Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

SecretSoftware Secret​Software Code to live, but Live to code.
  • US Dolar sinks, what do you think?

    David Walker, comptroller general of the US: US facing bankruption, and ultimate collapse.

  • Hand Over Your Keys Or Else.

    evildictaitor wrote:
    
    SecretSoftware wrote:
    
    You are a certified retard.


    Let's all be nice now...


    well we are!
    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.

    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.
    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.


    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.

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

    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.

    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.


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


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


    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.
    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.


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

    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.
    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.


    Well, that may be true, but there are levels to stupidity. Not every one shares the same level of stupidity.Tongue Out

  • Hand Over Your Keys Or Else.

    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.



    You are a certified retard.

    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".

    So, this protects "witness evidence" that exists in the person's head (locked in a brain wave of thought). And you should not be compelled to decrypt the brain wave thought, using your tongue.

    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.

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

    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.

    Its not a gestapo.

    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?

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

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

  • Hand Over Your Keys Or Else.

    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?


    Yes, I agree.

    I don't know why other people can't see the immorality of this law in a democratic system.Expressionless

  • Hand Over Your Keys Or Else.

    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.


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

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

    Does not that defeat the whole purpose of cryptography? Private keys needs to be private.

    What if a Company has secrets, and they are suspected by Police, to have committed a crime (think Exon Mobile or the others). Why should anyone be compelled to "give evidence against themselfs"? or break the whole purpose of cryptography use?

    You see it does not make sense to me. How do they suspect that an encrypted file has anything to do with a given crime? 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.

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

  • Hand Over Your Keys Or Else.

    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.


    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.


  • Hand Over Your Keys Or Else.

    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.


    Learning to read, helps:)

  • Hand Over Your Keys Or Else.

    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.

  • Hand Over Your Keys Or Else.

    Now Antimal Rights activists are being asked to hand over their encryption keys.

    Animal rights activist hit with RIPA key decrypt demand


    :O

  • US Dolar sinks, what do you think?

    The dollar's decline: from symbol of hegemony to shunned currency


    And

    Saudi minister warns of dollar collapse