Slashdot Mirror
Encryption Debate at Mitnick Trial
A number of people have written about the latest twist in the Mitnick case. Kevin wants to get his data back, but the government is refusing to do so until he gives them the key. Apparently, the government is unable to crack the encryption that he's got on it - you'd think after having the data for five years, they'd be able to brute-force the darn thing. It's a NYT article - free login required.
Seriously now, Kevin has the right not to incriminate himself. This includes not turning over a key. This is all 5th Amendment.. the government is just trying to set a precident here so they can steam-roller it. g'luck, I have a small amount of faith that the supreme court will shoot it down.
Maybe the entertainment industry should have hired this guy to write the next version of DVD playback protection.
You can't handle the truth.
---The NY times article---
Wrinkle in Mitnick Case Hints at Encryption Battles to Come
little-known legal skirmish in the case of the computer hacker Kevin Mitnick was a preview of similar fights to come as more people use encryption software to protect their files, lawyers who were involved in the case say. Mitnick left federal prison last week after serving nearly five years for a series of crimes involving computer fraud and wire fraud. But his lawyers say they are still troubled by the judge's answer to a legal question raised early in the case: When federal agents seize encrypted files from a defendant, can they refuse to return them unless the defendant turns over the secret "key" to decode the files? That digital-age puzzle, which the judge regarded as a novel legal question, arose in Mitnick's case in a circuitous manner, as sometimes happens in criminal trials. In the course of the government's investigation, federal agents in 1994 and 1995 seized two laptop computers owned by Mitnick, according to Gregory L. Vinson, a lawyer who worked on the Mitnick defense team that was headed by Donald C. Randolph, a veteran criminal defense specialist in Los Angeles. On the computers' hard drives were approximately nine gigabytes of electronic evidence, Vinson said in an interview. He estimated that of that total, perhaps one gigabyte consisted of encrypted files -- documents that were unintelligible to anyone who did not have a key to decrypt them. Mitnick, of course, had the key. During the pre-trial discovery phase of the case, the government lawyer, Christopher Painter, an assistant United States attorney in Los Angeles, indicated that as required by the rules governing evidence, he would hand all of the seized files over to the defense -- except the encrypted ones. That set the stage for a hearing on May 20, 1998, before federal judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer in Los Angeles. Speaking for the defense, Randolph argued that Mitnick was entitled to copies of the seized encrypted files under two legal theories, according to a transcript of the hearing. First, he contended, under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which establish the ground rules for the government's disclosure of evidence to the defendant, the government must allow a defendant to inspect or copy documents that "were obtained from or belong to the defendant." Since the encrypted files belonged to Mitnick, he deserved to get a copy of them, Randolph said. The defense also argued that the encrypted files might include information that could help Mitnick defend himself. Under the Constitution, the prosecution is obligated to hand over such material to the defense. Painter replied that because the government could not understand what was in the files, it could not use the files as evidence at trial. He also said that Rule 16 did not apply because the encrypted files in a sense were not "really in our possession," because "we don't know what's there." But the heart of the government lawyer's argument was that it would be wrong to hand over the files because they could contain the spoils of Mitnick's crimes -- secret information that he illegally acquired from the companies whose computers he hacked into -- or something even more dangerous. "For all we know, it could be plans to take down a computer system," Painter said at the hearing. "We don't know. And we think it's dangerous to release that, and that's why we don't want to release it. We're not going to use it, certainly, but we think that there's reasons not to release that information." In considering the matter, Judge Pfaelzer said that it was "clever" of Mitnick to have encrypted the files in such a way that the government could not use them in its own case but Mitnick could access them if given a copy. She asked: "Now, you know, what's the court supposed to do with that position?" Painter said the situation was akin to Mitnick asking for his coat back and the government not knowing if there was a pistol in the pocket. Judge Pfaelzer agreed, ruling that "this court is not going to order the encryptive material to be given" to Mitnick. The judge added that if Mitnick would "tell the government how to read" the files, then the government would turn over the files in decrypted form. Mitnick's lawyers immediately objected to this condition on the grounds that it would force him to waive his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to obtain evidence he needed and that he had a legal right to see. The judge rejected this point and repeated her ruling. Vinson, the defense lawyer, said in an interview this week that he still thought Judge Pfaelzer's ruling from the bench did not give enough weight to the defense's arguments. He said he was worried that the case might create the impression that the government has no obligation to give back encrypted files that it has been unable to decrypt. "In ten years, when encryption becomes commonplace for people to use in order to protect their files, whether their files contain financial records, conversations with their spouse or a local drug dealer, the government is going to seize the files in a criminal case, and [government lawyers] will be faced with the same situation as they were in the Mitnick case," Vinson said. Painter, reached by telephone earlier this week, said both sides in the pre-trial legal battle over Mitnick's encrypted files had strong arguments. He said he agreed with Vinson that similar disputes may arise in the future as more people encrypt files. But he maintained that no precedent had been set, and that the government's responses would be on a case-by-case basis. "It could be that in future cases, depending on the circumstances, it would be more appropriate to return [encrypted files] under special procedures," Painter said. Gerald Lynch, a law professor at Columbia University who is an expert in criminal law and a former federal prosecutor, said in an interview that it was a "panic response" on the part of the court and the government to deny Mitnick access to his files. "If you think about this reasonably, the answer is that if the government does not have a reasonable basis to contend that something really dangerous [is in the encrypted files], and merely does not know what is in the files and can't decode them, then they should hand them over," he said. Alan B. Davidson, a staff lawyer who follows encryption developments for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group, said he believed the Mitnick encryption dispute is a precursor to a coming battle in Congress. As part of a compromise announced this fall by the Clinton administration that loosened export restrictions on strong encryption software, the administration has committed to sending a bill to Congress laying out rules for when the government can get access to encryption keys, Davidson said. "We are anxiously awaiting the administration's new bill, which will open up a huge debate," he said.
I wonder how he encrypted it... I would like to start using that encryption algorithm/program, because if the government can't crack it in five years... DAMN!
According to the article, Mitnick only got five years. Even relatively weak (and 5-year-old) encryption held off "intruders" who had physical access to the data. Anyone willing to bet he would have received a few more had the data been left unencrypted? Mitnick should take the loss - what could the Feds want with the key other than to use it to lay on more charges?
On a side note, are there any legal precedents or restrictions regarding how long Federal officials are allowed to hold confiscated equipment/data? I've heard stories of equipment being kept even with no charges being filed...
I'll register the domain right now... :P
Gee, the way this case has gone thus far, i'm not really surprised by this.
Idiot.
Maybed distributed.net can do something useful for once and try decrypting Kevin Mitnick's data.
So what encryption algorithm or program did he use? How big was the keysize?
Inquiring minds want to know.
--LP
Of course this is true, the gov't could _easily_ break encryptions. That is why the US gov't built their original computers, so I have no doubt that they can break most homemade encryption.
Hepaestus_Lee
"[Y]our wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick." -- Ian Anderson
...but what is the precedent for something like a safe or strongbox which has been confiscated as evidence? Granted, the fact that it is physically accessible probably means there's never been a case where they couldn't get the safe open, but I wouldn't be so sure there isn't already a precedent on the books.
Does anyone know?
Of course PGP has been around that long, since 1991.
http://www.cypherspace.org/~adam/timeline/
If Mitnik used a 1K or 2K keysize (not really uncommon, remember assymetrical keys have to be a lot bigger than symetrical ones), I wouldn't think the feds could crack it. Maybe NSA can but as someone else pointed out, they may not want to let that fact get revealed, even to the Justice Dept.
The federal government is not one big happy family.
Just speculating (If I were him): 1. He uses one time pad algorithm (=xor with random key as long as data (~1 Gb). So he has hided 1Gb key file into some safe place. This method is 100% secure *IF* key is random enough, key is used only once and key is not found. 2. He has crypted the whole thing with 1024 or 2048 bit RSA. This is *SLOW*. (Can anybody think how slow this might be?). 3. He has used some clever (not cryptographically clever) methods like multiple encryption or faking file format etc. (megaflops don't help when you are trying to crack wrong algorithm) - this could be something really simple: first, crypt with DES, then reverse file or something. How about: gzip -> DES -> rot13 :) 4. This file is actually 1Gb of truly random noice to annoy feds (or keep them from looking other places)
Man, if ever I saw a reason why steganography, this is it.
;-)
I'd like to suggest a solution to this problem. Let's call it the "Redundant Distributed Network Steganographic File System", mostly because it's an acronym that can't be made into a cute name.
Now, the idea is, everyone gives up some disk space, say 0.5gb, which they make acessible on the Internet. In exchange, they get like 0.1gb of space on the RDNSFS. The filesystem LOOKS like noise, but if you have the right key, you can extract a certain amount of data from it. If you have the wrong key, you get fake data.
Now, the big problem is how to allocate space for someone without giving away that they have data out there somewhere....
sigs are a waste of space
Just speculating (If I were him):
:)
1. He uses one time pad algorithm (=xor with random key as long as data (~1 Gb). So he has hided 1Gb key file into some safe place. This method is 100% secure *IF* key is random enough, key is used only once and key is not found.
2. He has crypted the whole thing with 1024 or 2048 bit RSA. This is *SLOW*. (Can anybody think how slow this might be?).
3. He has used some clever (not cryptographically clever) methods like multiple encryption or faking file format etc. (megaflops don't help when you are trying to crack wrong algorithm) - this could be something really simple: first, crypt with DES, then reverse file or something. How about: gzip -> DES -> rot13
4. This file is actually 1Gb of truly random noice to annoy feds (or keep them from looking other places)
He can't be retried, and they couldn't open up a new trial if they found anything new. If anything, I would like them to see what else I had on there. I'm not a 'FREE KEVIN' dork, but if I were him I would like to spit in their eye by showing them what else they didn't catch me for.
Poor fella just wants his porn back!
**>>BELCH
.... but you go to jail for not doing it (in my state, it's worse).
So the state'll probably do the same thing.
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
/ k.d / earth trickle / Monkeys vs. Robots Films /
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
I'd sure encrypt my data too! You should always encrypt illegal things, it just makes sense, right guys? All smart criminals encrypt their data, and people who encrypt things obviously have something to hide.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
wouldn't getting his data back violate his parol?
heh heh.
If they could decrypt it, would they tell us? They didn't need the data to get Mitnick convicted, so they would have no reason to reveal that they know what the files contain, especially if they are something that isn't terribly valuable to the government (but might be to Kevin). On the other hand, by not admitting to have decrypted the files, they can keep Kevin from getting them back.
Probably most seriously though, is if the government admitted they could crack the encryption, it would not be good for the government. It would encourage more people to use more heavy-duty encryption. It would put more political pressure on the government to further laxen the export rules, which is not something they would like. By not admitting to being able to crack the encryption (assuming for a moment they really can), they give other people a false sense of security. All in all, it would be a loss for the government to make the admission with very little upside for them.
Yeah, I wondered about that too. Anybody know what kind of comps these are? I suspect the brand known as "Misprint", but I could be wrong.
Seems to me that the government is taking a risky position here.. I mean, basically, they're saying, "We'll give this stuff back, but only if you tell us what it is."
They can't force him to give up the key. The Fifth Amendment would protect him there. I'm not sure I see how they can legally refuse to return the files.
What if it wasn't encryption that this was over? What if it was just some file in a special format that didn't make any sense to the prosecuters? Could they then say, "We'll give you your file if you tell us what it means?" That's essentially the arguement the government is making.
In any key difference of opinion like this, always remove the controversial bit and see if the argument still holds water. This one doesn't.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Perhaps Mitnick is having a little fun and the
so called encrypted data is just random data.
I've been reading slashdot for several months now and really don't recognizre that many names. It seems that maybe you have something personal against him. It should be easy to check whether what you are saying is true. Either way it's not something to get that excited about. Icould care less if he bumps up his score a point. OOhhh. Beware of subconscious jealous motives..
Kevin should just tell them its not encrypted. but Reall just raw sample data from some experiment. What are they going to do.. say its something else..wouldnt it be there problem to prove it really was that something else.
How is he supposed to decrypt this information anyways. With an abacus? pen and paper? After all he's restricted from practically all computer use.
He's not restricted from giving it to someone else...
Even hackers have friends.
The cake is a pie
Had a nice theory going, but one little problem. The government has not proven that these items belonging to Kevin were ever used in a crime.
Now, just because you do not want to keep the few rights you have left is no reason to advocate that the rights of others should be removed.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
He was tried and convicted based on evidence not contained in the encrypted files. With regards to the information which is encrypted, he has not been charged with further criminal acts. Therefore, it must be assumed that he is innocent of illegal activities relating to the encrypted data. If the government has evidence to the contrary, then they must disclose this in court and file the appropriate criminal charges.
What this really demonstrates, is the utter erosion of Constitutional Rights we American's believe we still have.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
Just like the authorities need a warrant to search your house, they should also need a warrant to require you to decrypt your data. Of course, in order to get a warrant, you need probable cause that there is something to seize/search. Just because data is encrypted, and just because it's the data of a convicted felon, has NO BEARING on whether the data is of any criminal relevance.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Money? Why would it take money? :-)
:-)
How do you know that SETI@Home is not actually a government front and they are not already using distributed processing to break Mitnick's encryption
Does that mean My PC should be siezed and not returned until I do remember?
Are you a convicted felon out on parole?
If not, what does your plight have to do with any of this?
I fully expect that the govt will make PSAs now about encryption.
"This is your brain on ecryption..."
"Don't let a good file go encrypted"
or..
"See Dick. See Dick use encryption. Don't be a Dick."
We can have uniformed policemen come to school children's classrooms and show them pictures of ugly geeks and say "See kids? This is what encryption does. Only Ugly Geeks use encryption. Don't be an Ugly Geek."
I feel ill just thinking about it.
Oh, crap! I mean crackers...
The cake is a pie
[Agent Smith] "You want your data back? oh. Sorry, the data on the laptop is gone. Bob tried to install Linux on it."
[Bob] "Whoops, my bad. FIPS didn't like your drives."
[Agent Smith] "You must supply me with the codes to Zion's mainframe now!
Problem solved, no court-case now concerning encryption, especially when they are in such a poor position. I don't like Kevin (for being a punk) but it wouldn't look good for the government if they tried to force the encryption issue now.
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
What good will it do Kevin to get the data back? He can't use a computer and I'm sure he's not going to decrypt a GB worth of data by hand!
Yeah... I know he could give it to someone else :P
Lib.BENCH the only site you'll ever need!
I know this is slightly off-topic, but while the discussion is about encryption, I though I'd ask:
:)
There were a few lines in that article talking about the U.S. relaxing the rules about exporting strong encryption software; this reminded me of a thought I had a while ago:
Netscape Navigator is available freely from the web, and so are other software packages which contain strong encryption software. They do have a warning before you download that if you live outside of North America, you aren't allowed to download it. But that's just like the warnings on porn sites, isn't it? "Click the enter button only if you're 18 or older, otherwise you're violating a bunch of laws." How do they prevent you from downloading the software, check what domain you're downloading from and if it's foreign, then the server doesn't let you have it?
Or is the law barring export of strong encryption pretty much useless and the message on the webpage is just there to cover Netscape's ass?
I'm just curious. Also, forgive me if someone has already asked this, or a flame war has already been fought over this.
-Markus
Rainy days and automatic weapons always get me down.
I'm thinking that the government CAN decrypt it, they have, and they know what's in it. That's why they don't want to give it back to Mitnick. Maybe he can use it in his defense, and they're counting on people not knowing they can decrypt it. That way, they can say they don't have to give the files back to him because they don't know whats in them.
Now that I think of it...
He probably used password-based encryption to encrypt the key to the files with a password. This would be a lot easier to crack. But, it could also mean that a single-bit error renders the plaintext unreadable. If the error came in the right place, you could never retrieve the proper decryption key. So, he could say "My password is 'foobar'" while it was really 'bazfoo' and then claim that there was an error in the ciphertext. Though, this would mean the US wouldn't have to give him the encrypted files back.
Citizens Against Plate Tectonics
1 gb of unintelligable junk?
I know!
He should have named it NTOSKRNL.EXE... then the gov would've have said: "Oh, it's just NT." and left it alone.
Well, maybe they could print it out for him. He could spend the three years of parole manually decrypting the data.
all persons, living and dead, are purely coincidental. - Kurt Vonnegut
Consider this:
Something stinks about this whole thing. I suspect a rat making up stories to set a precedent.
Even if there was a pistol in the pocket of his coat - It's his damn pistol!
The logical question, in my mind, is: "What is the precedent for physical property?"
Surely safes have been seized as evidence in other trials. What happens when an individual will not turn over the combination for the safe? What if the government cannot force the safe open?
The most proper solution would be to apply the answer to these questions to the encrypted files.
And the feds just say, "Ok, here's your data" and present him with 9 Gigabytes of freshly generated random numbers.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Suppose Mitkick gave the police the key. Could
they look at the disk and get more evidence for
*another* possible conviction or would that
fall under "double jeopardy"?
"If Mitnick isn't willing to demonstrate that the material on the drives is legit, then the assumption that it's illegit isn't too far off base."
Do the words "innocent until PROVEN guilty mean anything anymore? The US judicial system is not founded on making assumptions. I would not want to be sent to jail because the government read my mind and placed intentions in my actions that did not exist. This comes back to the same bullshit arguement: "Why should I care if the government bugs my phone if I'm not doing anything wrong?" Just because Kevin doesn't choose to divulge the information does not make it illegal. What if it is P@rN pics of his ex-girlfriend? Would you want those paraded around a court room? Your constitutional rights as an American (if you are one) prohibit your incarceration based upon speculative evidence and un-based assumptions.
If you let "The MAN" get away with one small infraction of freedom eventually these small pieces will get larger and larger until you cant even urinate without the proper paper work and permit.
Random Task
"I can hoist a Jack. I can lay a track. I can pick and shovel too. I'll do anything you hire me to." - John Cash "Legen
Probably not - when people have their alleged drug labs raided, and their chemistry equipment confiscated, they don't get it back. Even if they're acquited of any crime - even if they're never charged with any crime!
Yes, that is kind funny. Imagine the justice department confiscating an art painting from your collection and then refusing to return it because "they don't get it", so to them it is "not really art"
But maybe if can explain to them what the artist meant, they will "get it" and return the painting to you...
-=* no sig *=-
Given that the data is Mitnick's property as far as is known, the government should be required to return his property.
And, following the analogy of the coat with the possible pistol, Kevin should be trusted to have learned not to use pistols, rather than be required to demonstrate that he has no pistols.
At least, that's the society in which I'd prefer to live.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
:)
-- My neighbors dog has a four inch clit.
Or we could make it so that for the FIRST! 50 posts you can only moderate down. At least that would take care of the obvious use of mod points early in a thread...
I wonder then if Mitnick can sue to get the data (and any equipment) back, or is this something that this judge has final say over? I think he'd have a pretty strong case, based on the fact that the data in question was never used in this trial and the prosecution hasn't obtained a warrant to get the key from Mitnick. If they did manage to get a warrant, the prosecution would at least have something more than "it might be dangerous" to stand on.
-Jennifer
I would enjoy reading that the government had "forgotten" where they'd stashed the files.
"oops, sorry, someone must have dropped this hard drive." etc. etc.
It was properly credited, perhaps he could have included more detail. Such as:
By CARL S. KAPLAN in the cyber law journal of the january 2000 issue of of the ny times tech library.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Uh..talk like that ruins the purpose of this page. If you want to act like that, go to an irc channel, leave you ignorant comments to yourself. I would like to see you in Mitnick's place in jail and see you laugh and say the word "nigga". You wouldn't be laughing my friend. So take that attitude elsewhere, /. tries to be an itelligent platform to speak, lets try to keep it that way.
I don't like the concept that we can't give it back to him, because it MIGHT be bad.
If I had a little black box that was confiscated, would the argument that it MIGHT be some kind of weapon be ample reason for the law enforcers to not return my black box. To extend this logic, could they confiscate my bank accounts because I MIGHT do something destructive with the money, or that the money MIGHT be the spoils of my previous crime?
You MIGHT have noticed the gratuitous use of a specific word. It's this little word that worries me a great deal about any precedents that may arise from this event.
The Other Nate
The Other Nate
Wrong. He is also forbidden from proxy computer use.
Yes, that is possible and is covered frequently in the crypto and pgp forums on Usenet. Use your favorite archive to learn more.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice.If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your area.
You've turned the presumption of innocence sideways. He was convicted; there is no longer a relevant presumption.
He was convicted for stealing electronic information. It takes a stretch of the imagination to think that there is more than a remote chance that the data does not include the fruits of his crime.
The state does *not* have have to prove a connection to each and every apparent proceed of his criminal enterprise--*especially* when there is a simple way to check.
He *has* been convicted, and it defies logic to suggest that that this data isn't part of his crime. *He* now has the burden of proof, not the government.
This is not an erosion; I believe that this is exactly the outcome you would see from a court staffed by the founding fathers. I'm just about all the way out to the extreme on the rights of individuals in the face of the government (just l like the folks who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights), but in this case the law is on the government's side.
Who knows, maybe it is just pure random data that Mitnick has. Imagine: Mitnick vs. US Govt over 9G of crap. After all, what does Mitnick have to lose, now that he use computers? Could be Mitnick's way of giving the finger to those that sent him to jail? :-)
Try this one out - I'm not the one who started it, but I and many others use it:
Login: slashdoteffect
Password: slashdot
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
Perhaps the poster would contend that, by posting an article on the web, the NYT had implicitly given copyright on it to the public. After all, it is *IMPOSSIBLE* to read an item from a webserver without taking a copy first.
The issue isn't one of copying but one of republication, and copyright law doesn't necessarily cover that as it's a separate issue. Even more income for lawyers in that direction, I bet.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Look at his background, drug arrests, theft, cloning cell phones, evading authorities. Its proven he is not to be trusted.
It would be pretty damned funny if he wrote the files in Klingon with no spaces and punctuation and then encrypted them. Even if the feds managed to successfully decrypt the files, they'd still think they were looking at gibberish.
Its obvious at this point in the parent-post's life that nothing can be funny on /. anymore without being marked as overrated 15 times.
I'm confused. Why didn't the police get a search warrent for the encrypted file. How is encrypting a file different than putting a lock on your Cedar chest in your house.
The search warrent process has safeguards built in: you have to demonstrate probable cause to a judge to get a warrent. This should include a description of what you hope to find. Trying to go on a "fishing trip" hoping to find something, when you have no idea what is there does not qualify as probable cause. If they can't get a warrent, they have no right to keep the files, but if they do, he should decrypt them.
Also, now that Mitnick is free, why not hand over the key, let the cops decrypt it, have his lawyer seal the evidence, and milk "double jeapordy" for all it's worth. I'm sure that most statues of limitation have surely passed for any possible new crimes that might be demonstrated by the contents.
Give it up, AC. Response is what the FP is looking for.
IANAL, but isn't this the same situation as the DeCSS evidence being in the public record? Couldn't Mitnick just ask a friend to ask for all records of his trial, including copies of the files?
- No Sig Today
A megabyte here, a megabyte there, pretty soon you're talking real storage!
and i'm going through junkbuster so they will get no cookies of mine
Need a Catering Connection
I think the fifth amendment protects you from being induced to give information that would lead to incrimination or conviction.
Most crypto-systems involve a key of somekind or even a pass-phrase along with the key. Being induced to give the pass-phrase is tantamount to giving information that would lead to incrimination, IMO.
John
I think we were thinking the same thing at the same time *laugh*.
Random Task
"I can hoist a Jack. I can lay a track. I can pick and shovel too. I'll do anything you hire me to." - John Cash "Legen
I think that it's a little bit dangerous to assume one way or the other what the NSA can do. Not to be paranoid or anything, but it is always possible that they may have techniques that are currently unknown to the public, as appears to have happened in the past. (the weakness of the particular permutation blocks in DES (given to IBM by the NSA )to a certain type of cryptanalysis is an very suggestive example. See Applied Cryptography for details).
Not only that, but if the NSA did have any interest in the files, and wanted to take a look at them, it isn't as if they would announce that fact to the world. Even decrypting it for another government agency (like the FBI) might bring up questions of what the capabilities of the NSA are. For example, if some hypothetical hard drives were encrypted with 128bit encryption, and the FBI knew what was in them, then it could be assumed that 128 bit encryption was "breakable", giving unwanted information to the public (and other countries). What could happen (and I'm in no way implying that this did happen) is that the NSA would take a look at the files, see if there was anything that interested them, and if not, then just give it back to the FBI, without telling them what was on it.
I'm not trying to be paranoid, but I'm just trying to point out that one shouldn't assume, on the basis of action or inaction in one certain case, what an adversary can (or can't) do.
Thank you.
Would you be so affronted by the governement refusing to return a briefcase (which they had been unable to open, for whatever reason) to someone who had just robbed a bank just because they can't PROVE that it contains stolen money and the convict refuses to prove to them that it DOESN'T contain stolen money?
This isn't quite the same as being guilty until proven innocent because he's already been proven guilty of something, to which the files in question may be related.
Only recently has encryption become so good as to be undecipherable (for all intents and purposes). So now we are forced with only two choices -- (a) to make life easier for criminals (by not demanding that they give up the keys to encrypted files) and more lucrative for criminals (by giving the files back after they served their time) or (b) to take a little bit of freedom away from everyone else by being allowed by law to demand that those either charged or convicted with a crime give up the key. Don't forget, there are already a LOT of liberties taken away from us as soon as we're charged with a crime. It's unfortunate, but a necessary evil if you are to actually convict anyone. Wouldn't it be rather silly if the authorities were NEVER allowed to search someone's house to gather evidence, no matter how much reason they had to believe that the evidence was there?
Looking for political forums? Check out "The World Forum".
ftp://ftp.kevins-leet-haxor-files.org, duh
(even shorter: the govenment could take something that was totally irrelivent to a crime, and not return it)
The only reference I could find was this proposed change:
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (Engrossed in House )[H.R.1658.EH]
I'm not certain if that's even the correct bill (Damit Jim, I'm an SysAdmin, not a lawyer!), but you get the jist of what I'm getting at. If this got into place, maybe he has a chance at getting the data back. If not, maybe not. {shrug}
Shane
We'll never know, because the brand name plate seems to have been shaken loose. I guess that two days the machines were in a paint shaker didn't do the data on the drives any good either.
Information wants to be free. Maybe the data should be available to ALL of us on an FTP site somewhere. I bet someone would eventually decrypt it.
I don't understand this. How can they say that the files are "not really in [their] possession" with a straight face? I mean, if they're not in the possession of the government, then whose? They're not in Mitnick's, otherwise the defense wouldn't have asked for them. They only wanted copies, anyway. This is such bullshit. I really think this case was a shining example of government tyranny and makes me rethink my anti-gun stance.
So what if there was a plan to take down the entire internet in there? The defense lawyers wanted it -- I don't think the lawyers could have done anything like that, nor Mitnick for that matter, since he was in jail. Even now he couldn't do it because he can't come within a mile of a computer.
I think the prosecution and the judge just hated Mitnick or something, I don't see how any of this can be legal. Why doesn't Mitnick plea this up to the Supreme Court? If this is really a constitutional violation, which it seems to be, that's the place for it.
Does anybody know, was Mitnick even a good hacker? Like, was he revered among his colleagues/peers/whatever? I don't get this entire case, it seems like it didn't occur in the United States. But it was in California, wasn't it? California is its own little universe anyway.
___________________
rooooar
Why don't you think about your "solution" for a bit, then get back to us? It wouldn't hurt to read a few well-known cases under British law (both in the home country and the colonies) to know exactly what happens when the state has the power to detain people indefinitely while "collecting evidence."
Hint: this rule is intended to protect political prisoners, not common criminals, and is tightly coupled with the presumption of innocence.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
To bad your not signal 11. If you were, by now your post would be marked up to at least 4, marked friggin hillarious.
Jon Johanson : My name is Jon Johanson. I'd like to get a copy of the address book on my PC so I can e-mail my friends and keep them updated on my situation.
government rep. : I'm sorry. We cannot release those files.
JJ : What? Why not?
gr : You use the Linux operating system which is known to be user unfriendly. No one here knows how to use Linux.
JJ : So?
gr : So we decided that since we can't get to the files, we don't know what's in them. They might contain a lethal compuetr virus or something. Until we know what's in them you can't have access to any of them.
JJ : You have got to be kidding me. Is there anything I can do to get around this?
gr : Well, if you're willing to train everyone involved in this trial how to use Linux for free, I'm sure we can make an arrangement after everyone has sucessfully completed the course.
JJ : ARRRRGGGGHHHH!
Disclaimer: If you're offended Jon, I'm sorry.
-----
Want to reply? Don't know HTML? No problem.
No Zen is good zen
Does anyone even know what algorithm Kevin used?
One could always take the fall for the rest of us. Send a PGP encrypted email to someone at the whitehouse. Make a threat about killing, say, Janet Reno, and wait for yourself to disappear. :) Make sure the subject line is menacing enough to get someone's attention. When we all notice you've suddenly vanished, we'll have proof They can crack PGP.
The limit to what they/the prosecutors can decrypt is not the same as the limit of the technology available. Rather the limit is their budget.
Most likely the prosecutors gave Mitnick's boxes a cursory scan, knew enough of what they were doing to recognize that some were encrypted and stopped there. For the rest of the time they have been sitting idle, ie no money being spent.
What I wonder about is how he managed to fit 9G into a couple of laptops 5 years ago?!?!?
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
If it cannot be proven to be contraband the government is supposed to return it. The big dumb question is, how could a bunch of possibly bits be contraband?
Before anybody jumps on the "Richo act" property grabbing theory, that is obviously unconstitutional too but the cops and judges just don't care.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Ok, try this then: The police want to search your house, but don't have enough to get a warrant. They've set up shop on your front step, and won't let you in. "The judge added that if you would tell the government how to unlock your front door, then the government would turn your furniture over to you in the street."
Or maybe this one: To keep down on demonstrations, you can no longer petition or demonstrate in public. "The judge added that if you would tell the government what you view is, then the government would petition itself on your behalf."
Or maybe this: To keep you safe from armed criminals, the government decides that you can't have a gun. "The judge added that if you would call the government if an armed criminal shows up, the government will come protect you from them."
Or perhaps: To speed criminal trials, you can no longer have your own lawyer for defense. "The judge added that if you would tell the government prosecution team your side of the story, the government prosecution team will also provide your defense."
If this action doesn't violate Mitnick's Fifth Amendment right against being a witness against himself, it probably violates his Fifth Amendment right against having property taken without just compensation, and certainly violates his unenumerated Ninth Amendment rights.
1.) There's evidence in there that may be able to be used against him in the future
2.) He's got something he knows is of value and even though he can't use a computer for a while that doesn't mean he can't give the harddrive to someone else and tell them how to unencrypt it.
3.) His mom has a great brownie receipe
Now I usually don't post if there's well over 200 comments, but I decided that I would on this occasion. Mitnick has alot of secrets and he should he's the hacker that everyone wants to interview and make movies about. He also got caught and he'll be forever watched. So is he that genuis that he managed to encrypt to the point of being able to keep it secure for five years.
There's a small chance someone might read this.
If you're thinking, "yeah but with a safe they could just jackhammer it open," think of it as a boobytrapped safe. The court could require someone to disable the boobytraps.
Or the government could try yet again to pass legislation that forces all safes to have a special comination that the government can use at will that disengages the booby trap. Just because we all know that that would effectively render the safe useless, doesn't mean that they're not attempting to set some sort of precedent with this case.
--Cycon
Your Brain + EEG + LEGO Robots = Brainstorms
If it wasn't used as evidence at the trial, then it isn't in the record of the trial.
;)
Sure glad you're not my lawyer
I'm sorry, but I don't think Mitnick should get his encrypted files back. Regardless of whether he deserved the prison sentence he got, he IS a criminal and those files may contain illegally gathered information. When you're arrested, the authorities have the right to search your home and go through all your belongings, including your computer files. When you're convicted, they have the right to put you in prison for years. I'm surprised the courts didn't force him to give up the key or face a much stiffer sentence. To knowingly give a criminal the spoils of his crimes after he is released from prison would be ridiculous. If the encrypted files really are innocuous, I don't think that forcing him to prove it before returning them is a violation of his rights.
Looking for political forums? Check out "The World Forum".
So he can't use a computer.... maybe its a simple crack if you know some key things, and he's going to print it in hex and work it by hand. Whatever. He still has the right to the information itself, regardless of the equipment being impounded.
The VERY FACT THAT THEY DEMAND THE KEY is that THEY DON'T HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON. They're willing to let him have it, so its not a national security issue for HIM to know it, they just WANT TO KNOW what HE KNEW!! plain and simple.
antidisestablishmentarianiphobe
yes, and he said to you that Mitnik DID plead the 5th, BUT the Judge rejected it. bah ... I give up, there's obviously no getting through to you, is there?
No, because moderation is often needed before there are 50 comments in order to separate the noise from the signal. [Pun Intentional]
5th Amendment doesn't keep people from being required to provide a blood sample for DNA and I'm pretty sure it doesn't keep them from being required to turn over keys to a safe if the court issues a warrant.
Wrong. If the cops come to your door with a search warrant and ask you you for a safe key, you don't have to get it and bring it to them. You don't have to tell them where it is. They can then proceed to tear apart your house looking for it, but if they don't find it, that's just their tough luck. Anyway, a much better analogy would be a safe with a combination lock. There might even be case law on that.
Of course, he could claim that he forgot the key. That might be hard to believe, but people claim to forget things that should be much easier to remember than an encryption key without getting jailed for contempt. It would set a very dangerous precedent to start jailing people who say they forgot something, because some people actually do forget important stuff.
It would be difficult to show damages, since the content is available on their site for free.
(It is nonetheless a violation of their copyright, though.)
Err, upon reading that footnote, I see that it may be poorly worded. Just note that a lot of people are arrested and jailed until a trial based upon the propisition that they are guilty (ie. the law enforcement agent caught them in the act.) And once you are at that point you often are subject to searches and numerous other personal and legal violations.
I knew something was funny about the whole thing, after all we all know space alians exist. Right?
The chances are very good that those systems are still around. Just not in the numbers they might once have been. But where they are still relatively prevalent is in large companies and corporations that take many many years to completely move on from legacy systems. But what I don't understand is.. is the government trying to indict him again based on this data they have never managed to read? I haven't followed closely so maybe that is what they are doing.
-- let me burn you let me burn you let me burn you -Front 242
The problem is easier to understand if you actually calculate the magnitude of the numbers involved, and then take into account that paralell processing to try (on average) half the combinations would require memory space to store the intermediate numbers (huge, since they involve exponents of the potential keys), and processor space to crunch those numbers in. If Moore's law holds, and we limit the size of our mighty cracking engine to, say, the Moon, even old fashioned PGP 2.x is good for another 20 years at least.
Without a fundamental breakthrough in mathematics, modern encryption is bullet proof on the mathematical level. You have to attack the machines it is done on, or the people who are doing it, to get anywhere at all.
Small wonder our fearless leaders experience "cyberterror" at the thought of free citizens using computers to monitor their legislators' performance, and secure encryption to talk to each other about how to solve the problem of throwing the bastards out of office.
Heh heh heh...
I wonder how this translates to another scenario: If Uncle Sam wants to search my house, that would require a search warrant. If I do not open the door, that would require a battering ram. Paranoia aside, a battering ram does not seem to be readily available.
Now let's say they got in my house and found a book written in Esperanto. Being short of Esperanto translators, they ask me to translate it for them. I say "Never!" or "Neniam!" and pleading my 5th Amendment, keep the contents of the book to myself until the government finds an alternative.
At this point, I draw another parallel to the Zapruder film which the government declared as its property (I'd like to do that) in exchange for proper compensation. So it's not out of bounds for the government to claim domain and walk away. Then the question is one of assessing the value. (As discussed in earlier postings).
I'd let the government compensate me for x amount and then have all of my "Free Kevin" supporters sue under the Freedom of Information Act to make its contents public. Although these may be considered court records entitled to a higher degree of protection, this might be a strategy worth considering.
It really would be great if they spent all this time and money decrypting only to find that the encrypted gig contained alt.binaries.tickleandspankme pictures from way back when!
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
Some people are just paranoid about logging in.
Maybe they have a right to be.
This is nothing like having some magic unopenable suitcase that may contain real money or some undetectable drug or undetectable explosive or anything remotely like that.
This is like having a very long book that you can not read. In no way are a bunch of characters "dangerous", even if they are plans for cracking into 7 year old computers, 7 year old credit card numbers or anything else that is printable.
It is exactly the same as if the data were in a book that YOU could not read.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Your the fucking moron, whether or not judges order that he can't use a computer does NOT mean they have the constitutional authority to do so!! The Tenth admendment SPECIFICALLY says so!
The way he is looking at it, the files may be property but asking him to give up the key, that would be testimony.
In reference to annother post, asking about Double Jeopardy, that wouldn't apply if they could find evidence of a crime that he hasn't yet been charged with. For example evidence that he broke into a server that he has yet to be charged with breakin into. They'll just find a different statute and claim that they are charging for a different crime. Then annother 5 years in maximum security without trial for Kevin.
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
LOL
he keeps the data encrypted.
data is data...right now it's a jumble of bits that's simply unidentifiable by a human. That's how both parties should get the data - then they're equal. If Mitnick decrypts his data, so should the gov't be able to...
This was a legal case, and as much as anyone may be against what happened to Mitnick, certain aspects of the law need to be followed. Would you all be so vehemently against the gov't if this was the case of a real terrorist?
There's no room for "yeah, but he's one of us" when you're arguing about the law...corrupt govt's are really into that...
Q: What do you think about American Culture?
A: I think it's a good idea.
(adapted from Gandhi)
Ok, we know the government could brute force it if they wanted to (and may have already), and they are probably allowed to under the warrants they received 5 years ago, and Kevin probably has backups, but this case is about precedents.
With that in mind, I think the courts will extend the traditional rules that have applied to safes and the like. In this case, they have the right to assume that the encrypted data could be some form of contraband, such as stolen phone codes, proprietary source, etc. Granted, it's five years out of date and probably useless, if that's what it is, but that's beside the point. In this case, it does not constitute an unreasonable seizure for the government to hold something that may be illegal. They can require him to give the key before they hand it over, and they can use the new evidence only if it is relevant to the warrants they had at the time the data was seized. If they should suddenly turn up some evidence that he did some other damaging crack, or if they find child porn or state secrets, their hands are tied by the warrant, and all that data would be inadmissable in any case, resulting in a charge that would never even make it to trial. While it is theoretically possible that the government got a warrant to search for any incriminating evidence, such a warrant would routinely be dismissed, and the evidence ruled inadmissable.
The only way Kevin could be damaged by this is if they turn up evidence of some crack that was mentioned in the warrant, but never prosecuted. If there were charges that were not prosecuted, there was most certainly a provision in his plea agreement effectively closing those charges, as that is sort of the whole point of a plea agreement.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
I'm starring in the following PSA:
"This is a DVD. This is a Linux box. This is what happens when you put DVD on Linux." [cut over to a Braveheart-esque scene of MPAA Lawyers filing Copyright lawsuits]. "Don't get LiViD."
Cheers,
Slak
They shouldn't be trying to set precedents, nor should they be trying to make an example - they should be trying to perserve individual human rights.
Perserving individual human rights, that's that they're there for - that's all they're there for.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
You don't need the 'Net for that. Just stick your steganographic file system into the low precision bits of your MP3 collection. If anyone asks why your MP3s are encoded at 512kbps, tell 'em you're a very dicriminating audiophile. When playing MP3s, mutter cryptic (heh) phrases about how nice your pr0n collection sounds.
What I want to know is, where can we get a copy of the files.. encrypted or not?
My friend Spankey clicked on the link, and it opened up without needing a login. My friend Spankey says that Hemos lied to us. My friend Spankey demands an apology. I wouldn't apologize to my friend Spankey if I were you, Hemos, because my friend Spankey is a silly man. I was suprised that my friend Spankey found a Web Browser to use on the old Commodore 64 with Geos installed that my friend Spankey still uses.
-A Friend of Spankey's
Remember, the Provincial Gubmint here is encouraging private citizens to make use of any cryptography they deem necessary.
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Read title.
Oh, come on. Does anyone seriously doubt that Reagan himself couldn't remember? :) With nixon, the qustion was "what did he know, and when did he know it?" With Reagan, it was "what did he know, and when did he forget it . . ."
The rest of his administration, though, showed a collective suspcious memory lapse that wouldn't be topped until the current administration . . .
Wow three people who came up with the "innocent until proven guilty [1]" argument. Don't you all realize that he has been proven guilty? They decided to drop the charges because of the long hassle he's had awaiting trial.
Why do you even give a shit about Mitnicks rights? He's had a long history demonstrating that he doesn't give a shit about yours. Societies work when everybody adheres to the same rules. Jails infringe upon criminals rights because they have shown that they aren't willing to respect the rights of others. Very similar situation here.
Finally, having an investigator examine Mitnick's hard drive is a a lot different than publishing the contents on the front page of the NYT. There's been a lot of times when people have been coerced or tricked into giving up information that is relevant to a criminal case. This isn't a lot different than that either.
[1] Innocent until proven guilty is not about whether people's rights are violated during investigation. It's a matter of whether people are punished without a legal trial.
I believe that this falls under both the 4th and 5th ammendments. The Supreme Court has already ruled that forcing a person to give up his private papers violates the 5th amendment, and the "unreasonable search" clause of the 4th ammendment.
It would seem to me that this would fall under the category of "private papers".
If you are really interesting in this, you should see Boyd vs US, 116 US 616 (1886), which is a really interesting case.
While it could be argued that this doesn't apply in this case, I would ask, was he convicted for the data which resides on that drive? I would say not, for only Kevin knows what is on the drive. Therefore, would not searching the drive be a "fishing expedition" to find additional charges to bring against Kevin? What other reason could the government possibly have for wanting the keys to the data? And if this is the case, or even possibly the case, I would think it is a clear violation of Kevin's 4th and 5th ammendment rights.
The oppinions expressed in this message are my own, and in no way to be considered legal advice.
If the government knew what they were doing, they'd get the judge to order him to turn over the keys to decrypt the data. If he fails to comply, hold him in contempt of court and throw him back in jail. The government had a valid search warrant when they siezed the data -- they just haven't enforced it completely.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
Why do half of the posts up talk about how good of a cryptographer Mitnick is?
It really doesnt take a genius to run an encryption program... Nobody said he wrote his own algorithms or anything... and I seriously doubt (as suggested in one post) that he'll have a "cushy job" working on crypto stuff due to the fact that 1. he cant use a computer and 2. he not a crypto wiz.
At the same time... I'm not saying that Mitnic is stupid... he's got some respect from me and is pretty intelligent... I'm just saying that he has really nothing to do with how strong the crypto he used was.
shift
For those of you looking for legal info, check out http://www.westlaw.com/ You have to pay for it and everything, but they specialize in copyright law. Follow the white rabbit. -Trinity CR 1999 Warnr Bros. Studios. all right reserved blah blah blah
Does the government, in the hypothetical case above, have to return the safe? If not, what is their justification?
Just courious? How do you force someone to give up a key if that key is safely tucked away in their mind?
Obviously you could argue that the government could torture the key out of him, but last time I checked, that was forbidden in the Constutition.
So how do you get some one to reveal a thought or memory if they dont want to?
I'm no encryption guru, but would it be possible to design an algorithm to encrypt two sets of content with two keys simultaneously? The result would be that one key would decrypt the content to some arbitrary text and the second key would decrypt the content to the "real" content. dchaos - just thinking while I type.
Ever heard of the supremacy clause?
That means that fundemental rights protections or other elements of the Constitution supercede any attempts at trying to wiggle around those garauntees after the fact.
The 5th & the rest are MORE the law than what ever BS governs parole.
The data was encrypted, so their was no way to copy it. Or were you asleep when the DVD CCA explained this? ;-)
They'll get my crypto keys, when they pry them from my dead neurons... Kevin's got the right idea - either decrypt it yourself, or give it back. I'm not helping you do a damn thing. I mean, really folks, would *YOU* want to help someone who essentially ran your ass through the legal wringer and tossed you in prison for a lengthy period of time until you simply submitted to a stipulation of charges to a felony? Oh, let's not forget that they put him in MAXIMUM security, and he got his front teeth knocked out for using the phone too long one day... Oh yeah, I'd surely be glad to help those fucken pimps in the [in]justice department... They ought to stop acting like a bunch of assholes and give him back his property... And while we're at it, they ought to give up on the whole War on Some Drugs - it's a complete invasion of everyones rights. And for the guy who posted the NYTimes article - THANK YOU! I really hate having to register for those damn things so I never go to that site...
Do you really doubt the government couldn't decrypt his files? That's what I don't get.. the NSA has balls like watermelons when it comes to computing horsepower. So why haven't they brute forced it yet? How much money could it cost to do it? Haven't they already sunk a bunch of money into this by dragging it out? So many questions with this ongoing case, which is why it is so interesting to me.
-- let me burn you let me burn you let me burn you -Front 242
Can't Kevin just copyright all his stuff, then claim that it's encrypted to prevent piracy? Works for DVD...
I did read it, if you had read it carefully, you would know that Mitnick argued that the files may contain exculpatory evidence which the fifth amendment requires disclosure of.
The argument stated above is that 'I know there is damaging information in these files, and therefore I invoke the fifth amendment to protect me from revealing it.' -- this is the traditional sense of the use of the fifth amendment.
Please try to understand before you flame.
John
Attitudes like this kept the German owned and operated ovens full during the Holocost. You know, "if the government person says so it must be so" attitude.
If they prove that those 0's and 1's are some sort of contraband, then yes, they can keep it. If not then they should give it back.
First off, there is no way that there is ANYTHING dangerous on that drive. Second, if they cannot even prove that the info is evidence then it should be returned.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
5th Amendment doesn't keep people from being required to provide a blood sample for DNA and I'm pretty sure it doesn't keep them from being required to turn over keys to a safe if the court issues a warrant.
The 5th Amendment may not apply to physical property (such as a blood sample or a safe) like it does things that are in the defendant's head, but we aren't talking about physical property in this case. I haven't ever heard of a case of someone being ordered to turn over keys, not that there haven't been any. In any case, they'd have to prove that the defendant possessed them, in which case they would have just siezed them the same way they seized the safe. What would be a better example would be the combination to a safe. Again, I'd like to see an example where someone has been ordered to turn over a combination to a safe rather than the authorities just cutting it open.
Perhaps encrypted files could be thought of as a safe. If law enforcement can convince a judge that the encrypted file(s) probably contain evidence of a crime (files from a cracked system) or are criminal themselves (encrypted kiddie porn), they'll get a warrant for Mitnik to provide the key. If he doesn't comply he could be jailed for contempt.
The prosecution made the assertation that the files did indeed contain evidence that they would have liked to have used against Mitnick. If the government could have gotten such a warrant to override Mitnick's 5th amendment rights, they would have done so during the trial, and they didn't. They are, and have been, holding out on the files in order to try to find a back-door way around that. I don't believe that the judge ruled that forcing Mitnick to reveal his key wouldn't be a 5th Amendment violation as much as she ruled that the 5th Amendment didn't apply directly in this case (which I would personally disagree with) because the file wasn't being used as evidence against Mitnick.
If you're thinking, "yeah but with a safe they could just jackhammer it open," think of it as a boobytrapped safe. The court could require someone to disable the boobytraps.
However, since these files aren't a physical thing per-se, that argument just doesn't really apply. Nobody would be in any kind of physical danger brute forcing encrypted files open.
So are you saying that Kevin deserved all of the other violations of law? Why is this violation any different?
... he should get his files back. If the government thinks they contain naughty bits then they can subpeona them and nail him for contempt of court when he refuses to cooperate.
Or perhaps I'm thinking a little too rationally or something.
Like the NSA would share its expertise with the FBI in a zillion years anyway. The NSA has spent the better part of the century at learning how to break codes and they've spent huge sums of money and hired most of the best mathematicians around.
;)
I kind of doubt that the FBI could get on their feet in a similar operation rapidly - besides, how many math geeks are going to want to deal with FBI training?
(meanwhile the NSA read Kevin's files years ago and has probably financed a Cray by stealing the money he stole from someone else
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
This is stupid. I can't stand Mitnick or what he did, and personally the only reason I'm happy he is released is because I won't have to wade through any more of that "Free Kevin" crap anymore. And I can't believe so many people went for the 5th amendment argument hook, line, and sinker. A criminal does not get the spoils of his crime back after jail. I have never, not once, heard of a guy doing 15 for grand theft auto and then getting the stolen car back when he is released. The one person I have actually met who once robbed a bank is dirt poor. He hasn't exactly been able to recoup his plunder, and Uncle Sam certainly didn't hand it to him with a bow on top when he got out.
Mitnick robbed companies, guys. He isn't entitled to the data. Legally, he's not even entitled to a computer. His parole would be revoked seven ways to Sunday if he were to actually use whatever encrypted things he had, and I don't see any reason for giving it back.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Gee, For a while I felt terrible. Then I rememberd that I don't live my life based on lame slashdot posts by ACs who can't even come up with a relivent sentance. You're 31337, man
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
This is widely believed but for good or for bad, it is not true. You are entitled to the presumption of innocence in court, i.e. before the judge and jury at your trial. However, the rest of the system is entitled to presume you guilty with reasonable suspicion. That's why the police can get warrants to search, that's why they can arrest you and that's why they can hold you in jail if they think you are harmless but probably will run away.
I think morally and as a courtesy it is nice for the public at large to also give you a presumption of innocence, but it's clear that the only way to run the bureaucracy is pretty much they way that it is run.
I am not familiar with the Mitnick case specifics, but it is quite common for defendants to give up the right not to self incriminate as part of a plea-bargain. If he agreed to cooperate, for example, then I can see both sides of this dispute.
Also, it is interesting: encryption brings up a question that does not exist in meatspace so new law might be required: we don't give burglary tools back to burglars. Encrypted files have this weird property that you can hold them in your hands but not be able to tell what they are. I believe that if the government offers him immunity from any new prosecution, that he may not claim the right not to self incriminate because he would not be. Then it becomes a privacy issue and there really is very little law protecting actual privacy.
like the lawyer says above this post, he was proven guilty, that changes things tremendously.
If anyone wondered why the FBI,CIA,NSA, etc. is fighting so hard against encryption, this is it.
+&x
Encryption is bad. Don't use encryption.
Thanks,
The US Government
How exactly do they prove that he had "proxy access to a computer"? What utter bullshit you write.
Paranoid ramblings from a paranoid person... but after all, isn't that what the Mitnick case is all about, setting precedents?
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Trick is to choose a good password and encrypt it with pgp. And then choose another password and encrypt it again 5 or 6 more times.
It would take years to brute force that out...
Could the government decrypt Mitnick's files if they really wanted to? Sure. But honestly, they probably don't care about Mitnick. I doubt they ever did, actually. They just want to keep him from possibly getting any ``stolen'' material back ... or would like to have a better idea of what he did. He as much as admitted such with his 5th ammendment argument. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
I'm absolutely sure that you're wrong. If they can seize the other files, why not the encrypted ones? Imagine a similar line of argument: "Your Honor, when the cops who had a search warrant used bolt cutters to remove the padlock, and found documents incriminating me for embezzlement, they violated my privacy."
Yes, but if the cop is standing there, insisting that you give him the combination to the locked box he just legally confiscated pursuant to a search warrant, you don't have to. You are under no burden to aid the police in their investigation of you, 5th or no 5th. If he can't open it himself, too bad.
But the government made no attempt to open the box. In court, they attempted to get Mitnick to give up the key by claiming that if they couldn't have the box's contents, they didn't have to give him them to him either. (this is true) Now they're just jerking him around because they don't like the defiance he showed by refusing to open it.
.sig: Now legally binding!
I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF THIS SHIT JUST CUT IT OUT @#$@#$
The government would get suspicious as soon as he asked for the files back. Indeed, what good would they be if he no longer had the key?
...and then he'd have an advantage, as he would no longer care that they could nuke his data.
Or maybe he did.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
The Goverment could print it out and give it back to him, in a form he can use, on paper. I would think a few trucks of paper could do it. Kevin Mitnick with his cracker mind, penncel, and paper will be able to decode his data just fine.
:-)
Or maybe they should just offer him amunity for the from anything in the data for the data. At least this way he can feel safe from the contents and goverment can feel safe from him.
They could also buy it form him I am suspect he has a price. I of course could wrong but it would be worth a try. (probebly cost less that the computer time to crack it.)
Anyway it may all just be randum bits
the RSA obviously can break that shit. give me a break.
The government can't just assume you're doing something bad. They have the burden of guilt. Kevin the right to his own property. Unless the government can overcome the burden of guilt they have no reason to restrict him from getting his personal property returned to him.
send flames > /dev/null
Only 'flamers' flame!
I just installed Mozilla this morning, so I have no cookies, etc. Unless they're detecting my IP, there is no more login. Honestly, even a small barrier to reading like registration probably scared away lots of people.
Walt
Soo.... just simply ask to have the files entered in as evidence! Make copies from public records before it gets sealed!
Oh, wait can't copy encrypted data can we...
(see earlier post RE: DeCSS)
...how can he decrypt his files if he gets them?
I'm not a lawyer, but ...
...
Doesn't he just have to say, 'I refuse to give you my key on the grounds that it may incriminate me?'
There is no way they can force him to give it up due to fifth amendment protection, then it becomes a right of siezure/ownership issue
John
Aren't they in essense trying to compell him to testify? Trying to force him to tell them how to decrypt his property? If you ask me this whole thing seems very fascist. Especially the government saying Mitnick can no longer use a computer. How the hell is he supposed to survive in the 21st century if using a computer is a crime? He'll have to go move to a cabin in Montana. Computers are the future, making it illegal for someone to use them is no different than in a past era, making it illegal for someone to read and write words. Imagine a hypothetical situation, the Gutenburg press has been recently invented. The government decides they don't like you. They make it illegal for you to have anything to do with books. You can not read books. You can not write books. You can not study books. The written word is off-limits to you. You are stuck with verbal communication. Is that not fascism?
That does indeed happen - remember, this is a government that can take your property and make you prove that you didn't buy it with drug profits before you can have it back. In that case, you have no rights and the burdeon of proof is on you, because they're putting the property on trial and not you! (see FEAR's webpage for more information about civil forfeiture). Certainly when they're dealing with someone who's been convicted of crimes that are probably related to the evidence they can't understand, he's going to have even less of a chance of geting his property back.
A friend of mine had some cellphones taken from him by the police because there had recently been a burglary in the area - because it was electronic equipment, they were going to confiscate it. He wasn't arrested, he wasn't charged with any crime. They didn't just give them back when they determined that nothing like that had been stolen. He had to get the company they were bought from to fax the police a list of the serial numbers.
Regarding your comment about the government brute forcing Kevin's encrypted files in five years:
As an example, the most recent DES crack, done by distributed.net, and aided by John Gilmore's Deep Crack DES cracker machine, decrypted a 56 bit DES encrypted message in about 23 hours. A reasonable estimate of the time that the same machine-power would take to brute force a 128 bit symmetric key is 10^19 YEARS! (see Schneier, p. 153) This is the whole point behind strong encryption, it's extremely doubtful that even the NSA can break a 128 bit key via brute in anything resembling a useful time frame. And 128 bit symmetric keys have been available in PGP since it was first released.
more evidence that moderation is screwed up when some fucknut like signal11 keeps herding moderation points for this idiotic posts.
The prosecution needed to "obtain" the encryption key-(using tempest, bugs, etc..) before going after the raw data. In the future I expect this to become a more common practice, although obtaining the key in a legal court admissable way should be difficult assuming the "defendent to be" cares about their keys.
The defendant is protected under the 5th amendment from having to divulge the encryption key. The prosecution can't decide not to return or copy something for the defendant just because its utterly useless to themselves.
PS Who says the govt. hasn't decrypted it? If they have that ability it would be classified.
Illegal incarceration until he confessed. And all those "witches" that were burnt at the stake during the Dark Ages were also guilty, right? I mean, they confessed too. What a fucking moron you are! With the precendents the government is setting with Mitnick's case and their insistence on secret evidence in the trial against the Egyptian Muslim accused of being an accomplish of the Trade Center bombers I think the Soviet Union really won the Cold War and is now presiding in the US!
hey, it's been said a few times that this is a home-grown encryption scheme. Could he claim that it's intellectual property? IANAL, so...
-Man cannot survive except through his mind. --Ayn Rand
Maybe I need to track down a few of the people who thnk that Kevin was tried and convicted, and try this thought experiment on them:
1. I point a loaded gun at your head. 2. I tell you to sign a form that says you volunteer, without coercion or inducement, to give me your wallet. 3. You sign and hand over your property.
Get the picture?
Anyone have any idea what Mitnick used to encrypt his software? Something tells me it wasn't the encryption built into pkzip...
Ah, but he need do nothing like that.
Kevin can tell his lawyers the key and it is still safe as a matter of attorney/client privilege. Then the lawyers can examine the decrypted files themselves and not worry about the govt. The trick is proving to be getting the files.
a lot actually hinges on the key - if he memorized it, no problem. but if it's written down somewhere, the government can confiscate that w/o violating his rights. So I would expect that Kevin has used a key which is hidden someplace, and the location of that key need not be divulged.
if he was really smart, instead of just hiding a disk somewhere he used some widely available but innocent thing (e.g. all odd-numbered pages of 'One Million Random Numbers') as the key so that there was no concern that the key could be confiscated, or that he'd forget it.
Yeah, it's security through obscurity, but in this case that's probably an okay plan.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Well, I wouldn't think that they'd be able to brute force it in 5 years... You'd figure that someone like KM would use more then PKzip encryption.... That said, it just seems like the government wants to rape Kevin up the Ass some more. There basically saying "If we can't have it, you can't have it, nener nener nener" That's like something a little kid would do.
The other thing is, if these guys haven't been able to crack the crypto then it proves that it's Not evidence, at least in its current form. While I'm sure the government does it all the time, it's not legal for them to keep your stuff If its not evidence. If the encrypted data is not evidence, then they have no right to keep it from him.
Now, what Kevin Mintnik plans to do with reams of encrypted and no computer is beyond me... (does he think he can run DES in his head?)
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I feel a slashdot poll coming up: How many of you would rather be in jail with a computer, or out of jail without one?
-S
How is he supposed to decrypt this information anyways. With an abacus? pen and paper? After all
;)
he's restricted from practically all computer use.
He'll call you up on the phone and ask you do to it for him.
He's a very good social engineer, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the encrypted files are just aload of junk and he ask for them back just to cause a big bruha.
First off, the standard disclaimer: IANAL. But I can use Google to find and read what Lawyers have already written.
Item 1:
A. Michael Froomkin, Associate Professor, University of Miami School of Law writes in his article "The Metaphor is the Key": Simply putting something into a safe does not, however, ensure that it is beyond the law's reach. It is settled law that a criminal defendant can be forced to surrender the physical key to a physical safe, so long as the act of production is not testimonial.{706} Presumably a similar rule compelling production would apply to a criminal defendant who has written down the combination to a safe on a piece of paper. There appears to be no authority on whether a criminal defendant can be compelled to disclose the combination to a safe that the defendant has prudently refrained from committing to writing, and in Fisher v. United States,{707} the Supreme Court hinted that compelling the disclosure of documents similar to a safe's combination might raise Fifth Amendment problems.{708} Perhaps the combination lock problem does not arise because the police are able to get the information from the manufacturer or are simply able to cut into the safe. These options do not exist when the safe is replaced by the right algorithm. Although brute-force cryptography is a theoretical possibility,{709} neither safe cracking, nor number crunching, nor an appeal to the manufacturer is a practical option when the armor is an advanced cipher. The recently released Federal Guidelines for Searching and Seizing[Page 872]Computers{710} suggest that "[i]n some cases, it might be appropriate to compel a third party who may know the password (or even the suspect) to disclose it by subpoena (with limited immunity, if appropriate)."{711}
(The numbers are footnotes to specific cases)
Item 2:
The Crypto and Self-Incrimination FAQ simply lists (for America... it also covers a few other countries): "The Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights reads: "No person (...) shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". The Supreme Court has restricted this to giving evidence "of a testimonial or communicative nature". ". It also lists several cases that apply.
--
Evan --
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Could anyone else confirm this? I'd love to get at the NYTimes for 'free', rather than selling them my information. :)
You know what to do with the HELLO. ...
Help create an open-source world
Who says the government made no attempt? I do not believe they would tell everyone one way or
the other if it suited their purpose. But your suggestion leads to an interesting point.
Could the refusal to turn over documents demanded by the court be considered contempt?
It should be interesting to see how this whole scenario plays out.
ThE iLlUsTrIoUs IdIoTt
Iam a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need any, see a lawyer licensed in your jursdiction.
You're close. Let me elaborate (hmm, how could you possibly stop me?)
Speech cannot be coerced, but "attributes" can. You can't be forced to give information, but you can be forced to provide a blood sample, a handwriting sample, or even to repeat a phrase in a lineup (I've never heard of this used for anything other than identification by a witness. I can't back it up, but I believe that that's about as far as it can go).
So here he can be forced to turn over the data, but he can't be forced to communicate the code. However, if perhaps there were sensors on the keyboard to verify identity, he could probably be required to type a *particular* code.
But as you and others are suggesting, the fifth amendment only applies to him surrendering the code--it has nothing to do with getting back the data, which would be a fourth amendment issue.
said the situation was akin to Mitnick asking for his coat back and the government not knowing if there was a pistol in the pocket. which seems like a reasonable argument. I wouldn't give him the coat back either.
actually, if they didn't know that there was a pistol in the pocket, why WOULDN'T they give it back?
Can't Kevin's terms of his release be constituted as cruel and unusual punishment? We live in a world that is filled with all kinds of internet-related devices and yet he can't touch them. I would go mad if I couldn't hop on my machine and surf the web.
They should give it back with the stipulation that any illegally acquired material must be removed. If at some future point they find out that he has not complied, they should put him away for life. Sure he's had some rights violated by the government. But what about the rights of others that he has violated? Maybe they should make part of the whole issue, that he must personally contact each individual whose right's he has infringed and apologize in person and find out what he can do to make restitution. It's pretty damned inconsiderate of him to act all hurt.
Optionally they can just wipe the hardware completely. It's not like they give drugs, weapons, and such back to people when they let them out. If Mitnick isn't willing to demonstrate that the material on the drives is legit, then the assumption that it's illegit isn't too far off base. Or just stomp all over the drive with some nice little random garbage. It's not like he can demonstrate any actual damage since he's the only one who knows what's on there.
I think it's entirely possible the reason the data hasn't been able to be decrypted is that it is in fact garbage. In Mitnick's book (with Jon Littman), _The Fugitive Game_, they describe how Mitnick's partner encrypted garbage several times, just to irritate the law enforcement officers who seize the boxes.
Isn't Kevin barred from using any computers for a looooong time? So why would he want the files back? Here's a drive with your files Kevin... uhhh.. yeah.
Hrm, I've got a feeling that this is a troll (I've been reading the troll boards to much, I think, its making me paranoid).
But incase it isn't, Let me say. Kevin Mitnick did surrender his right to use a computer. His choice was to stay in jail (w/o computer) or go free (w/o computer). He chose to go free. Its an agreement between Mitnick and the Gov.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
None of this would happen if people assumed that some things are not government's business. Instead, the assumption is that everything is.
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
Yeah, it's pretty clear that the judge understands this encryption concept.
-right-
How can a judge render such an important decision on something she doesn't understand on any level?
Ignore Alien Orders
What does she mean? It's not "clever" to encrypt data that you want to keep secret - it's obvious. It's not "clever" to encrypt data in such a way that somebody else cannot decrypt it but you can - that's the purpose of using encryption.
On the other side the argument boils down to fifth amendment rights: Mitnick's lawyers immediately objected to this condition on the grounds that it would force him to waive his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to obtain evidence he needed and that he had a legal right to see. the judge shot this down hard. But from my point of view, I think he would have been in deeper poop if he allowed the files to be decrypted. Hence he would have been contributing to his own demise.
On a side note, with all the MIPS the government has, I think it's odd that they seem to have never broken his homemade encryption scheme. Maybe they should outsource the job to some Norwegian teenagers.
Never knock on Death's door:
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Wait a minute, if he's not allowed to possess or use a computer as terms of his parole what would he *do* with it when he got it, other than violate those terms?
Still, interesting that they didn't crack it already.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
First, are you speaking of the blank warrant that even the issuing judge said should not have been executed?
Second, If the feds can not show this is actual contraband of some kind then they should give it back.
This notion that the government can take any piece of property from anybody because it "may have been" or "may be" used in some unnamed crime or for some as yet to be determined "bad" purpose has to stop someplace.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
steganography, mix up his stuff in some bill clinton avi's... that'll get them. http://www.funet.fi/pub/crypt/steganography/
Last I heard, his surrendering that right was a condition of parole.
He was released on parole, which means he agreed to the condition.
Ergo, he surrendered the right.
maybe its a simple crack if you know some key things, and he's going to print it in hex and work it by hand. Whatever.
He's only prohibited from using a computer for 3 years, I think. It would take a lot longer then 3 years to decrypt a gigabyte of stuff...
Anyway, how's he gonna print it out if he can't use a computer (in person or proxy)
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
So I can just see it, in 10 years or so, computers will be so powerfull that some pseudo journalist like Geraldo will brute force the encryption and then everone will be staring at a bunch of his grandma's recipies or something.
Or maybe not.. who knows?
It says:
Each word is encrypted seperately, with a different key. So far they have:
"|-|0\/\/ 70 937 f!R$7 p0$7 3\/3R33 7!|\/|3 $|_|k4z"
8y |<3\/!|\| |\/|!7|\|!k 3!3373$7 |-|4><0R !|\| 7|-|3 |_||\|!\/3R$3"
They want the info NOW but aren't willing to spend 6 months on each word.
They're "bait" for any would be crackers. Huge files take time to copy and thus slow h4x0rz down to make them easier to nail. Files like sw-tpm.vob.3des and mp3archive.ext2fs.3des and even one file called random-data.dat, which oddly enough, seems the best lure of the 3. (No one believes it). Of course, they *could* really have all sorts of neat stuff in them. But I don't remember no key. Does that mean My PC should be siezed and not returned until I do remember?
"In considering the matter, Judge Pfaelzer said that it was "clever" of Mitnick to have encrypted the files in such a way that the government could not use them"
Yeah, it's clever I keep important data encrypted, just like it's clever I send letters in envelopes, and it's clever I don't go handing out my credit card number to every doofus who can run a packet sniffer.
"For all we know, it could be plans to take down a computer system."
Forgetting that any computer that needs to be secure would 1) not mix executables and data (like Microsoft's DocBomb (tm) technology), and 2) would likely also not have an internet (or other network) connection period, which would render it safe from simple overflow attacks.
This level of technological imcompotence coupled with the luddite level of gut reaction stupidity makes me glad I don't live in the United States of America.
Freedom? What freedom?
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The exsistance of those files could encrimate you, if you don't turn over the key... And how would you turn over the key?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Perhaps you are all wrong.
Maybe the US government does not want to disclose what they are capable of and are playing the role of the sheep right now.
Getting laughed at yes, but ultimately holding onto the knowledge of what they are capable of.
Come on, Mitnick is far from national security, why would they risk exposing what their supercomputers and algorithms are capable of for a simple cracker?
TH is finally the voice of reason.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Send the word to the privacy paranoid, NYTimes is safe territory now. :)
You know what to do with the HELLO. ...
Help create an open-source world
You're absolutely right. Now, what does that have to do with my post?
In the parent post of mine, someone postulated that the government had decrypted Mitnik's files, but didn't tell anyone because they were afraid that Mitnik would sue them for violating his privacy.
My analogy was supposed to show how stupid such an argument would sound. I can see how it can be interpreted as a bad analogy arguing in favor of the government's position, but that isn't what it is. I was just arguing that the government has every right to break his encryption if they can.
That said, why/how did you read my post without reading the parent? The parent was moderated higher!
This isn't completely on topic, but doesn't anyone besides me find the sentance rather a cheap rip off of the movie Hackers? Perhaps in the 80's sentancing a person to not be able to use computers was feasible. Even in the early 90's. But in the... 00's? is it feasible? Especially for a hardcore geek.. If the government were smart, they would have tried to employ Kevin, not put him in jail, and 'exile' him. And the debate is... Can the Government actually not break his encryption, or do they just say they can't? Others have pointed out the reasons for not breaking it if they could, or not admiting to it at least. To make the prescedent.
BUT, if they can't break it, one has to assume the fact that Kevin wasn't using any standard encryption. Since the NSA and other government agencies make encryption keys and such, it is a rather safe bet that its not a standard form of encryption. If so, did Kevin write it himself?
From the 'damage' that Kevin did, its safe to assume he is very talented, perhaps a genius. (Perhaps I say! Not meant as flame-bait.) So, if he wrote it himself, and it hasn't been able to have been decrypted in five years.. Either it was very good (Being realistic though, I can't imagine any form of encryption that couldn't be broken over a peroid of five years), or we come back to the government only wanting to build a prescedent.Which seems most likely.
It seems to me that all of the media, the government, and everything is turning against us. Its just an observation I've made. Even the techno news magazine Wired is against us it seems to me. Sure, some of their articles seem to slightly favor the Linux community... but doesn't it disturb anyone else that any article mentioning Slashdot always refers to us as a community of Hackers and crackers? It bothers me, because when even other techno news turns on you... Well, there's a lot of legislation, and with the large media companies, and things like the RIAA and all the companies behind the DVD situations.. the Linux community seems to have become a target. We want things for free, we program them ourselves, and we share them. That stands in the way of the companies objectives. I mean, since Linux is becoming mainstream more and more, I'm rather sure the large media companies and software giants will not ever release something free-source, when they can try and release say.. a DVD viewer, and -try- to make us pay. No one will, but they don't know that, well... they don't comprehend that. Their existance is based on turning a profit. So, the large companies would find it easier if all of the Open Source Advocates (us), get swept under the carpet, and they call in on their big brother.. The government is just a capitalistic machine, turning in money and making things stable for big business. Thats just my views on the matter.. I probably sound like I'm ranting, but I have this feeling of doom forshadowing the future.
Xian_FluX
When I cut my finger, it is a tragedy. When you fall into an open sewer and die, it is comedy.
You don't go to prison without being raped by a few niggas.
Are you speaking from experience? So you like the dark meat, huh AC?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
been happening like that for a couple of weeks now.
/* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
What if the magic decoding sequence he turns over to the government is really just a glorified rm -rf *. He did think far enough ahead to encrypt the files what's to make us think he didn't have an escape plan?
- MbM
- MbM
Can't he just give them the wrong key? "Sorry guys, the data must be corrupted. Gimme."
Judge Pag, the Learned, Impartial, and Very Relaxed
However much a genius the man is, after all these years his memory is still volatile! Maybe he just doesn't want to let out that "ummm, I forgot the key".
Or even worse, "I encrypted the key".
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
Nice troll, that was hilarious. FOMC (Fell off my chair)
You just posted copyrighted information. Very dumb idea. If people want to read it they can go to nytime.com and read it. Arg!!! This make slashdot/linux people look very bad.
If I understand the NSA's charter, they are legally prohibited from trying to undo Mitnick's stuff. Their charter prohibits them from performing domestic surveilliance. Therefore the Feds cannot LEGALLY ask the NSA to break it. However, I'm surprised the FBI hasn't asked for that kind of CPU power (but a request for that amount of $$$ would probably freak out congress...)
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
The password is,
"I'm a fu**ing clu*less bas*ard!!!"
I leave the * for anyone who want to use the data to fill in. One annoyance though - you have to type in the whole password and read it out loud in order for it to work.
A hell of a good reason to use 128 bit encryption. What algorithm was used, I wonder? Hey, can Kevin post up the source at least under the new laws? I would love to lay my hands on that code (I'm not in the US).
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
Could it be that they are doing this to convince all the hackers following this case that the encryption we have is strong enough that they can't break it. Even with 5 years to play with. I do not doubt that the NSA has the capacity to break any publicly available encryption on the planet. I do not believe that they are unable to break the encryption on Mitnicks files. This all makes more sense as an attempt to convince us that they aren't as strong as we know they are, as well as an attempt to set precedence for compelling people to decrypt their files.
If this were a case of say, a bomber, and the government had confiscated his chemical fertilizer, which he may have obtained legally, and may only intend to use for farming, would the government be required to return it?
If yes, then there is no reason by which Mitnick's data can be held.
If no, the government could keep it under "reasonable suspicion" or "danger to the public", then the government should have the right to withhold the data.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
This technically could become another landmark case for the constitution and the way in which we handle cases like this in the future. I'm quite sure that it will be appealed to a higher court and may eventually reach the supreme court. If it does I can almost guarantee you that the supreme justices will carefully consider the ramifications this may bring to bear on the constitution and will most likey set a precedent. In any case it should be interesting.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
I'm pretty gut-dang sure that felons are disqualified from owning guns. Is ownership not a "property right"? Of course, the law didn't stop them the first time, so who knows...
If the NSA is one step ahead in the prime generation game (and they have paid hundreds of billions to get there) then they can crack the 1024 bit keys with ease. If you use PGP and you don't pick a good prime, you generate an additional 2 keys for every factor your psuedo-prime has. Since my pc isn't going to generate a real 512 bit prime, I don't know how many other keys will unlock my messages.
It has grown like a plague over the american people to encroach as much as it has been allowed on all your rights.
Is the government in existance today in the spirit of the fair and impartial and well balanced institution envision by the founding fathers? Fuck no. And they will continue to grab as much power of all of us as we continue to let them. Welcome to your future, it will only get worse.
Check the latest issues with the MPAA, not only is big brother getting his hands deeper into your everyday life, he is allowing big business to influence legislation and interpetation of law.
Wake up people, before its too late.
Let's look at it this way. Is it legal for the courts to order him to not use a computer. Yes, of course it is. Let's look at an example. A man gets really drunk, drive his car down the freeway, goes over the median and kills a mother and her kids in a fatal car crash. The man immediately goes to jail for a period of time. Then, when the man is up for parole, one of the conditions of his parole is that he can never drive a car again. So, what you are trying to say is that this man should say "Fuck You, I've got Constitutional Rights to drink and drive whenever I want" and then do it again without any repercussions? Most of you people sound very foolish. This man commited a crime and therefore he gave up his rights to do certain things. Are child rapists allowed to work in schools? Hey, they've got the Constitution to say they can even if their parole says that they can't be within 1000 feet of any child. Please people.
I read that someone is doing des in about 28 cycles using a MMX based hack. Let see here:
add about 50 cycles to generate the next key(assume its ascii folded to 40 bits). Add in 22 more cycles to check to see if the result needs to be looked at. That means I've got 256 sets of 2 billion iterations of an inner loop of 100 cycles. One of those nice 1 trillion cycle per second K7's on ice and it takes how long to brute force this? Triple des has problems that make its key size much less than 3 times des.
One thing that lots of people are doing these days is putting hash sigs outside of the encrypted packet. This is just stupid because if the encrypted packet is small enough, you may not need to decrypt it. Just guess at the data till you get the same sig (this generaly is more work that just cracking des)
Your statement that a casual user with a desktop machine can effectively break even the normal DES, is patently false. The DES challenges showed that it took an ENORMOUS amount of work to break it, well beyond anyone without massive parallelism (beyond even what a good university has :) Of course, if the key is not randomly chosen, all bets are off.
And personally, I like Blowfish (patent free, VERY secure against brute force, and just plain clever).
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
I would like to know which company was putting out 4.45G hard drives in 1994? Were you even able to buy a commercially available laptop at that time with 1G? I thought 4.5G was still only in the dream stage then. At best, they would have been prohibitively expensive. (Reference point: In 1994, I bought an IBM 360C with a 720mb harddrive)
So, your supposed to keep some pedophile in prison just because he cant seem to keep his hands off the kiddies because of a mental problem he has? I am not a fan of phedophiles by any means, i think they should be drug off to a field an shot. but, I have a felony pending against me and am walking the tight rope to not get that on my record. say you owned a store or better yet a bank and this guy puts in his application, im sure youd love to know he was convicted of a felony such as burglary or hey even bank robbery. yes there are ways to get felonies off your record, but that whole system is good as it only allows those who have truely reformed to get it off of their record, and the people who dont i guess didnt want it that bad in the first place ? just my 2cents.
Whoa. Two laptop computers, total of nine gigabytes of data, in 1994. Sounds like he had fancy laptops for the times. Drives of less than a single gig were typical for desktop machines back then.
... so I may be a bit off on this one, but:
Personally, I tend to agree with Gerald Lynch's opinion. The entire idea behind criminal discovery in the States and the UK is that all documentary evidence the prosecution has, used or not, is to be revealed to the other side and the defence has no such quid pro quo obligation. Therefore, unless the state can show a clear reason why the encrypted files should not be released, there is no reason to refuse.
The state's argument in this case is disingenuous - claiming that because it's encrypted it's not really in their possession - and I'm surprised the Judge didn't give them a good bollocking for that. Imagine encrypted data as items in a locked box. You may not be in possession of the items inside the locked box because you do not have the key (and therefore no knowledge or opportunity for inspection), but you're definitely in possession of the box itself.
A better approach would have been to attempt to obtain a warrant to get the decryption key from Mitnick. Taking the locked box metaphor forward, approach a judge, show probable cause that the contents of the box may be evidence of a crime, and then get the search warrant to "open the box". That preserves the Fourth Amendment procedural safeguards. Of course, if the state can't show probable cause, that's their own bad luck.
How much money could it cost to do it? Haven't they already sunk a bunch of money into this by dragging it out?
I think that would be the rub for them.
Option 1 : Use mighty clock cycles to read what some cracker has on his already seized machine while he sits in jail.
.or.
Option 2 : Use mighty clock cycles to hear what terrorists/crackers "in the wild" are planning.
Limited resources being the name of the game, I know where I want my tax dollars, and, I think, so do (spooky voice) They.
+&x
About the cracking of his encryped files:
1 549&CONTEXT=948766143.1213595713&hitnum= 197
9 499.1&CONTEXT=948766483.1384316966&hitnu m=24
7 982&CONTEXT=948766483.1384316966&hitnum= 36
There were some interesting posts by RProcess the creator of JBN (windows client for theremailers) and others. They are in alt.privacy.anon-server. You can see them doing a power search on Deja.com. Doing lots of tests (some evidence provided) he has come to believe that :
1) 1k bit RSA is breakable to the NSA and (randomly) some larger keys are weak
2) IDEA is breakable to the NSA but DES3 is not
the subject of these posts were Traffic Analysis Capabilities or Selective DOS
links:
http://x28.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=52908
http://x24.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=55343
http://x24.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=55248
A quote from the middle link:
"...Cryptographically strong keys and reply-block features have a higher likelihood of disappearance. I get the feeling I'm dealing with a system, and I've been able to predict its behavior in some very specific respects. (For example, when I first tested Encrypt-3DES, zero of the messages got through for several days, although Encrypt-Key messages sent in parallel did. Then suddenly they started trickling
feebly. The lost ones never did show up. I had anticipated exactly this response to an unexpected
strong format. - blackout followed by limited transmission after the system was adjusted. What was
really startling is that the 3DES was inside of IDEA, which made it appear that IDEA is vulnerable,
something which I had already suspected because of other behavior. The system still punishes
Encrypt-3DES disproportionately.)..."
No.
And recall, giving it back means putting it legally into his posession. Perhaps just given to his lawyer.
And his use of computers is not absolutely forbidden by law. He can, as with all parole cases, do things at the discretion of the parole officer. The parole conditions are more guidelines for the parole officer than anything else.
CNN Entertainment story about "Takedown" the movie.
HEY! ON TOPIC THIS TIME!
Thank You!
What I want to know is: Do those of us who live in the UK (or any other country without a written consitiution) have the same type of rights as Mitnick? Or can the government do whatever they like as long at it doesn't violate the UN's Human Rights?
Seems kind of pointless to debate whether or not the gov has to return his property when they let him go since they can take stuff without even accusing someone.
How is *that* relevant -- suppose they confiscated a physical device from you which they were unable to understand -- would you be forced to explain it before it was returned to you?
For all we know your honor, this mysterious cylindrical object could be a weapon -- it makes an ominous vibrating noise when powered up!
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
If he can't use a computer, he can open the lock. They can't have it both ways. "We COMMAND you to help us, but never help yourself. Go work in manual labor but let US use your genius." Assholes.
WigyZQSAHCKUNqXsD9gcdlto60NiKmBMDd+dVf03O/NP9iQ6V/ RUT7wLaSwDxmNCcMKtujmPv7bX7bKHgvvMhZi7Wp
g NL0tUL92wBSOBvQbggb36YvG20Bsj+cA5QJHd9V679 jlTK1DTbZslf2rIuHe5Zc47mm8HJYVrkZloYPZFVp6eWf6ZUik
U
/NkcoleLiXjgBk9De5g0ftqS8teZU1D19D4yqR25QRl9ibWyqz
I
5 U24w6tr+fsUXn1nr+u5h/45gWYeT4ZyXCgw0fRRB
z T36WZQH2QgMOd5CcgB9D5/43w0gFY1AGxGD0ElOulN 1jKfqy+vBOVz4PMjQZRIQx+zJwfKiCvOgBsjp0ZJkbNQZfu6z6 sOucnLQF7gOE2DWZXGgSy6Lfy0sWoHFHZmsT2Asd 1bLV6RKTVYMHneObhD4JcoYOxG2VdNSP4+T5PRfRLVUAQR1Auh gn8D5zu4v3rJtPnxy63qOUFrKCLFdHaqNCeXPto6 tvqD0dCa9miL3Dd/kHypx3viiaOJvw29i88
FovM5tH/nPjDgaLZM+ddPiNO2nPRCWP58azMa1w6qJRnoGc
9e1cg67CRRhYpzg1NwVZfbOB36q/QiiKANT8jO85 gObJ+NBgN3BeY5ctbqbOm4W1GigPLkjEz83PvYHh1heF8q//f
Eue+AxioRzJexq5AgIWGg6JjK/FDazp4Pkn05r1X
6Qg2pit3TFUyK9IdUnfMP2RzH8GSfGHyKZFUy
7AGZ0pwJdytWt7RuQT0CYyWosYcHGPF/6FD9QINktRjQD0
iVFJYM5u9OrkR0Xjncjd5KOhHEFUa5ZAyAz7i1ApYczD qB0DJqr9rCF7xfXgft3fh1D91MhBYwD4fU2ngIV31spE264jg
vFzz/5K3ClEa74mwDQnqn2aHWGlfL67QZAga64FQ bQbJwHL8c627PmSJcI6rn2HYh+RMhb1B+KAFLAxM2k0vFAObH
Vvxg3/lw4ZxcWEj0z3ItvIXbm7sskh3qwrnunW4Nv2/1WkI
I think that there was probably just his own logs and notes in most of the stuff, but since he has already served his time, and the USA has that "Double Jeopardy" thing, they can't send him back to jail for his crimes again.
The problem would be if the files really contained personal information that has nothing to do with the illegal actions Kevin involved himself in. What if the files contained things like his own bank PIN's and such, and other private information... then the government would really be shittin' on their porch.
Who knows, maybe it was just his mom's recepies for French Onion soup...
BTE what type of crypto did Mitnick use that stumped the feds. I wanna use it too!
actually encrypting a password has absolutely nothing to do with how long it would take to brute force it... the only thing that matters is key bit length
to a crypto program 'hellomynameisbob' is no different from 'af@#$Akfda$!#*%^'.... brute forcing has nothing to do with the readability of a key/pass
and this got moderated up??
oh well... /. intelligence is lowereing greatly
the real shiftaling has user number 5134
Karma: -43 and DROPPING!!!
Idiot.
Are you a convicted felon out on parole?
If not, what does your plight have to do with any of this?
Being a felon does not mean you give away your property rights.
Sure, the NSA could have probably brute forced 1 or 2 of Mitnick's files by now. But is the NSA going to put that kind of computing power into something this small? I don't think so. Plus they're not allowed to work on stuff from US Citizens... (cough!).
I suspect the NSA is happier reading Russia's and Hussein's mail, not Mitnick's.
But even if they were one big happy family, they still would not tell another federal agency, it's too big a national security breach.
Ignore Alien Orders
Excuse me, but can't they just copy the freakin' data!? Give Kevin his data back, and brute force it later. If there's anything dangerous in there, they'll know about it later. It's been a lot of years and most of the computers he hacked are gone.
How much of a chance is there of being some sort of dangerous data? Credit card lists? Incriminating files? They might have legal grounds to keep the original (evidence in a criminal case), but it can very easily be argued he can have a copy because the original evidence is not modified in any way.
The govt seems to want that data badly. Did we ever find out exactly what Mitnick was supposed to have obtained during his tour of various secretive type computer networks? Odds are if there is anything it's in that encrypted data.
I can imagine at least five possibilities:
1) Predictible: The data is largely unremarkable but does constitute potential evidence against M and the govt dreams every night of forcing the data open so they can bring further charges about obtaining government secrets so the prosecutor can send him away (and not to an island) and hang him on his wall next to the hunting trophies (no doubt this would help their chances of promotion and help them further their boring existence).
2) Less predictable, but not unpredictable: The government wants to know exactly which of its depraved secrets are in that encrypted data - but only silly things only a government would think is valuable (psych profiles of slashdot members maybe? Inventory of our garbage?)
3) Less interesting: The data contains evidence that while not earth-shattering could be used to bring further charges so Mitnick is trying not to incriminate himself.
4) More interesting: the data contains evidence of some new shocking abuse of technology by the U.S. government and Mitnick is holding out because he feels the need to try and expose it?
5) As Sculley would say, it's also possible I've seen too many movies and TV shows :)
Trust no one
Wow! Now I sleep comfortably knowing that the EU, that pillar of "human rights" and defender of:
a) trial *without* jury
b) assumed guilt
is safe-guarding my legal rights. NOT!
That's the wrong analogy. A closer (but still not as strong) case would be that it was a very valuable banana, which was never found, but that you are found driving a car that you have just bought while you have no other visible means of support.
We're not talking about seizure of assets *used* in a crime; we're talking about the *fruits* of the crime.
btw, a banana is an herb, nto a fruit, or so they told us at the Hawaiin botanical grrdins . . .
[read my disclaimer elsewhere in this thread]
Probation (parole in this case, i believe) cannot be imposed upon the court, but is agreed to by the criminal. It is a release of the wrondoer on terms and conditions. A universal term is a waiver of search & seizure rights; an agreement to be searched at any time.
On the other hand, events prior to probation generally aren't at issue in whether the probation/parole is violated or not, so this just wouldn't matter.
Putting a gun to someone's head has a funny way of getting answers, especially when you're dealing with a lunatic behind the trigger. How about ripping out his fingernails one by one? Papercuts all over his body and soaking him in saltwater? Oh, be VERY sure if the government wanted something our precious little constititution isn't going to stand in their way. For example, if it was a matter of "national security" you could be torture would most certainly be employed to get results. So, hook him up to a rack and send 20,000 volts through his fat ass.. that'll get him talking.
[ a directive occured while processing this error ]
(oops, typo)
I once knew someone who claimed that he didn't file returns because not filing was a misdemeanor, while a false return was a felony . . .
.)
(I really couldn't tell you if he was right or not, and given that I haven't cared enough to look for ten years, it's not likely that I'm going to do it now . .
It may also be noted that in the case of the fertilizer, the guy is not trying to cover up the fact that it is fertilizer.
[ a directive occured while processing this error ]
if Kevin refuses to return his key, the government could just encrypt his encrypted data before they hand it back to him.
how's that for a frightening scenario?
The government very well could have failed to decrypt Kevin's files.
Or
The government very well could have decrypted the files, but wishes to avoid a potential
counter-suit where Kevin would claim that his personal privacy was invaded by the cracking
of the files, especially if there is damaging information contained therein.
That may sound a little far-fetched, but in today's court system, is it really that hard
to believe? Instead, the government may wish to avoid any
possibility of a counter-suit by attempting to first get Kevin's key and open the files
with no legal questions. I view this as a case of warranted search and
seizure. I don't know the privacy laws involved in this, so if someone knows if there
is any time when an individual can refuse to turn over documents to the courts, it would
be helpful to know. Otherwise, if the encrypted documents were
confiscated, they should have every right to seeing what's in them before giving them back.
ThE iLlUsTrIoUs IdIoTt
Tired of evil empires ruling you?
The Source is with you!
DoLinux.org
In John Littmans book "the fugitive game" one can read that:
1. Mitnick was not a C programmer
2. according to Markoff Mitnick was an average programmer.
If Mitnick was not programming in C, what did he use? Assembly, Perl, shell, awk&sed?
Score one for the AC.
A:So, where do you go to school.
B:UNI
A:Oh, so you go to collage the, where?
B:UNI
A:uh... I know you go to a uni, but witch one.
B: dude, UNI
A:YEH I GET THAT, NOW WHERE DO YOU GO TO SCHOOL FUCKHEAD
B:Univercity of northern Iowa! A:oh... haha, you fucking looser
Of course, this gets silly quickly - there could be off-shore datahubs that existed just to hold copies of people's private, encrypted data, such that if Big Brother ever came knocking, you knew that your data was out there for you to retrieve, even if you could not get the physical drive storing your data...
Then laws would get passed, continuing the "whack-a-mole," that would make this activity illegal. Then another method to keep your data and not let Big Brother have it would be made. And then that would become illegal. Repeat ad nauseum.
(My views, not my company's. I'm guessing you knew that.)
Online wrestling as a trading card game? WWF With Authority.
If the government had this data for five years and cannot crack it, they are either trying to mess with him (we could, but we want YOU to do it), or he was using an encryption algorithm that is immensely powerful - and hitherto unknown. To me, that would mean that _they_ _want_ _that_ _weapon_.
So the more appropriate example would probably be...
He has a previously unknown weapon, something that cannot be stopped. It has to have a specific code to operate, though. They take it during a search for weapons, say, or drugs. They realize what he has and they want it, so they insist that he open it up - without the code, they can't examine it and learn how to make one of their own.
Creepy.
-Elthia
YES, I'm paranoid.
the seized computers had incriminating files as well as encrypted files, the same way a vehicle used in a crime has tires, the same way seized land has trees.
He gave it all up when when he did the crime.
I DO have a problem with some of the crazy laws that allow the gavernment to take property on SUSPICION of a crime, but in this case, the encrypted binaries of a hacker?
No way. Take them, don't give them back, watch him like a hawk.
The government bungled thae case, but I see no reason to reward KM, especially w/o knowing the contents. It would be like giving a "Perfect Safe" back to a bank robber.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Maybe they have not cracked it because they want to set a precedent by legally making him turn over the keys. They could then use this as a basis for the turning over of encryption keys as mandatory in hacking cases in the future.
I guess he can't use a car either; cars have computers in them (fuel injectors, door controls, etc)
Painter replied that because the government could not understand what was in the files, it could not use the files as evidence at trial. He also said that Rule 16 did not apply because the encrypted files in a sense were not "really in our possession," because "we don't know what's there."
So, if I put something in an impenetrable safe and the government seizes the safe, they get to keep it because they don't know what's in it?
"For all we know...
it could be empty.
it could be p0rn0 p1x 0f K3v1n'5 l33t b1tch35 (we wish!)
it could be detachable penises (we lost ours)
it could contain alien remains
it could be a hydrogen bomb built to destroy the universe, YOU NEVER KNOW!"
That's how silly the government's excuse sounds to me.
I mean, give me a break, the government has no right to hold onto that data. Despite my feelings that Mitnick got what he deserved, this is beyond that. This is violating the law.
Innocent until proven guilty? My arse.
They basically turned that notion on its head with the "sorry, you could have dangerous information in there, so we're not going to give the data back until you prove that you don't."
What is incredulous to me is that the Judge in this case didn't care about that particularly OBVIOUS violation of a persons Constitutional rights.
Isn't there a way he can appeal this decision? Shouldn't he be doing so, right quickly? The government is starting to screw with its own citizens as much as it does with foriegn ones. Viva le revolution.
I believe that he just worded it wrong. When he says "choose a password and encrypt it" I believe "it" refers to the file in question, not the password. You then proceed to encrypt the encrypted file several more times with different passwords.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Make up a name and email address. There's certainly NOTHING stopping you from just randomly creating a bunch of fake data and using that to feed their info hungry ad generation engine. ;-)
If this were a case of say, a bomber, and the government had confiscated his chemical fertilizer, which he may have obtained legally, and may only intend to use for farming, would the government be required to return it?
If yes, then there is no reason by which Mitnick's data can be held.
If no, the government could keep it under "reasonable suspicion" or "danger to the public", then the government should have the right to withhold the data.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
After all the trouble he'd gave companies he should die on the electric chair! FUCK KEVIN!!!
Your response is one of the most intelligent and insightful things I've ever seen around here.
And if he'd bothered to look around, or was even vaguely familiar with my other postings, he'd know that I"m pritty far out on the fringe (I'd maintain the last step before the nuts) on the side of the individual in the face of the awesome power of the state.
That said, Mitnick is a thug trying to manipulate the system. This is not about civil liberties, but an attempt to cloak criminal behavior in the dressings of liberty, and relying on knee-jerk reactions from folks who lack enough backround information or legal education to make an informed conclusion--a more serious version of the petitions to ban dihydrous oxide as a dangerous substance and the like.
Good idea -- I've seen new threads where the first 50 posts have had at least 50 mod points expended on them. (A few 5s, 3s, a bunch of 2s lots of -1s).
What happens to the next 300 {good, bad, trugly} posts? Nothing! The moderators blow their load in the first 30 minutes.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Access to the NYT site is free but they lose advertising revenue if people read their content elsewhere. So to determine damages they could just use Slashdot's logs to find out how many saw the posting and multiply that by what they charge advertisers per impression.
Your tax return is an interesting problem. You can't 'plead the fifth on your tax forms because it is not a criminal investigation. However, they can be used as evidence against you.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
The judiciary is *not* some unstoppable power. In fact, it was Hamilton in the Federalist papers who said that the judiciary must be fortified because it has neither the power of the purse nor the sword. (Purse == Congresses' power of money, Sword == Exexcutive's power of enforcement). The courts *cannot* enforce their own decisions (just look at what happened when they told Jackson he couldn't remove the Indians. He did anyway. "Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it," Jackson said). However, in this day and age no one is crazy enough to simply ignore a court order. It just doesn't happen.
Secondly, the Constitution is perhaps one of the most ingenious documents regarding American government. The judiciary is supposed to interpret it. It always pertains.
Now, in the arguments of the 9th Amendment (unenumerated rights are not denied), it is by and large useless. When the courts first made decisions regarding it, everyone went around crying 9th Amendment (hippies said they had a 9th Amendment right to long hair, etc). However, it is now ignored and has not been even mentioned in case law in at least a few decades. Although it is tempting to cry 9th Amendment rights to anything under the sun, it just doesn't work or apply.
How does that apply here? It simply says: anything not made explicit is up to the states to decide. Then, if the state doesn't decide, the people can.
How about this--
The government (or any party) must return the encrypted files to the defense.
If the defense decides to use *any* of the decrypted material, it must provide copies of *all* the decrypted material back to the prosecution.
Could this work?
if he used a one time pad the key would have to be as big as the data he encrypted. that means the key would also have to be a gigabyte.. very unlikely he would resort to something that un-realisticly
> A day to encrypt one doc? Think about this.
> I can encrypt a doc in 5 seconds.
> For it to take a day, say, half a day, 12 hours, I would have to say... computers would
> have to be 8640 times faster today than they were in 1994.
Actually no. Because you can trade some of the
time for space. So, assuming that you can
design the alg to use all of your space,
My 64Meg P233, has >20,000 times the
SpaceTime capacity of a C64 with a 10mhz
(that's a guess) chip and 64k RAM.
I would suspect the Gov can do the equivalent for
any hardware commonly available in 1994.
-sh
----
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
I would probably put it this way- the files are written in another language, which the feds don't have translators for - lets call the language Ancient Panvrovian. They could figure out Ancient Panrovian on their own, but they either don't have the will or the means.
Kevin can provide them with the ability to translate the files into English, but that may incriminate him later. He himself can translate ancient Panrovian, given he knows the key phrase to do so under the right translation matrix.
Or, rather, he put a magic lock on the filing cabinet, and they won't give back some of his spellbooks and tomes until he gives them the magic word and the spell. Of course, the documents contain things that could be speech, or could be considered warlock's spells, or both.
Unfortunately, I haven't heard of any caselaw that clearly determines whether something you have written could also be considered a tool. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I think it is a new thingy. However, I am not a priest of the constitution; merely a lowly packet-herder teleporting some minor lord's sheep to market.
'Hail Eris, baby, hail Eris...pfffffffttt.' *cough* 'Yeah.'
You can search for it at www.attrition.org. Too lazy to do it myself.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
All I want to know is where I can get my hands on the software he used to encrypt his files! If he encrypted this 5 years ago - and it's still strong then I gotta get my hands on this.
Anyone know what program he used? was it PGP? was PGP even around 5 years ago?
Joseph Elwell.
This case is similar to saying, "I don't know what the heck this blue thing is, but it could be evidence, so we're not going to give it back to you."
If they don't know what it is, and can't prove that it is evidence or a weapon, they should give it back. Just like they do with your keys, wallet, pack of gum, etc.
wouldn't it be believable if he just said he forgot it? I mean it /has/ been a long time. Then again, I guess if he forgot the key why would he want the data back...
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Encryption is bad mm'kay? If you use encryption, you're a bad criminal person mm'kay? Don't use encryption, mm'kay? -Brought to you by the US Government
Once again, IANAL.
Only the copyright holder has the right to copy, distribute, etc. the materials. This reposting violates NYT's copyright unless the person has permission.
They consequences are highly variable. Copyright violation is a civil, not criminal, case. NYT would have to show their copyright had been violated by whoever (possibly including Slashdot for hosting it, precidence varies) and it cost them X amount of dollars. If NYT wins, the loser pays them X amount of dollars. It's not necessarily easy to prove how much something like a single article is worth, especially when you're giving it away yourself.
For people who violate lots of copyrights, I think they sometimes get charged with fraud. The idea is that they're posing as someone who either created to content or has the right to do so. Cloning NYT's site and hosting it www.nytimes.to would be an example.
...smile on your brother everybody get together try to love one another...
I think we have to have at least a little sympathy for the goverment's point of view. From what I've read they have no idea what is in the gig or so of data they can't dycrypt. Being the pariniod kind of people they are; they probably think that he has a couple million credit card or Swiss bank account numbers. Or maybe something really bad like a mpeg of a senator gettin' busy with an aide.
I've never seen reported what method Kevin used to encrypt his data. Let's speculate that he used 1024 bit RSA. The goverment may have decoded the stuff and therefor they know he has the plans to the B1 encrypted on his laptop. But to reveal the fact that they know what he has on his laptop would also reveal that they can break 1024 bit RSA. Not good. So they play dumb instead while still denying access to the data.
How is he supposed to decrypt this information anyways. With an abacus? pen and paper? After all he's restricted from practically all computer use.
Assuming he has nothing more then 100,000 credit reports they still would be in very hot water if Kevin was to somehow commit a crime with the data. How the heck he would do that without access to anything more technological than a light switch I have no idea. He seems to be a master of the wetware attack so I guess it's possible.
See http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/eternity/etern ity.html (html version) (ps version)
All theoretical though.
Closest to implemented is: http://www.cypherspace.org/~adam/eternity/ and read about it here.
well, he does have the right unless he waives it.. which he does in his parole hearing.. they'll offer him an early release on the conditin of "X" things.. also, someone gave the example of a drivers license.. same type of situation.. when you sign up for your drivers license you agree that your license can be revoked on certain conditions (one of which is certain crimes like DUI). So while a JUDGE (or committee or whatever) cannot take away those privilages, he can sign them away in return for things to his advantage (escaping bubba).. although he was in lompoc federal prison for at least the last part (donno where he was before that)... i live near lompoc and its a pussy prison. its all crooked bankers, telemarketing scammers, etc etc... if anything he learned other ways to scam money from people while in there :) pretty good trade if you can't use computers.
-- "I feel a strong disturbance in the for.."\*Segmentation Fault*\ (core dumped)
This is your brain ...
"In my school, being smart is exactly like being radioactive."
Radioactivity has a tendancy to be contagious, being smart unfortunately doesn't.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The standard in the US is that the gov't has to prove that whatever they want to take from you is illegal. You are not supposed to be forced to prove that your property is legal.
That other post about your fucked up attitude keeping german ovens full is right on target. Too bad people like you are not lined up and shot, instead of the people that support freedom.
Then they might not be having these problems with broken keys ;)
> He doesn't have the right to use a computer, so what would he do with it??
Yes he does retain that right, since he didn't surrender it.
BILL OF RIGHTS
ARTICLE X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Cheers
Hawk explained the facts of the situation. He didn't even say what he *felt* was the appropriate action in this instance. Imagine a government where our judicial system operated on the premise that courts could rule how they "felt". Our country was founded on thoughts quite to the contrary.
It's not about winning arguments - it's about interpreting the law and abiding by it. Regardless of whether it makes perfect sense or not.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
They mention that "For all we know, it could be plans to take down a computer system". Now, come on now... if Kevin Mitnick had plans to take down a computer system 5 years ago, what are the chances they system is even still running and not in the trash heap? Systems/networks change so much for week to week that 5 year old data on how to penetrate a system would be worthless to anyone but a computer crimes historian. "Woohoo.. I have plans here to break into Bell Lab's data storage server housed on their Sparc IPX.. huh? What do you mean they trashed that 4 years ago!?"
You are such a fucking idiot. Wht don't you go live in North Korea or mainland China where fuckheads like you run everything, OK you goddamned storm trooper? Your analogy is full of shit, as are you. Numerous people have tried patiently and nicely to show you what the actual issue is and you keep talking in fairy tails.
Now, pack yor bags with all of your commie approved books (if you truly own any) and go let big brother fuck you in the ass the way you really want it.
For the government people it's a job, for us it is an obsession.
Fight Spammers!
REdundant Distributed NETwork Steganographic FILE System. REDNETS FILES
There, that didn't take 30 seconds
B-)
DB
Seriously... Kevin Mitnick isn't half the criminal that Bill Gates is! Poor Kevin. I feel for the guy. What really did he do? Stole a little bit of cell air time? C'mon... Maybe stole UNIX source code that should have been free anyway!?! And Bill not only walks free, but is rolling in cash. Makes me so @#$! mad!!! Time to boycott not only everything $MS, but ever stinkin' proprietary thing!
A guy who breaks into companies private data now without remorse wants to be able to keep his own data private.
Could the Government hire crackers to crack the encryption, or perhaps just post the code anonymously, hoping someone unencrypts it? Also, if Kevin's THAT good to encrypt his files that the government couldn't get into them for all those years, shouldn't they offer to lift his parole if he helps them out with other cases?
...and likewise, don't want to set a precendent of "Oh, just ignore them, they'll have to take years to decrypt it." Forcing a criminal to obey the law sets a much better tone than making the government dance to the criminal's tune.
(This holds in general, regardless of whether you think Mitnick (the specific case) is "guilty" or not.)
My two timeslices, is all.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Well Spoken.
Always remember, I am the greatest!
The Secret Service walked off with his computers, including new game designs, and truckloads of stuff and nearly ruined his business.
He had to lay off half his employees, no-one was charged with anything and he never got his goods back.
Read "The Hacker Crackdown" by Bruce Sterling.
Wouldn't democracy be a nice thing to try?
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
There are a number of publically known encyrption algorithms that are thought to be uncrackable in the lifetime of the universe even given substantial amounts of money and specialized computers. The practical limit on encryption is not the availability of an algorithm, but the ability to generate and secretly store a key of sufficient length and randomness and keep the plaintext of the data from being recorded or transmitted elsewhere.
Decrypting is not easily done, even if the data was encrypted with a relatively bad encryption algorithm. If the algorithm is not known, decrypting a single message is nearly impossible. If the algorithm is known and it is reasonable secure still huge amounts of expensive computer time and analyst time must be spent on the problem.
That's not to say that the government couldn't have broken Mitnick's encryption. They may not have been trying too hard, since they could get a conviction without it and decrypting information is expensive and time consuming, and may not have had the expertise, since most of the really good cryptanalysts in the government don't work for the FBI. But Mitnick clearly would have known of unbreakable encryption methods, and if he was disciplined enough, he very well might have used them.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
the most ironic part about this... Kevin has already spent his time in prison, a period of time that is theoretically supposed to "straighten him out"... what really gets me here is the prosecutions total lack of faith in the legal system. EVEN IF the files are incriminating (like the coat having a gun in the pocket parallel) the lawyers are FAILING to take into account that the time spent in prison is supposed to CHANGE Kevin into a law abiding citizen. #2 nobody can spend time in jail for the same offense twice, isn't that right? isn't that considered double jeopardy? so in this case, even if the evidence IS incriminating, it's AFTER THE FACT, he's already spent his time, HE CAN'T GO BACK FOR THE SAME OFFENSE... i think i got that right... #3 the government has NO right to look through my underwear drawer (but that's an opinion) -barton
mitnick refused to turn over the key, under the 5th amendment. he just lost all rights to the blob, since it may or may not contain fruits of his criminal activity.
:-)
there are other situations where personal property used in the commision of a crime is forfeited. guns, drugs, vehicles, land -- all can legally be taken and sold/disposed of by the gov. w/o compensation.
remember who the criminal is here. the gov treated his case very poorly, but kevin is the moron breaking/stealing/etc.
oh yeah...yet another good reason to keep backups
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Maybe a discussion should not be moderatable until at least 50 comments are made. This would allow inexperienced moderators to see the possibility of more intelligent comments than those made by Signal 11.
Aha! That's brilliant! Don't you see?
All the feds have to do is decide that they suspect that the files may contain information related to illegal drugs. Then they get to keep the files forever. In fact, thanks to the war on drugs, they even have the "right" to sieze anything else that they want of Mitnick's, and never have to worry about trials.
Damn, we've got a great government. I mean, that's downright clever. I'm so proud of it. If only Jon Johansen lived here, the MPAA could have implied that DeCSS might be used to watch drug-related movies. Our cops would have done things that would have made the Norway cops look like total pansies by comparison.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think it might be wise of we /. contributers to be a bit more careful in the future to avoid causing Rob & Co. problems. Remember, the important concept here is fair use. A quick explaination of what constitutes fair use can be found here.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
9 Gig on two circa 1994 laptops
If my drive space was that far ahead of the curve today
I could store my decrypted DVD library.
A lot of the postings in this discussion focus on property law. Information is not property the way a car or a banana might be. The main point is this: the government could easily give back Mitnick's data and retain a copy.
A lot of us think he shouldn't have been sent down in the first place, and would change IP law, but the relevant legal arguments are going to center around what the data represents, as in, the data is a tool to do things. They wont focus on whether the data is speech or who it belongs to.
If Kevin had invented super weapons (which, in some people minds he did), and noone else could figure out how to work them, and he took them and killed someone (but noone knew how he managed to do it, just that he did), and got put away for 10 years, he couldnt come back and ask for their return. So I think hes gonna lose this one.
u
--
M-x all-hail-emacs RET
plus he can't even use computers for... how long was it again? so even if those files WERE something bad, it's not like he can run off, decrypt, then wreak havoc. however, i would think it funny if he did. :)
-barton
Read the article:
During the pre-trial discovery phase of the case, the government lawyer, Christopher Painter, an assistant United States attorney in Los Angeles, indicated that as required by the rules governing evidence, he would hand all of the seized files over to the defense -- except the encrypted ones.
That's the point. This isn't about returning stolen goods to a criminal. It's about the government witholding evidence that the defendant might have been able to use in his own defense. 11% of Mitnick's files were unavailable to his defense team. Anything the defense team might have decrypted and entered as evidence would then be available to the prosecutors and court.
I think the best analogy here would be "Sir, the police seized 3 years worth of your records, but the prosecutors have only had time to read 2 years of the records. So, you are only allowed access to the 2 years they read to defend yourself. Unless, you want to point out the parts they might have missed in that other year."
Nothing in the article talks about returning encrypted data to a convicted felon. I could understand the logic behind refusing that. But, (taking the worst case view) it sounds like the court and prosecutors just wanted to tip the scales of justice in their favor and not have any surprise evidence entered by the defense team.
Who the hell knows what is in that file?
And let's face it, a bunch of geeks blowing their load in only 30 collective minutes is not the way to get good head in this world...
If I were Mitnick, I would have written and run the following program:
FILE*fp=fopen("SuperSecretEncryptedStuff", "a+");
for(long i=0;i1000000000L;i++)
{
unsigned char c=rand()%0xff;
fwrite(&c,1,1,fp);
}
fclose(fp);
It would give me something to laugh about as I sat in my cell.
The cake is a pie
shit like you needs to be flushed
According to the blithering nonsense from both the judge and the persicution, if the files were "readable" there would not be a problem.
Thus, if one "hides" their encrypted information, using strgonagraphy,in a file or series of files, and those files appear to be readable, the government would have no reason to hold the files.
Be that as it may, I believe the government has no right to keep property just because they do not know what it is. The burden is on the sholders of the state to prove that the information is some sort of contraband. This is just another example of the government giving individual rights a wink before cracking the whip to show who is master.
BTW, "plans for taking down a system" should be covered under "free speech".
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
The files aren't actually that well
encrypted, it just that they stored
the harddrive on top of some speakers
and randomized it.
"Truely complicated noise is indistinguishable
from random information."
-sh
----
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
Now that I've had a few hours to think about it, my last-mentioned trick is trivially easy.
/. right now and I've blown your secret), you can do it three layers deep, or four, or five... How will they know when they've really hit bottom? How will they convince a judge that there's still data in there once they've gotten your naughty diary?
Step 1: Use steganography to hide your secrets in an image or data file.
Step 2: Use that file as the matrix to steganographically(?) hide something less secret, and using a different key.
Then, when "they" threaten you with scary vileness if you don't hand over the key, you give them the second key and, alas, all they get is your diary filled with purient fantasies, rather than your nuclear secrets. To get the "real" stuff, you have to repeat the operation with the "real" key.
And the nice thing is, if they catch on to the double encryptation scheme (i.e., if they're browsing
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The judge added that if Mitnick would "tell the government how to read" the files, then the government would turn over the files in decrypted form.
Mitnick's lawyers immediately objected to this condition on the grounds that it would force him to waive his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to obtain evidence he needed and that he had a legal right to see. The judge rejected this point and repeated her ruling.
It seems that the right not to incriminate yourself is solely testimony based from what I have read. So your writings can be used to incriminate you in a court of law...even if they are private (i.e. a journal). It seems the government is treating the files like property (i.e. it can be searched/seized) instead of testiomony.
How about GNU Privacy Guard? It's only got 3DES, CAST5, Blowfish, Twofish, and (modular) IDEA for symmetric encryption, but how many do you need? And it does public key encryption, too, and it's PGP compatible.
He could alweays pull a Ronald Reagan (during the Iran-Contra trials) and just claim that he has forgoten the key. I doubt the gov will ever crack it soon unless they do something like the distibuted net stuff. I'm not sure if they want to spend tha much money on this guy either and crucify him now that he is becoming a "cause celebrite" (where's the damn French accent keys?).
..........FULL STOP.
And how that relates to my comment I have no idea... :)
Knowing how to use software and writing that software are different things.
Who gives a rats ass if he gets his stuff back...
... here come the "mitnick was unfairly treated" replies
A felon SHOULDNT be disqualified from having guns or being around children or whatever...
If you cant be trusted to own a gun because of a crime you've committed, you shouldnt BE OUT OF JAIL. If you cant " " children " " crime " " you shouldnt BE OUT OF JAIL!
Criminals should be punished and then AFTER the punishment given their rights back. The government should NEVER have the power to strip the rights of people who are "on the street".
If the Jail wasnt enough without the additional punishment, then the Jail wasnt enough to fit the crime and should have been lengthened.
our founding fathers knew ALL too well how important it is to restrict the athority of the governments influence on the pedestrian citizen, and how "creative punishment" grants the government longer arms over ALL the citizens.
If the Judge felt that Kevin would still be a considerable threat to society after his term, then he did a shitty job deciding the length of the term.
I believe that the American Citizens right to use a computer will in the near future be regarded as a constitutional right parallel to the Second Ammendment, as the roles computers play or will play are the same ones that bearing arms played 200 years ago.
Power to the People
--AROS is an Open Source AmigaOS clone, and source compatible with AmigaOS! Try the x86 build at http://www.aros.org
After reading the whole discussion about the 4th and 5th amendments, I am not sure that is really the question we have here.
I think I have a good analogy, though. Suppose a person is arrested for a crime, and the police have reason to believe that person stored evidence of those crimes in safe deposit boxes, and indeed did find evidence in safe deposit boxes of that person's crimes. Now, the authorities have one key, but it is not stamped as to what bank or box number it goes to.
Do they need to give that key back?
Does anyone know what would happen in a property case like this? My gut feeling is that after you have plead guilty/been convicted you are not going to be able to get to the contents of that box without the police there to also see what is in the box.
This doesn't really seem that unreasonable to me.
what it all comes down to is "own" and "acquire", which is also brought up in the DVD-cSS case... if the gov't can "prove" that even though they possess the data, they don't HAVE the data because it's encrypted... if that flies, geeks of the werld unite, we just won the DVD case on precedence... BUT, if it can be proven that they both possess AND have the data, we're screwed on the DVD thing...
...but addicted to this confusing and frightening thing called the "internet".
or something like that. it's late, and i'm sleepy...
-barton