Coffeehouse Thread

107 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Hand Over Your Keys Or Else.

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

    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.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    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:)

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    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.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    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.


  • User profile image
    blowdart

    SecretSoftware wrote:
    

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

    Article 8: Right to privacy

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




    You know the UK has opt outs on parts of that, and by your arguement suddenly search warrents are illegal. As is CCTV. In fact by your arguement any investigation into crime that takes place in the home (spousal abuse, child abuse etc.) is now impossible to investigate or prosecute; but you know fine well that's not the case.

    I'm really interested why you think that computer correspondance is special. We have mail intercept laws; we have laws governing investigations which take precendence over all others, but somehow you think that encrypted files and communications should be protected more than anything else.


  • User profile image
    cheong

    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?[6]

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

    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.

    No, they apparently want to obtain access to material evidence that exists on the machine.  If it was unlawfully obtained, then she will likely fight it, but ultimately, warranted searches aren't a rape of anything.
    SecretSoftware wrote:

    This law is immoral.

    Laws dont' have morality.  Morals aren't laws.
    SecretSoftware wrote:

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

    Because that would be f*cking retarded.
    SecretSoftware wrote:

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

    I wish you could hear how stupid that sounds.
    SecretSoftware wrote:

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

    You mean the ones that are at very few airports, but are meant to forgo a manual patdown by a TSA agent?

    The woman in the article is obviously suspected of something, and her response of "the police are my enemy" isn't helping her case.  Everyone has rights, but acting like a premium douche will only make the authorities try harder to make your life miserable.  She needs to say "No" and get a lawyer instead of being a jerk.

  • User profile image
    Mark Brown

    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.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    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.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    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

  • User profile image
    dahat

    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.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    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.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    SecretSoftware wrote:
    
    You are a certified retard.


    Let's all be nice now...

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

  • User profile image
    dahat

    evildictaitor beat me to replying and hit on most of the points I wanted to make... so I'll just hit a few other things.

    SecretSoftware wrote:
    You are a certified retard.


    Coming from you... that means nothing.

    Nice of you to resort to name calling (as we so often see, a common MO of yours) when you feel you are being beaten.

    Besides... I thought you weren't going to respond to me anymore? Hell, you've even said that twice!

    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.


    Did you even think about that analogy before you typed it out?

    If you are going to try to draw the line between giving up brain thoughts and what is on a PC... you've got a problem, because the only part of a PC you could draw a parallel with would likely be the CPU and *maybe* the other volatile memory (RAM).

    Non-volatile memory (CD's, hard drives, etc), the very places you would store an encryption key and other possibly incriminating data would be more analogues to a person putting their thoughts on paper... something that is easily and already searchable by the police.

    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.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    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

  • User profile image
    dahat

    SecretSoftware wrote:
    well we are!


    So name-calling is now... being nice?

    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.


    Depending on the jurisdiction, a jury can draw inferences from silenceā€¦ but not convict solely on it... including in the UK

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


    Funny you say that when you are so easily proven wrong on so many legal things.

    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.


    No one but you has said otherwise. This woman's PC was not just taken, it was taken with cause... giving them access to everything inside.

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


    And you call me thick. You have external evidence and then you get a warrant. You still haven't asked the Q of why the police had this PC in the first place. I did... but as so is often the case, you ignored the point.

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


    Again you are talking US law... this law is a UK based law. And yes... the police can search your car even if they don't smell something coming out... it's called probable cause, such as if they see something.

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


    What's your point? Organic and inorganic computers can both be searched.

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


    Why is it every time someone brings up a warrant you ignore the point and assume the police are targeting random people and grabbing their PC's without a warrant and then demanding keys?

    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!

    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!

    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.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    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".


    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.

    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.

    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?Wink

    My $0.02

    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.

    Hence the law is illegal if measured against higher laws (10 amendment , or Fundamental Human rights acts), which takes precedent over any other lower applicable laws.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    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.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.