Hand Over Your Keys Or Else.

Follow
Oops, something didn't work.

Try again?

Sign In to be begin to follow this thread

What does this mean?
Following an item on Channel 9 allows you to watch for new content and comments that you are interested in. You need to be signed in to Channel 9 to use this feature.

Getting "follow" information

Stop following this thread

Start following this thread

What does this mean?
Following an item on Channel 9 allows you to watch for new content and comments that you are interested in and view them all on your notifications page.

Removing your "follow"

Setting up your "follow"

Did you know you can
sign up for email notifications?
- Subscribe to this feed

reddit

Tweet

cheong Recent Cheevo unlocked: You got cookied!

Nov 19, 2007 at 6:18 PM

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... Perheps 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".

Once they got the "notepad readable" version of encrypted file, they no longer have point to ask me give out the key for the file. (Even if you see the size of decrypted text is significantly smaller, there's no way to tell if it's inflated with random characters or something with meaning...)

SecretSoftware Code to live, but Live to code.

Nov 19, 2007 at 6:21 PM

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.

I am not talking about after the warrant is issued. I am talking about before it is issued. How to issue it against an encrypted file.

Secondly, you don't understand the laws or their spirits.

We don't live in the jungles of the Amazon. We live in a civilized society, where the rule of law triumphs.

SecretSoftware Code to live, but Live to code.

Nov 19, 2007 at 6:25 PM

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".

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.

You cannot legislate against technology. You cannot enforce laws against the technology because technology is always evolving.

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

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

dahat inanity makes my head hurt
Nov 19, 2007 at 6:50 PM
My I'm getting tired of repeating myself... and after this reply, I will be done with you in this thread as I think I've proven you wrong enough and am now just going in circles.

SecretSoftware wrote:

You are confused.

On the contrary, I understand exactly what you are saying... I also recognize why you are saying it... because of your refusal to think beyond your blind hatred of this country and it's allies.

SecretSoftware wrote:

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

You are the only one who is saying (or drawing the conclusion) that the presence of an encrypted file indicates something about it's contents.

You can put anything you want in a lock box or safe, valuable or not, it doesn't change the validity of a warrant or the reasons for obtaining it.

SecretSoftware wrote:

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

For the love of god, how many times do I have to say this to you? One more time will I go through this with you in this thread, but this time I'll walk you through it in order the steps that would occur...
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.
It's so simple and common because with a real world device like a safe or lockbox... even a saftey deposit box, if covered by the warrant will be searched as part of step 5 and/or 6

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?

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.

They aren't going after the files, they are going after the PC (likely amongst other things) and therefore have legal access to the files.

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?

That conversation would not happen, see above.

SecretSoftware wrote:

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

You mean like... they found some evidence of a crime that made them say "I wonder if there is more... Hey Judge! Based on this existing evidence... we want to look for more... is that ok?" ... you know... exactly how a search warrant works?

SecretSoftware wrote:

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

Thus nothing. Once again you prove your brilliant legal mind by making assertions and not offering a wet slap of evidence or proof to support the claims you make.

ANY SYSTEM, open or closed, big or small that is physically searchable is legally searchable with a warrant so long as it is within the reach of the body or government issuing the warrant. Period.

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.

If they see a dead body in the back seat... they don't need a warrant as that'd fall under the plain view doctrine... now if it's in the trunk they'd need probable cause, the driver under arrest, a warrant or the drivers permission.

SecretSoftware wrote:

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

Is there any point to that comment other than showing your brilliant legal mind?

SecretSoftware wrote:

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

Nor have you ever read the US Constitution or have any idea just what it means. Nothing of what I have described is unconstitutional, even if we view it through the reality distortion filters you seem to always wear.

Again... for the last time... this is all about UK law... NOT US LAW. The UK doesn't have '10 ammendment rights'... and in the US... if a police officer were to conduct a search in violation of the 4th amendment... it is extraordinarily unlikely that the officer would ever be charged with anything... instead the evidence collected in the illegal search would simply be thrown out.

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".

Do you even have a point with that? It has nothing to do with this topic other than supporting what I am saying.

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.

Just remember that my 'warped view' as you put it is based on everything you have said here which has shown time and time again how much you hate this country, it's leadership, it's military, and how every single time you give the benefit of the doubt to the terrorist and their supporters and never this country, it's allies or supporters.

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.

You can say what you want however it does not change the underlying facts of this case or what you have said in past.

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"?

Ahh more personal insults.

One almost has to wonder what a post of yours would look like if it didn't contain any anti-Americanism, pro-terrorism, outright lies, conspiracy theories and personal insults... I say 'almost' as I realize that such a post would be empty.

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?

It stops when people like you begin to think... something I've largely given up on in your case.

I'm going to ask this once more... and then I will be done with this thread (as said above) (and watch how I stick with what I say)...

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.
cheong Recent Cheevo unlocked: You got cookied!

Nov 19, 2007 at 7:15 PM

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.

To be fair, I'd like to point out there's an equivalently important question they you did not ask:

If the targets of the law can use the law to prove the evidence against them irrelevant (they can now innocent-likely prove important evidences are irrelevant by presenting "the other password", preventing the police officials to investigate further which might reveal that the file might be in fact an important evidence), rising their guard so proper brute force decryption is even less possible, and harms the one who is actually innocent (I think it's fair to believe everyone who have their daily use computer not reinstalled within 6 months should have one or more encrypted-like files in cache or other place that the computer's owner have no knowledge of it's existance - note that all kinds of .DAT files could be encrypted files), what's the point of keeping it?

SecretSoftware Code to live, but Live to code.

Nov 19, 2007 at 7:21 PM

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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. [A]

AndyC

Nov 19, 2007 at 9:05 PM

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.

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.

ScanIAm This is an...

Nov 19, 2007 at 9:17 PM

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.

cheong Recent Cheevo unlocked: You got cookied!

Nov 19, 2007 at 10:23 PM

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.

True, but the point is that when the police demands a key, you can give them a key and still keep them away from the actual file of interest.

I doubt if most of the police officers know enough to discover the key be handed is not the only key for the file. (In fact, I don't think I'll know if someone handed me a file and a key in the proper procedure and there's no other reason make me suspect there're other things hiding in the file)
SecretSoftware Code to live, but Live to code.

Nov 20, 2007 at 1:41 AM

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.

What is your definition of terrorism?

How do I support it?

feel free to go into techincal details.

Are you a member of the KKK?

SecretSoftware Code to live, but Live to code.

Nov 20, 2007 at 1:43 AM

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.

How did you get that statistic?

Secondly, your arguments are not sound.

Compelling is not legal. Simply not legal.

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.

blowdart Peek-a-boo

Nov 20, 2007 at 2:01 AM

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:

Straw man; you're convinced the law is immoral and cannot see that it may not be; nor does can the law be used to provide a basis for the warrent, it is the action caused by the warrent, not the cause of the warrent.

SecretSoftware wrote:

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

Yes; so? Evidence of wrongdoing is presented before a warrent is issued. Warrents are a balance of probability in the UK as well as the US.

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.

Your US laws do not apply here.

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.

So when the police turn up with a valid warrent you can refuse to let them in because in doing so you would incriminate yourself? Utter nonsense, and you know it.

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.

Show me that UK law against self-incrimination.

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.

No you're talking bull pucky. You are totally convinced that this law can be used to justify a warrent when it can't; the evidence for a warrent to exercise the law must come from elsewhere. As numerous people keep saying but you refuse to acknowledge.
ScanIAm This is an...

Nov 20, 2007 at 7:47 AM

SecretSoftware wrote:

How did you get that statistic?

I made it up. Much like your argument, it's a completely insane misunderstanding of the facts.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Secondly, your arguments are not sound.

Compelling is not legal. Simply not legal.

Show me, goddammit, or STFU.

Show me where you find a direct, succint, and fininte law that can be easily interpreted as "Compelling is not legal".

Do you even know what the word 'Compel' means?

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.

No, it won't. Instead of loosely understanding what you see on LA Law reruns, how about you show real and actual cases where this has happened.

Evidence can be made inadmissable if the methods used to compel testimony aren't legal, but that is not the same as saying "it is illegal to compel someone to testify".

I'm sure you'll make a wonderful lawyer some day, but today isn't that day.

Sadly, I'm probably more on the personal liberties side of the fence in this issue, but people like you ruin legitimate arguments about this topic. You come off like some crazed homeless person mumbling about conspiracy theories and flailing wildly for your tinfoil hat.

I'm hoping you take this to heart:

You make it harder for the rest of the left leaning world, and we kind of wish you'd shut up.
evildictaitor I'll live forever, or die trying!

Nov 20, 2007 at 9:57 AM

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.

Admittedly I didn't major in Criminal law (I majored in Contract law), but I must have spent several hundred hours looking through UK and US case law for the criminal law modules in the first two years of my degree, so please don't tell me what does and does not stand up in court.

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.

Quite so. The police can only stop and search a person if they have "Probable cause". If they apply for a warrant they need to persuade the Judge that there is a good reason to overturn that person's right to privacy (that's what a warrant is.)

SecretSoftware wrote:

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

Legally speaking, no we're not.

SecretSoftware wrote:

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

No, it's data owned by some person who is suspected of owning some data that they are not allowed to have (such as bad pictures of little children). It is absolutely right that the police should be allowed to ask for the encryption keys associated with that file.

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.

Or in the case of a file, perhaps they have seen that the person has been connecting to Bad Sites^TM or that the file name says something about what the file contains.

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".

They'll just obtain a warrant, because a warrant allows the police to not give a damn if you don't want them looking through your possessions. That's what they're for.
evildictaitor I'll live forever, or die trying!

Nov 20, 2007 at 10:05 AM

SecretSoftware wrote:

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

If a law is unjust then it is not a law at all, but institutionalized criminality.
- Nieztche.

SecretSoftware wrote:

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

Viva la Revolutione!

But seriously, you can contest that the law is wrong, or that they are going against the spirit in which the original law was passed, or suggest that new laws should be made, but without actual knowledge of the case and a much more detailed knowledge of the criminal area of law which we are discussing, this entire conversation will remain a big slagging match where one person thinks that the law is this, and another thinks that the law is that, and it will remain at the level of a kindergarden playground name-calling fight.
SecretSoftware Code to live, but Live to code.

Nov 20, 2007 at 1:13 PM

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?

I mean they cant use their instinct?

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.

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?

How do you know if this law is being abused, just like police abuse their use of "teasers" on people.

Alice and bob live in a system, where cryptography is essentially rendered useless and outlawed.

My $0.02
evildictaitor I'll live forever, or die trying!

Nov 20, 2007 at 1:46 PM

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?

Because she's an animal rights activist with a history of computer abuse: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7102180.stm and so her computer was siezed. She is not just some random person.

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.

If they believe him to be holding files which are cruical to a criminal investigation, and can persuade an independant Judge that this is the case, then yes, they can confiscate the evidence and demand that he provides a mechanism by which the files can be made intelligable (i.e. give up encryption keys). If a warrant is issued and the man refuses to do so, he can be held in contempt of court which is an imprisonable sentence. Note that this is no extention of current police powers, since the police cannot sieze his unencrypted papers without a warrant either.

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?

If the police have a warrant they can confiscate the DVD and the DVD player. They would need to have a warrant to do so. This would require them to persuade an independant Judge that there is a reasonable probability of wrongdoing which is also subject to a judicial review.

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]}.

Only if the police can persuade the police that there is reasonable probability that either Alice or Bob are doing something illegal. At which point, surely this is reasonable legislation. Bear in mind that the Judge is independant of the police, and thus obtaining a warrant is a very formalized affair.

Thread Closed

This thread is kinda stale and has been closed but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums,
or Contact Us and let us know.

Hand Over Your Keys Or Else.

What does this mean?

What does this mean?

Thread Closed