JChung2006 wrote:

SET NOCOUNT ON causes stored procedures to return an int value.  Try SET NOCOUNT OFF in your stored procedure.

PeterF wrote:



Is it always stopping at the same stored procedure?

PeterF wrote:



List the stored procedures so people can repro it.

PeterF wrote:

why showstopper when you have a perfect workaround? btw why would you add all 50 at once? don't you loose overview like that?

phreaks wrote:

http://seekingalpha.com/

Hint: The go-to site for financial & economic opinion.

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.

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.

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.

cheong wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: NO. Its sinking because the Military, namely the Pentagon, spend all of that money on "Star wars" like equipment, that costs trillions of dollars.

Sorry, but doesn't "a government willing to spend money" favours economy?

When the governemt "pours money" to the local citizens, they get more income and then 1) more willing to spend money on other things 2) get more money means more income tax to the government. It was said to be a way to initate a positive monetary influrance to the country.

Although I agree there'd be better effect if money is spent on other things closely related to the public.

phreaks wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  phreaks wrote:  It's sinking for a number of reasons. Federal defecit, low interest rates, credit crisis,  CDO/CDS debt backed securities trend, real-estate bubble, oil prices. Combine all of those issues which each in itself can become a problem if not managed properly and you have a really big problem. Current Outlook:  Stormy. NO. Its sinking because the Military, namely the Pentagon, spend all of that money on "Star wars" like equipment, that costs trillions of dollars. The stuff you sight would not have lead to the collapse of the dollar, rather it is the massive military spending, that  Rumsfield did to transformed the Armed forces of the USA to the 21 century challenges. This massive spending, is equal to all the world's military spending 400 times. They tell you that the credit crisis is to blame but its not. its the military spending that broke the back of the economy. Interestingly enough, that is how the Roman Empire collapsed, if you read history. My $0.02

Ok, whatever you say. You obviously have a Harvard MBA in economics and are savvy enough to make the call that the others simply aren't seeing.

You must be a financial genius.

If I were allowed to hold stocks, I would certainly want you managing my money!

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".

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.

phreaks wrote:



It's sinking for a number of reasons.

Federal defecit, low interest rates, credit crisis,  CDO/CDS debt backed securities trend, real-estate bubble, oil prices.

Combine all of those issues which each in itself can become a problem if not managed properly and you have a really big problem.

Current Outlook:  Stormy.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.