impossible for duly authorized law enforcement agents to search them and their contents.

If we are all very lucky... one day you will be ordered to do something by a judge... and either refuse or be unable to do so (possibly due to another order from that or another judge) and be charged with contempt and see how all of this works.
 

SecretSoftware wrote: Private keys needs to be private.

So don't let anyone into that safe when the police show up with a search warrant and see what happens, more so:

TFA wrote: it allows police to demand encryption keys or provide a clear text transcript of encrypted text.

Funny how you missed the easy way pointed out by the article that a person could go without giving up their encryption keys.

SecretSoftware wrote: What if a Company has secrets, and they are suspected by Police, to have committed a crime (think Exon Mobile or the others).

It's called a warrant.

SecretSoftware wrote: Why should anyone be compelled to "give evidence against themselfs"?

Just as a person can refuse to answer a question in court, a person can refuse to give up the keys or let the police into their house... there may however be penalties. I'm sorry that you do not see that this is not an isolated type of law.

SecretSoftware wrote: or break the whole purpose of cryptography use?

It's sad that you are so worried about encryption but don't care that police can force their way into your home or a safe with a warrant.

And yet... you have yet to explain why ones encryption keys and a safe are any different as you are effectively arguing.

SecretSoftware wrote: You see it does not make sense to me.

That happens when you refuse to think.
 

SecretSoftware wrote: How do they suspect that an encrypted file has anything to do with a given crime?

Same reason they will ask to look behind a locked door when they come to search your house with a warrant (funny that word coming up again isn't it?), they have reason to believe there is evidence of a crime and will look everywhere they have authority to do so to find it.

SecretSoftware wrote: They might be non related, and so them asking for her crypto-keys is illegal under the law, because there is no evidence in plain site for the police to see, and suspect something.

Again you show your refusal to think. This has nothing to do with 'plain site', if they have a right to search your house, they have the right to read every single peice of paper with in it and search every nook and cranny... including seize your PC and read everything on it (if it is part of the warrant in most places).

SecretSoftware wrote: So this law is anti-antithetical to a democratic system's values.

Yes, because you are such an expert on "a democratic system's values" Given you have yet to prove anything on this issue and keep screaming about "rape"... you really are in no position to make such an assertion.

SecretSoftware wrote:


You are a certified retard.

SecretSoftware wrote:

In law, the police tells you "You have the right to remain silent". This comes from the law that says "No one should be compelled to testify against themselves".

SecretSoftware wrote:


The same thing in the Computer "Brain". You should not be compelled to decrypt thoughts in electronic form. Your computer has the right to remain silent, and not display what ever thoughts you have, saved in an encrypted form.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Many can argue that the brain is complex, and its thought patterns are encrypted and decrypted using the tongue of the person.

SecretSoftware wrote:

If the brain has the right to not be compelled to reveal "witness testimony" that could be incriminating, then the computer should be given the benefit of the doubt.

SecretSoftware wrote:


Its not a gestapo.

SecretSoftware wrote:


Tomorrow, MS wants to be able to backup your brain, does that mean that your most intimate thoughts can be deciphered just to figure out if they have incriminating evidence or not?

SecretSoftware wrote:


This is officially will end the meaning of privacy that we ought to enjoy in democratic systems.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Common man, you don't have to be that dense.

SecretSoftware wrote:

You are a certified retard.

SecretSoftware wrote:

The same thing in the Computer "Brain". You should not be compelled to decrypt thoughts in electronic form. Your computer has the right to remain silent, and not display what ever thoughts you have, saved in an encrypted form.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Common man, you don't have to be that dense.

evildictaitor wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  You are a certified retard.

Let's all be nice now...

evildictaitor wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: In law, the police tells you "You have the right to remain silent". This comes from the law that says "No one should be compelled to testify against themselves".

That's absolutely true. I might point out you also don't have to testify against your spouse under the same legislation.

This means the police cannot force you to say where you were on Tuesday at 8pm when the victim was killed, but the jury (in a criminal case) might come to the conclusion that silence is indication of guilt. Note that law says that the person is guilty if "a jury of ordinary persons ... of good standing in the community find their peer to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt", so failure to answer can and often does act against you.

evildictaitor wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  The same thing in the Computer "Brain". You should not be compelled to decrypt thoughts in electronic form. Your computer has the right to remain silent, and not display what ever thoughts you have, saved in an encrypted form.

This seems an illformed thought; The police have every right to sieze your data and to look through it, and your failing to give RSA keys to decrypt the information might suggest to a reasonable jury that you have something to hide. The police can also obtain a warrant from a judge which neccesitates you to give up your RSA key, at which point failure to do so is contempt of court.

evildictaitor wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: Many can argue that the brain is complex, and its thought patterns are encrypted and decrypted using the tongue of the person.

They can and they might, but that wouldn't hold up in court.

evildictaitor wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: If the brain has the right to not be compelled to reveal "witness testimony" that could be incriminating, then the computer should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Computers are things, not people. The law does not consider them to be a witness, but rather to be evidence.

evildictaitor wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  Its not a gestapo.

Godwin's law!

SecretSoftware wrote:  Tomorrow, MS wants to be able to backup your brain, does that mean that your most intimate thoughts can be deciphered just to figure out if they have incriminating evidence or not?

As the law stands, if the police had a warrant to do so then yes. I'm not saying it should be like that, merely that it is.

evildictaitor wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  This is officially will end the meaning of privacy that we ought to enjoy in democratic systems.

And yet you don't object to terrorist legislation? This precedent is mild compared to Guantanamo bay.

evildictaitor wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: Common man, you don't have to be that dense.

But you have to remember the theorem of universal stupidity:
Everyone is stupid.

Consequence 1: Even you.
Consequence 2: Even me.
Consequence 3: By 1, even when you take this law into account, they are still stupider than you thought they would be.

SecretSoftware wrote:

well we are!

SecretSoftware wrote:

The jury has to abide by the law. If they think that someone's silence makes him/her guilty, then they violate the laws and their spirits. A person in the light of the law, is considered innocent until the prosecutor shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty and demonstrate that to the judge and jury.

SecretSoftware wrote:

So your arguement does not hold water in a court of law, and under the light of the Law.

SecretSoftware wrote:

No the police does not have ANY right to randomly select any individual and sift through their computer files, or any types of files, unless they first detect something that is not bound by a resonable expectation of privacy, and use that to convince a judge to issue a warrant to find further evidence to support a legal case.

SecretSoftware wrote:

How are you going to obtain a warrant, if there is nothing to suspect in the first place?

SecretSoftware wrote:

I mean a police can get a warrant, to search your car, if they smell drugs comming out of the car. But if they smell nothing, they have no right to search your car under the constitution.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Actually , we are in some form , an organic based computer.

SecretSoftware wrote:

see above. Computers belong to people. ANd the laws that protect people's rights to privacy, include, by definition, their belongings.

SecretSoftware wrote:

but how does the police get a warrant in the first place? They have to suspect something in the first place to get a warrant after convincing the judge.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Well, many can argue that Patriot act is illegal if one challenges it against the 10 amendment rights.

SecretSoftware wrote:

The only reason its active, is for reasons of national security, which the government claims. That is why it has to be renewed, because its fundamentally antithetical to democratic value systems,and is outright illegal when measured against the 10-Amendment laws.

dahat wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: but how does the police get a warrant in the first place? They have to suspect something in the first place to get a warrant after convincing the judge.

Which is how they get the encrypted data in the first place and know that they need to ask for an encryption key or the decrypted data!

dahat wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: Well, many can argue that Patriot act is illegal if one challenges it against the 10 amendment rights.

Just stop with your anti-Americanism and paranoia. We know you hate this country, we get the point, shut it.

More so... the UK doesn't have the '10 amendment rights' or even the Bill of Rights... so once again you are arguing in the wrong jurisdiction!

dahat wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: The only reason its active, is for reasons of national security, which the government claims. That is why it has to be renewed, because its fundamentally antithetical to democratic value systems,and is outright illegal when measured against the 10-Amendment laws.

Again, this is a UK law, not a US one and I guarantee you that even without the Patriot Act that a person who refuses to give up keys (like a reporter who has been ordered to give up their sources) will be jailed until they comply and it would all be perfectly legal.

SecretSoftware wrote:



dahat wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: but how does the police get a warrant in the first place? They have to suspect something in the first place to get a warrant after convincing the judge. Which is how they get the encrypted data in the first place and know that they need to ask for an encryption key or the decrypted data!

You are confused. Unlike a locked box, the encrypted file does not tell anything about its content. So how can the police think or suspect that it contains anything illegal? How can they go to the judge and say, well judge, the encryted file has sometihng we think will help us in prosecuting a case, please give us a warrant.

The judge asks well, what makes you think that this is going to help you?

What will they answer? Is it simply because of the fact that its an encrypted file that they are "curious" to searching?

Did they see a bit of something that made them went to reveal the rest?

An encrypted file is a closed System. Thus legally, you cannot use probable cause to ask for a warrant.

In the case of the car, if the police sees a dead cadavar in the back seat, then they can, and have every right to get a search warrant and search the car.

But if they see absolutely nothing, then they cant suspect anything or use the probable cause argument either.

In fact the police would be charged with violating the person's 10 ammendment rights, or Fundamental human rights laws.

That is why the police would ask you " if your okay with letting them search it, and if you dont agree, they will just give you a ticket, unless they see something that gives them probable cause to search".

SecretSoftware wrote:

dahat wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: Well, many can argue that Patriot act is illegal if one challenges it against the 10 amendment rights. Just stop with your anti-Americanism and paranoia. We know you hate this country, we get the point, shut it. More so... the UK doesn't have the '10 amendment rights' or even the Bill of Rights... so once again you are arguing in the wrong jurisdiction!

Again, you have a warped view of people who think differently than you do. You hold the view that they are anti-American, even though they are not.

You see, We , as the citizens of this country, have the right to remain valiant and alert, as per President Eisenhower's speech on the military industrial complex, to what the government does. We the people have the right to audit every thing the government does and to be critical of it, for that is how we maintain our democratic way of life, and our civil liberties.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Its easy to charge and say people who look different and think different are hateful of the country we live in. But without descent , the very existence of this republic as a democratic republic is threatened.

Hence I am critical of everything this government does. and that is as it should be.

SecretSoftware wrote:

dahat wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: The only reason its active, is for reasons of national security, which the government claims. That is why it has to be renewed, because its fundamentally antithetical to democratic value systems,and is outright illegal when measured against the 10-Amendment laws. Again, this is a UK law, not a US one and I guarantee you that even without the Patriot Act that a person who refuses to give up keys (like a reporter who has been ordered to give up their sources) will be jailed until they comply and it would all be perfectly legal.

However, what if the reporter decrypted a dummy message, that says "Dahat is a lunatic", when the real message says "Attack D-Day at 10"?

I mean will that satisfy the people? Just to see a decryption of the message despite if its a true decryption or not?

When does it stop? What if the police thinks that this is the dummy message and not the real one? When does it stop?

My $0.02

SecretSoftware wrote:



PS: suppose Alice uses the One Time Pad, and Alice encrypts a message. The police says to ALice, give us your key or decrypt the message, Alice goes and use a dummy Key to get the dummy message. Given that for an OTP encrypted message , there are an infinite number of possible decryption, how does the police know if the decrypted message is what was in the encrypted message?

You see , there is a fundamental shift of the onus of proof here. Alice has to proof to the police that she is not hiding illegal stuff in the encrypted file. According to the Law, the onus of proof is upon the police and the prosecutors not the accused.

ScanIAm wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  dahat wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: but how does the police get a warrant in the first place? They have to suspect something in the first place to get a warrant after convincing the judge. Which is how they get the encrypted data in the first place and know that they need to ask for an encryption key or the decrypted data! You are confused. Unlike a locked box, the encrypted file does not tell anything about its content. So how can the police think or suspect that it contains anything illegal? How can they go to the judge and say, well judge, the encryted file has sometihng we think will help us in prosecuting a case, please give us a warrant. The judge asks well, what makes you think that this is going to help you? What will they answer? Is it simply because of the fact that its an encrypted file that they are "curious" to searching? Did they see a bit of something that made them went to reveal the rest? An encrypted file is a closed System. Thus legally, you cannot use probable cause to ask for a warrant. In the case of the car, if the police sees a dead cadavar in the back seat, then they can, and have every right to get a search warrant and search the car. But if they see absolutely nothing, then they cant suspect anything or use the probable cause argument either. In fact the police would be charged with violating the person's 10 ammendment rights, or Fundamental human rights laws. That is why the police would ask you " if your okay with letting them search it, and if you dont agree, they will just give you a ticket, unless they see something that gives them probable cause to search".

They don't give you a ticket, they throw you in jail.  You have a real weak understanding of how laws work.

They have her computer.  They found a file that was encrypted.  Their warrant allows them to see what is in the file.

There really isn't any grey area here.

SecretSoftware wrote: dahat wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: Well, many can argue that Patriot act is illegal if one challenges it against the 10 amendment rights. Just stop with your anti-Americanism and paranoia. We know you hate this country, we get the point, shut it. More so... the UK doesn't have the '10 amendment rights' or even the Bill of Rights... so once again you are arguing in the wrong jurisdiction! Again, you have a warped view of people who think differently than you do. You hold the view that they are anti-American, even though they are not. You see, We , as the citizens of this country, have the right to remain valiant and alert, as per President Eisenhower's speech on the military industrial complex, to what the government does. We the people have the right to audit every thing the government does and to be critical of it, for that is how we maintain our democratic way of life, and our civil liberties.

You do not have the right to ignore a warrant. 

You just don't.  Trust me.

SecretSoftware wrote: Its easy to charge and say people who look different and think different are hateful of the country we live in. But without descent , the very existence of this republic as a democratic republic is threatened. Hence I am critical of everything this government does. and that is as it should be.

No, you are crazy as a loon.  You don't come up with coherent thought, and you are wrong.

Constantly.

SecretSoftware wrote: dahat wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: The only reason its active, is for reasons of national security, which the government claims. That is why it has to be renewed, because its fundamentally antithetical to democratic value systems,and is outright illegal when measured against the 10-Amendment laws. Again, this is a UK law, not a US one and I guarantee you that even without the Patriot Act that a person who refuses to give up keys (like a reporter who has been ordered to give up their sources) will be jailed until they comply and it would all be perfectly legal. However, what if the reporter decrypted a dummy message, that says "Dahat is a lunatic", when the real message says "Attack D-Day at 10"? I mean will that satisfy the people? Just to see a decryption of the message despite if its a true decryption or not? When does it stop? What if the police thinks that this is the dummy message and not the real one? When does it stop? My $0.02

Your rights are not allowed to infringe upon mine.  Your right to avoid search and seizure does not allow you to simply lock the bodies up in a safe any more than it allows you to encrypt communications that are evidence of a crime.

A warrant, depending on its scope, can include a body cavity search.  You may not like it, but it is, in fact, legal, just, and well within the constitution.

I just wish you'd read it instead of ranting.

cheong wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  PS: suppose Alice uses the One Time Pad, and Alice encrypts a message. The police says to ALice, give us your key or decrypt the message, Alice goes and use a dummy Key to get the dummy message. Given that for an OTP encrypted message , there are an infinite number of possible decryption, how does the police know if the decrypted message is what was in the encrypted message? You see , there is a fundamental shift of the onus of proof here. Alice has to proof to the police that she is not hiding illegal stuff in the encrypted file. According to the Law, the onus of proof is upon the police and the prosecutors not the accused.

That's interesting idea... Perhaps one day I'll make an encryption program that can mix-encrypt one "open" version of diary and the "true" version of diary, plus multiple random documents, then accept multiple sets of key as password - one of each encrypted documents inside the encrypted file.

Then one day if I have to hand out the key to someone, I can always hide the key for the "true diary".

SecretSoftware wrote:

You are confused.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Unlike a locked box, the encrypted file does not tell anything about its content.

SecretSoftware wrote:

So how can the police think or suspect that it contains anything illegal?

1. Police obtain evidence of a crime (likely without knowledge of encrypted data sitting on a hard drive)
2. Police to to judge for search warrant which spells out what they are looking for and where
3. If judge accepts evidence, judge grants search warrant
4. Police execute search warrant and search for everything listed or anything related to what is listed wherever is authorized (by the warrant)
5. Should the police encounter something that is covered by the warrant that is not immediately fully searchable (computers, CD's, large amounts of paper) they put it into a truck and look at it later at their own offices
6. If police find encrypted data on a PC that was obtained as part of a legal search warrant, by virtue of having legal authority to search the PC they request the decryption keys or the decrypted data.

SecretSoftware wrote:

How can they go to the judge and say, well judge, the encryted file has something we think will help us in prosecuting a case, please give us a warrant.

SecretSoftware wrote:

The judge asks well, what makes you think that this is going to help you?

What will they answer? Is it simply because of the fact that its an encrypted file that they are "curious" to searching?

SecretSoftware wrote:

Did they see a bit of something that made them went to reveal the rest?

SecretSoftware wrote:

An encrypted file is a closed System. Thus legally, you cannot use probable cause to ask for a warrant.

SecretSoftware wrote:

In the case of the car, if the police sees a dead cadavar in the back seat, then they can, and have every right to get a search warrant and search the car.

SecretSoftware wrote:

But if they see absolutely nothing, then they cant suspect anything or use the probable cause argument either.

SecretSoftware wrote:

In fact the police would be charged with violating the person's 10 ammendment rights, or Fundamental human rights laws.

SecretSoftware wrote:

That is why the police would ask you " if your okay with letting them search it, and if you dont agree, they will just give you a ticket, unless they see something that gives them probable cause to search".

SecretSoftware wrote:

Again, you have a warped view of people who think differently than you do. You hold the view that they are anti-American, even though they are not.

SecretSoftware wrote:

You see, We , as the citizens of this country, have the right to remain valiant and alert, as per President Eisenhower's speech on the military industrial complex, to what the government does. We the people have the right to audit every thing the government does and to be critical of it, for that is how we maintain our democratic way of life, and our civil liberties.

Its easy to charge and say people who look different and think different are hateful of the country we live in. But without descent , the very existence of this republic as a democratic republic is threatened.

Hence I am critical of everything this government does. and that is as it should be.

SecretSoftware wrote:

However, what if the reporter decrypted a dummy message, that says "Dahat is a lunatic", when the real message says "Attack D-Day at 10"?

SecretSoftware wrote:

I mean will that satisfy the people? Just to see a decryption of the message despite if its a true decryption or not?

When does it stop? What if the police thinks that this is the dummy message and not the real one? When does it stop?

dahat wrote:


Why is it (with a warrant) wrong/illegal/unethical/undemocratic to search encrypted data when it is not to search a safe, lock box or other locked physical device that hides its contents from plain view?

Until you can (and do) answer such a simple question that has been posed by multiple people, multiple times, there is zero point in continuing this.

dahat wrote:  Why is it (with a warrant) wrong/illegal/unethical/undemocratic to search encrypted data when it is not to search a safe, lock box or other locked physical device that hides its contents from plain view? Until you can (and do) answer such a simple question that has been posed by multiple people, multiple times, there is zero point in continuing this.

SecretSoftware wrote:



Yes! Absolutely. In fact TrueCrypt uses something like this. One password decrypts the outer encrypted file, and it has an inner one.
You can give them the pass to the outer file, and they see only Britney spears rampage pics.

SecretSoftware wrote:



dahat wrote:  Why is it (with a warrant) wrong/illegal/unethical/undemocratic to search encrypted data when it is not to search a safe, lock box or other locked physical device that hides its contents from plain view? Until you can (and do) answer such a simple question that has been posed by multiple people, multiple times, there is zero point in continuing this.

NO one is talking about the legality of the warrant per se, after its has been duely issued , and legaly and reasonably issued. I am talking about the legal process of obtaining a warrant in light of this immoral law. How to obtain a warrant against an encrypted file, when there is an assumption in law that:

1)  A person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.

SecretSoftware wrote:

2) A person is not compelled to testify against their persons, by providing incriminating evidence, one of which might be an encryption key.

SecretSoftware wrote:

The Onus of proof is on the Prosecutor to say that Alice,  has an incriminating material that she is hiding through encryption, and the reasons are demonstrates to be true.

SecretSoftware wrote:

The police can use brute force attacks to find out what Alice is hiding.

SecretSoftware wrote:

But Alice , under the view of the law, should not be compelled to give out her keys, because that can lead to self incrimination.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Asking Alice, under threat of jail time, to give out incriminating evidence in terms of keys, is to compel Alice to reveal information that would self-incriminate her. This is clearly against the law.

SecretSoftware wrote:

No one is saying that a warrant after being legally issued , and reasonably issued, that its illegal. I am talking about the process by which a police officer would have to go through to obtain such a warrant, after convincing a judge.

AndyC wrote:


Multiple encryptions are not necessarily more secure. For any given pair of algorithms that map X to Y and then Y to Z there will exist another that maps X directly to Z. This unknown third algorithm may well be a weaker form of encryption than either of the two original encryption schemes.

dahat wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: Common man, you don't have to be that dense.

Hearing such things from a person who supports terrorism, advocates mob rule and cannot even stick to their word pretty much negates any kind of personal critiques from the likes of you.

ScanIAm wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  dahat wrote:  Why is it (with a warrant) wrong/illegal/unethical/undemocratic to search encrypted data when it is not to search a safe, lock box or other locked physical device that hides its contents from plain view? Until you can (and do) answer such a simple question that has been posed by multiple people, multiple times, there is zero point in continuing this. NO one is talking about the legality of the warrant per se, after its has been duely issued , and legaly and reasonably issued. I am talking about the legal process of obtaining a warrant in light of this immoral law. How to obtain a warrant against an encrypted file, when there is an assumption in law that: 1)  A person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.

That isn't how warrants work.  Warrants are obtained prior to a guilty or innocent verdict.  That's the point.

SecretSoftware wrote: 2) A person is not compelled to testify against their persons, by providing incriminating evidence, one of which might be an encryption key.

Of course, but there is no guarantee that they won't be held in contempt for doing so.  They have avoided incriminating themselves, but they have not avoided breaking the law by failing to respond to the warrant.

SecretSoftware wrote: The Onus of proof is on the Prosecutor to say that Alice,  has an incriminating material that she is hiding through encryption, and the reasons are demonstrates to be true.

And that is how a warrant is issued.  The prosecutor presents enough evidence to the judge that the warrant can be issued.  It is not a trial.  It is especially not a jury trial, and there is no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the warrantee is guilty.  All that is neccessary is for the prosecution to convince the judge that they have enough evidence that a crime has been committed that they need to investigate further by overriding the 4th amenment with a warrant.

Yay, you learned something, I hope.

SecretSoftware wrote: The police can use brute force attacks to find out what Alice is hiding.

No, they can't.  They need a warrant.

SecretSoftware wrote: But Alice , under the view of the law, should not be compelled to give out her keys, because that can lead to self incrimination.

She is welcome to say "No".  She will serve jail time, but she will not incriminate herself.  It is likely that she will either serve the time or give up the information.  Either way, it is legal and just.

SecretSoftware wrote: Asking Alice, under threat of jail time, to give out incriminating evidence in terms of keys, is to compel Alice to reveal information that would self-incriminate her. This is clearly against the law.

Compelling someone is legal.  The fact that you think it is 'clearly' against the law means you have no idea how the legal system works.

I hope, for your sake, that if you are ever the victim of a crime, you recognize that this is for your benefit.  Otherwise, the perpetrator could simply say "I didn't do it, and any evidence of the crime is 'secret', so you can't have it".

SecretSoftware wrote: No one is saying that a warrant after being legally issued , and reasonably issued, that its illegal. I am talking about the process by which a police officer would have to go through to obtain such a warrant, after convincing a judge.

You never brought this process up.  The article you linked to never mentioned this process.  You have no idea if this process was followed, and since it was in the UK, you really don't have any real clue how it works, anyway. 

We're all quite glad you approve of how the law might be used, but I'd like to point out that 9 out of ten C9 posters don't give a flying f*ck what you think.

SecretSoftware wrote:

NO one is talking about the legality of the warrant per se, after its has been duely issued , and legaly and reasonably issued. I am talking about the legal process of obtaining a warrant in light of this immoral law. How to obtain a warrant against an encrypted file, when there is an assumption in law that:

SecretSoftware wrote:


1)  A person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.

SecretSoftware wrote:


2) A person is not compelled to testify against their persons, by providing incriminating evidence, one of which might be an encryption key.

SecretSoftware wrote:


The Onus of proof is on the Prosecutor to say that Alice,  has an incriminating material that she is hiding through encryption, and the reasons are demonstrates to be true.

SecretSoftware wrote:


Asking Alice, under threat of jail time, to give out incriminating evidence in terms of keys, is to compel Alice to reveal information that would self-incriminate her. This is clearly against the law.

SecretSoftware wrote:


No one is saying that a warrant after being legally issued , and reasonably issued, that its illegal. I am talking about the process by which a police officer would have to go through to obtain such a warrant, after convincing a judge.

Your talking tomatoes, and I am talking potatoes.

SecretSoftware wrote:



How did you get that statistic?

SecretSoftware wrote:

Secondly, your arguments are not sound.

Compelling is not legal. Simply not legal.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Infact a legal case can be thrown out of court , if the accused, who is preseumed innocent until proven otherwise, was compelled to testify against their will.

SecretSoftware wrote:


The jury has to abide by the law. If they think that someone's silence makes him/her guilty, then they violate the laws and their spirits. A person in the light of the law, is considered innocent until the prosecutor shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty and demonstrate that to the judge and jury.

So your arguement does not hold water in a court of law, and under the light of the Law.

SecretSoftware wrote:


No the police does not have ANY right to randomly select any individual and sift through their computer files, or any types of files, unless they first detect something that is not bound by a resonable expectation of privacy, and use that to convince a judge to issue a warrant to find further evidence to support a legal case.

SecretSoftware wrote:


Actually , we are in some form , an organic based computer.

SecretSoftware wrote:


An encrypted file is a closed System. Thus legally, you cannot use probable cause to ask for a warrant.

SecretSoftware wrote:


In the case of the car, if the police sees a dead cadavar in the back seat, then they can, and have every right to get a search warrant and search the car.

SecretSoftware wrote:


That is why the police would ask you " if your okay with letting them search it, and if you dont agree, they will just give you a ticket, unless they see something that gives them probable cause to search".

SecretSoftware wrote:


If unjust laws are passed, and freedoms are outlawed, then only outlaws will have freedom.

SecretSoftware wrote:


There will be a techno-Revolution, where the people will reclaim their privacy, even if Gov'ts pour hell over their heads.

SecretSoftware wrote:

For the last time. I am not talking about after a warrant is issued. I am however, talking about the process of issuing the warrant, from a legal stand point against an encrypted file, which is a closed system.

What would make the police suspect that an encrypted file contains something illegal, hence to use that to get a warrant?

SecretSoftware wrote:

Suppose someone is walking with a bunch of paper containing highly classified information. Amidst these papers , the police finds an encrypted DVD. The police here has reasonable suspicion that the encrypted DVD contains other highly classified information. Based on this "circumstantial evidence", they can get a warrant from a judge.

SecretSoftware wrote:

But suppose the same individual, is walking with only the DVD in their DVD player. What gives the police the right to ask for a warrant?
Is its simply because the DVD is encrypted?

SecretSoftware wrote:

How do you know if this law is being abused, just like police abuse their use of "teasers" on people^{[citation needed]}.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Alice and bob live in a system, where cryptography is essentially rendered useless and outlawed^{[appeal to emotion]}.