Coffeehouse Thread

107 posts

Hand Over Your Keys Or Else.

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    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.

    How does this affect BitLocker?


    Story here:

    UK can now demand data decryption on penalty of jail time



    Link 2

  • User profile image
    cheong

    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...

    Recent Achievement unlocked: Code Avenger Tier 4/6: You see dead program. A lot!
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    phreaks

    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?

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    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?


    LOL. Why attack cheong personally?

    You cannot really legislate against technology. Period.

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


    I mean another method is to use dummy messages, where the key would decrypt a dummy message from any news paper article.

    Or use steganography.

    what I think is , how are they going to enforce that law? What does this say about privacy in the digital world we live in today? We use encryption to maintain and enforce our right to privacy as citizens. Bankers use SSL to scramble your Credit card information so that its secure and is private.

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

    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?

    Laws are meant to be  broken in this case, and when freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will have freedom.

    Peace:)

  • User profile image
    dahat

    Once again our resident terrorist supporting 9er doesn't let pesky things like reality get in the way of his rampant paranoia. Amazingly for once he didn't find a way to link this case to some global conspiracy or the Bush administration. He must be slipping... he did at least mention the Gestapo so we know it's really him at least.

    Oh where to begin the refutation?

    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.

    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!

    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.

    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.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    Actually it wasn't new at all; it was part of the RIP act, just "not active".

    (OK over simplification, but roughly right)

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    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.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    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.


    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.

    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).

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

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

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

    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".

    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.


    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.


  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    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.


    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.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    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.


    So you're happy with the DCMA as well? That's a civil law, so corporations are enforcing it; I'd be far more worried about that.

    Straw Man analogy BTW. You may as well say that the police should not have access to search warrants as locks are meant to hide something.

    Whilst I don't agree with the law, there's a presumption of guilt that worries me way too much, having secrets is not a decent rebuttal;

    1) You're only forced as part of a legal process; so judges and evidence need to be invovled, just like search warrants.
    2) You don't have a right to privacy whilst you are commiting legal acts.

    It is not an assault on privacy any more than the existing laws around legal investigations.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    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).


    Please stop assuming US legal process applies to the rest of the world. I realise your president believes this; I had rather hoped 9ers would be far more aware.
    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?


    Learn more about politics. The UK is a monarchy still, that's how our system works. Admittedly if the monarch ever tried to exercise power there would be a consitutional crisis, but in theory it's possible. (Pre-emption : Eagle, SHUT UP)

    Oh and "these laws are fundamentally illegal"; a law by definition cannot be illegal unless it is struck down under overriding rules.

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


    The US is a republic. Even I know that.


    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.


    Actually in the UK system, under certain circumstances, silence can be taken into account in trails. The terrorism laws allow this for example

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


    Not true; not even in the US. There is no easy or immediate recall procedure. For all intents and purposes once a representative is elected it's very hard to get them out before their term ends; democracy ends at the ballot box and what happens inbetween elections is not true democracy; the public can only attempt to influence, but cannot directly vote on everything before the representative elective bodies. And the US has even bigger problems with corporate lobbying.


    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".


    Again stop quoting US law when talking about the UK process. Indeed there are exceptions to the US right to privacy; witness the rash of Freedom of Information procedures.

    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.


    And yet you don't complain about search warrents, FOI processes, the publication of sex offenders lists via Megan's law, etc.


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


    Ad hominem attacks? Are you really that desperate?

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    blowdart wrote:
    


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


    Ad hominem attacks? Are you really that desperate?


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

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

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

    Previous presidents were impeached.

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

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

    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.


  • User profile image
    Bas

    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.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    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.
    

    No; different thing altogether. Political science is fun kids.

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

    Previous presidents were impeached.
    

    You made my point for me. Impeachment is only for illegality, not for failing to represent consituancy views. Once elected your representative cannot be recalled if he isn't representing your views.

    A true democracy enables public vote on everything; in actuality you have a representative republic.

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


    In the same way search warrants are enacted; the police go to the courts, present evidence that a crime is being committed and the deliver the request. If the request is denied then that can be taken account of in a later prosecution.

    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:
    
    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.


    Straw man again; stop being such an ameritard with your "If you're not for us you're against it" attitude here. Iraq has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Go read up on how the UK political process works. Actually go read up how the US process works as well.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    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.





    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.[6]

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    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.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    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.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    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.


    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.

    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?

    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). Suppose you have a street where all the houses have locks, what distinguishes house A from B in getting a search warrant? I suspect that it would be that , for example, that there is a weird smell coming out from house B, and not from house A, and so the officers would get a warrant based on that. Leaving house A with its lock intact. This means that House A's reasonable expectation of privacy is not violated because the officers did not "DETECT", any reasonable evidence to use it to convince a judge that house A's expectation of privacy needs to be violated temporarily for the duration of an investigation.

    Hence, the reason an officer gets a warrant is because they "DETECTED" information that was leaking from the lock system, and this information, by virtue of its leaking, has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Hence the officer can use that as evidence to gain more evidence by violating the lock of house A for instance.

    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 ?

    See, that is why I say you cannot really enforce laws against technology. And that is as it should be, IMO.[A]

    PS:

    There are bad things out there, and I agree they should be combated, but a law should not be against good things. THere are good things in which encryption is used, like secure banking and other things.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.