Slashdot Mirror
British Police Demand Access To Encryption Keys
flip-flop writes "In the wake of recent terrorist attacks, police here in the UK have asked for sweeping new powers they claim will help them counter the threat. Among these is making it a criminal offense for people to refuse disclosing their encryption keys when the police want to access someone's files." From the article: "The most controversial of the police proposals is the demand to be able to hold without charge a terrorist suspect for three months instead of 14 days. An Acpo spokesman said the complexity and scale of counter-terrorist operations means the 14-day maximum is often insufficient."
Innocent until proven guilty. Although that statement is ignored just as often in the US as it is in England, laws that we pass try to at least give the impression that we respect it. So, here is how things go if this passes...
...Time to get pricing on high speed internet access on the moon I guess. This planet's done for.
GoodGuy has a friend who is in some domestic trouble and is hiding some of his assets in off-shore accounts. He keeps his friends account information in an encrypted folder on his computer because his friend doesn't want to lose it and trusts him.
EvilAgentMan thinks GoodGuy is a terrorist planning on taking over the world, due to his recent purchase of a salt water aquarium, baby sharks, laser pointers and duct tape. He charges GoodGuy as being a EvilDoer(TM) and puts him in jail. While looking for evidence, he notices an encrypted folder on GoodGuy's computer. He tells GoodGuy that he must hand over his encryption keys or be charged with the crime of not handing over his encryption keys. He must decide on going to jail for something he is completely innocent of, or releasing potentially incriminating evidence on his friend.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
Sure, you can have my encryption key. Here it is:
01100110 01110101 01100011 01101011 00100000 01101111 01100110 01100110
"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
If the UK want's to decrypt a message, why can't they do it themselves? I'm sure they have enough computing power to do it. (Or they could ask the US for help.. pfft)
Is was put through as part of the criminal justice bill a few years ago. And are considered guilty if you cannot hand over a key for something encrypted in your possession, even if someone sends you a file on a disk. You have no defence and are guilty.
"I forgot it." Seriously. This is what we do in the U.S., and even if they hold you in contempt-- it's a darn sight better than letting them have access, and seeing what you were up to.
Fortunately we have things like StegFS. But I really shouldn't be disclosing such information, some people in the govA*$%#)D$@#$NO CARRIER
password protecting warez in an archive to prevent anyone from finding out it's warez?
How can they prove you have or know the key? Is "I forgot" a valid defense?
"Innocent until proven guilty. Although that statement is ignored just as often in the US as it is in England, laws that we pass try to at least give the impression that we respect it."
umm, Guantanamo Bay?
Steven Wright has the right idea...
"I forgot my password" gets you 20 years in jail?
This sounds so awful and stupid I don't want to even think about it.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
The British contacted the United States Congress today to ask if they could dupe the Patriot Act...
I was pretty sure that the regulation of investigatory powers act (1998?) already made it an offense to refuse to disclose an encryption key?
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
I'm not going to feel very safe living in a police state.
The real measure of a free, open and just society is how it behaves in bad times - not in good times. When difficulties arise and the authorities want sweeping powers to 'protect' the citizens, should the citizens give up important civil liberties for what is probably just an illusion of safety? When are you ever safe enough in these times? Maybe the citizens should stop and ask themselves how much they really value their civil liberties - just how far should you go? Maybe the citizens should not crow too loudly about how free, open and just their society is when they look back at how their country has behaved in difficult times..
Big Brother is watching, and is protecting you from terrorism.
They keep increasing police powers and surveillance, yet terrorism keeps happening, and false positives keep creeping up.
But so long as people are scared enough, they'll allow for more and more erosions of their rights.
The people who benefit the most from terrorism are the "intelligence community", the more they fail to do their job, the more power they gain. It's beautifull, in a creepy, depressing way.
Is to encrypt all new encryption keys.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
What are they going to do next...start searching your bags on the subway...oh wait.
Well. I can see the thing about holding someone for a long time. At least there is a limit on it and not indefenitely as in the U.S. That has got to be worth something right? The encryption keys thing isn't good though.
I'm waiting for the suit against the UK by the US claiming ashcroft is violating his non-competition clause...
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Among these is making it a criminal offense for people to refuse disclosing their encryption keys when the police want to access someone's files.
I'm not familiar with British law, but I do know American law is based on the same doctorines as the British(from a historical perspective at least).
In the U.S. the court can order you to provide encryption keys and if you do not you will be held in contempt of the court. This usually means the judge puts you in jail until you decide to provide the keys. To me(IANAL) it seems like the above just formalises the practice. Via the wikipedia reference it appears as though the U.S. did this in 1981.
Being held in contempt of the court is a very normal tool for judges to use with uncooperative court subjects, cryptographic keys aren't special or different.
- "Never let a computer tell me shit." - DelTron Zero
Go get 'em, Georgie!
So now the gov has a new idea for the next decre-, i mean the patriot act... read this post soon, it will soon become unavaila- - - - Client Disconnected (ISP RESET)
I use CSS encryption for all my privacy needs. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that it would be illegal for me to provide you the software code that breaks it.
"The most controversial of the police proposals is the demand to be able to hold without charge a terrorist suspect for three months instead of 14 days. An Acpo spokesman said the complexity and scale of counter-terrorist operations means the 14-day maximum is often insufficient."
Why not just stick them on a plane heading to the US where they can call them an "enemy combatant" and hold them until the end of time.
It's the PATRIOT Act, UK edition.
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
Uniting the Kingdom by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
Brought to you by the same people who advocate counterproductive warmongering as foreign policy and at the same time refuse to aid development of health, education, and basic infrastructure in debt laiden countries that can foster terrorist ideals (and incentives, given the insurmountable debt owed to the first world and a corresponding lack of aid).
What is the difference between the right to prevent self-incrimination (i.e. the right to silence) and the right to not say your password?
In England and Wales, "a defendant cannot be convicted solely due to their silence" yet this is saying precisely the opposite.
Doesn't the UK have some sort of protection against being forced to disclose information that would cause you to incriminate yourself? In the US we have this as part of the constitution. (For what that's worth . . . . . )
I would think disclosing the key to your encrypted data would qualify.
Do people think it's just a coincidence that these new "attacks" came just as USA Congress is reviewing the PATRIOT act and deciding whether to renew it?
Do people think it's just a coincidence that these new "attacks" came just as new talks between Israel and Palestine are being proposed?
It is all part of plan to consolidate power over citizens by police, military and politicans, and further domination of Palestinian territories by Israel.
I'm not happy that New Yorkers are willing to subject themselves to 'random' searches. I'm pretty sure the London terrorist attacks will be the catylst for widespread CCTV in the U.S.
I know that /.ers will line up to complain about this, but I think that the article is poorly written. They tell us about new powers that the police will have under a proposal, but it doesn't say under what circumstances those powers may be used.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
"They also want to make it a criminal offence for suspects [emphasis mine] to refuse to cooperate in giving the police full access to computer files by refusing to disclose their encryption keys."
I don't see what that problem is, as long as due process is respected. Murder suspects can't turn away search warrants of their property, and if the proper warrants are filled out electronic files should be treated as physical property.
Secret warrants or police officers "going fishing" is another story.
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) hQQOA5ziOPqiPKD7EA//UPdzmHlowFmIdYQxwfoNf77owIiklG N6k9Cu2et6VSxr
Urdec/2GkvqNmrWg/PDvgjF8vNSdY7JG2t6QT1Gc3deUvIYu0s R6VajcEzvCyQ4+
lXY27ohXkJo+RCsPgiMq/b4lXtQ8KE1XM2tElR0mfwAdC6uXGU BFewzrTh/clt97
0rdlpB/S2wM47j6anhIQNow/Wfey2QywPvN3CVcunnatvhqrBK KXuUuK9j9DJ9K5
qb1T2kVTZzXINsyX1Vb/rlrLp25xnq4zn1R5rcewFO8zwo9iWi 8pg9wiWjNR0Lg4
OFpa37EsKBfr1vwQuMkvm21DOvKGUcOGl8zVYWJh71i6yY6rK1 OO9zWuaC0ShFth
qBm537YPNjgWdzBHR12GDFqYpTALuNr1XyLbsfYbmDP5jG2c3q dvo3ClnJuA99Mn
2MGFpWARGHRfg9WGszX/bszyPTRRasZ687uZU9ikeKyXI2WFnf JBglO3ZUw/v06K
nPx005U4iXCuwVpW5dJLi5ziAOFe3/KV4RMQjwax8CFqIWSpTz Eq03mAb7b2k0Uu
PxP1wkU8hKVZCzndaafMWt5hq0V4zTuNImW6fZ1BZrZcjerS8V +wT5QXa6qWOVBe
13HJe6KegTE0KH55A7VJuWcPaEPxTLQXyjSV1M9xyG8d59988f Xtvr9BGqz+6mEP /iNnUSfFGzwZkBdkuouYxS9K9wtnXnyRfQiEYlXZ0L4ww7YAgX hY2fBHs4IRX3DW
wlC0D0fgHUaY4L7oLcrDTtCCXzlA/bKKDWKlKYtovTuyIr9DoS LREw2EYZtLaEUE
tlBTKva7dqFZUw5kQiN4StFhnWui1aWbn+/8LvciUzLBsRJ9Tt pDCIXctX7nnKxm
iHUb5eEDzahLo2Gq7t0LYrbMdFuPfQzT16C1bCXtRL27rcrDSl Xh9Jsb7W6yTPm8
MPtNyE+ClT2ViIVqdF+XeBNcFy0JtD2WU8KePvQwD6CVy6f2M+ +Iex7d2tiveWsx
w5/H7U1ieyybqe58n31ayCLoQ2HBraXis2mBc7V4sIFHA4iRlc qJbIgllbWFkRhe
RkJClogVCjHNW+g1Xp0Qj6LjdRxk9mI0ESaLAEXT3P0wY6ThMt swIZfoXq31beo6
tom67ektX4WplRKsFskIdQGXHg6Od2yv0hVUHZYGFZzoPOoAjG VON7pgy7zvTIQE
WobHKM6xZzPRuOpnyGHIWI2kmFYScygVIbvh8NFYrSidCYMlGj RJl7asUbOuo2H/
k/3kZ1ViAQqUxNhnGIIPDC3s+xVsU0g/rUIyjYvvShaoOTkP1T m5OurBeUOf4xsr
Pt0Sq4/+/oJJeSLMeXldue9zEP1zeFPHbOa5G2qPeRMM0lUBW6 0Wimn3EN03veJ7
SC8o5wyXm6uL52xYBXtdY2GBF7b776Nn7b6kI0d22QoCsWbBbj Enb9GYxfj1u8sM /C2gmuZCtd0CuOG3Krj7rZ8pFUpNoQnU
=H0RN
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
I'm not sure what British search and seizure laws are, but I assume there must be some kind of probable cause ok'd by a judge or equivilent impartial official? Not that I would be surprised if this sort of thing passed in the US without such protections.
Sugapablo
They want encryption keys, but I dare say that not ONE of the investigators (or government officials) can point to a single connection between the recent stuff in London and encrypted information. They keep demanding solutions to problems that don't exist - that's why this stuff keeps happening. If they'd try to solve the problems that DO exist, they might get somehwere- WITHOUT becoming a police state.
Hah, I'd vote to hold liberals indefinitely as long as we can toss Bush in with the lot for his shitty fiscal policy and extra-leftwing immigration policy.
Of course, he'll just brush up on his "Mexican" and flee to Mexico where they'll treat him like a king.
So where is this vaunted British stoicism that we've heard so much about? Stiff upper lip, not passing nutso laws, and all that? I predict the smug euro-weenies will be notably absent from comments to this story.
If you don't comply with a subpoena, you go to jail for contempt of court. Of course a subpoena actually requires judicial approval, whereas a police request for encryption keys does not.
They don't have a fucking clue, and they'll do anything that can to get one, even if it's obtained in dubious ways.
Terrorist style attacks even happen in police states. Obviously, it impossible to lock things down far enough to give real security, therefore, there is no reason to destroy privacy in a vain attempt to get there.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
...and Bill of Rights which is totally ignored, where in the UK they don't have a constitution and bill of rights which can be totally ignored.
I don't quite understand why they need to keep someone in jail if they can't even charge him with something ..
I mean anything solid enough to make the police want to seek his files so hard also should allow them to charge him.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
There are plenty of ways to send data in a normal-looking, non-text file that don't reqire encryption keys.
Sheesh, we know where these guys hang out-- we know how to profile them. Most simply are fearful of upsetting the ACLU (or insert your favorite pricacy rights group here) to step up.
Or is this an after-the-fact forensic computer science (we found some stuff on their hard drive) situation?
So.. a guy willing to blow himself up is suddenly going to be afraid of some new law? Why?
Cogito Ergo Sum
Be afraid. Be very afraid. Be British and very very very very very afraid:
Noam Chomsky
The western world is in its worst decadence since the Medieval times...
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
"suspects" because they look like they may have a bomb, and you're worried they might want your encryption key? if you're not a terrorist why would you care. they can waste their time in my junk all day long.
...when they pry it from my cold dead hands, or brain...whichever.
What is to stop some government official from harassing people in to turning over keys to their files? Governmental corruption is not unheard of. Seems like a slippery slope to me. Nibble away at freedom a little bit at a time and no one will notice. Hell, you might even get some backers if you say it is to fight terrorism. Look at the US Patriot Act!
-FEITCTAJ
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
Stenography and encryption at same time. Problem solved.
"They also want to make it a criminal offence for suspects to refuse to cooperate in giving the police full access to computer files by refusing to disclose their encryption keys."
Note, this makes it only illegal to disclose encryption keys or provide access to encrypted files if you are a suspect. I don't know if I agree with this or not and I believe this is very intrusive. But the way the poster submitted this article leads one to believe that the British Police want the overarching ability to access anyone's encrypted files on demand.
It is unfortunate that slogans like "Freedom isn't free." and "Live free or die." are most commonly used to justify the deaths of other people rather than to justify a personal desire to risk death in terrorist attacks in order to preserve civil liberties.
Of course, the best way to deter terrorism is to be meticulous in preserving liberty and justice. The idea that freedom and security are mutually exclusive is merely a convenient way for politicians to justify taking more power for themselves.
I see some striking similarities between our badly-misnamed Patriot act and this request by the UK police force.
This is not the sig you're looking for.
And now he has a radio show.
Isn't there some bootable CD project that makes it so you don't know your own keys? (m00t or something)
F^(k Y0^
Hah, I'd vote to hold liberals indefinitely as long as we can toss Bush in with the lot for his shitty fiscal policy and extra-leftwing immigration policy. Of course, he'll just brush up on his "Mexican" and flee to Mexico where they'll treat him like a king.
If there was a god, this would be +5 I N S I G H T F U L
It's a good thing we won WWII, otherwise we'd all be living under fascist governments now... oh wait... uh, well, at least it's a good thing we won WWII, otherwise we'd all be speaking german now!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I like TrueCrypt for Windows (http://www.truecrypt.org/)
From the website:
Provides two levels of plausible deniability, in case an adversary forces you to reveal the password:
1) Hidden volume (more information may be found here).
2) No TrueCrypt volume can be identified (TrueCrypt volumes cannot be distinguished from random data).
Just tell them you lost the key and that you still hope to find it again. Ask them to find it for you!
yeah, sorry, it was a bit of a cheap shot, couldn't resist it :-) will be funny to see what kind of moderation I get :-)
Speaking as somebody in the UK, where there's a strong belief at policy level in the effectiveness in CCTV, it will be interesting to watch how the whole thing unfolds, human rights vs demand for safety and capture of the bombers. Unfortunately I think we're going to see more laws passed giving more rights to authorities to monitor us and request information, without enough careful thought about long term consequences or issues of civil liberties. I guess that's typical of politicans generally across the planet ... though I have some sympathy for them in this situation. Hopefully some of our more thoughtful representatives will rise to the challenge and offer more measured responses. There's going to be a lot of pressure on the politicians, people are a bit shaken up by this.
It's all very fine for government ministers who travel around in limousines to tell us to get back onto the public transport. People will do though, partly out of defiance maybe but mostly because they have to, if you don't go to work you lose your job....
These new powers are crucial for preventing suicide bombers blowing themselves up again. It will help the police track down these suicide bombers BEFORE they strike again!
Monitoring everything anyone does on the Internet is a small price to pay for such a victory.
No, only possessing DRM material makes you a criminal.
So this is how liberty dies - Senator Amidala
this will only hurt regular people, who are using encryption for their own information. all someone has to do to get around this is probably rename the encrypted file to something that looks like a windows component, or some other software component. and throw it in the directory with windows. or throw it in with some software product that no one knows much about. people would think it is a data file.
better laws governing explosives.. both obtaining and storage.. would be a good start.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
If there is proper judicial oversight holding someone for 3 months might be reasonable.
I think a lot of these laws would be acceptable IF they had proper oversight and weren't abused.
It isn't so much the power that bothers me (or most people) it's the potential for abuse.
Power corrupts, lets make sure that nobody has absolute power.
At least you're not calling it something stupid like the Patriot Act. Or bullshitting yourselves by claiming to be the land of the free.
Sorry it had to happen to you folks, too.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
They should try to bring more results, not to demand more power to bring less results....
That's the precise reason the "War on Terror" is such a sham...
You can't eliminate terror to the point of "victory"
I've never once heard any definition on conditions for "victory" in the war on terror. Actually that's the whole point isn't it.. The government is waging a war where their goal is the right to define things for the people, thus creating a ruling government rather than a representative one where the people define the issues at hand.
"You want the key? I don't remember the password."
What do the police do then?
Couldn't you build a system that can take one of several keys and make it so that it will give you one set of documents with one key and another set with the other. You would have to make sure that the size nor pattern in the encrypted file reveal that there may be more real data. Basically you would have to make sure it always randomly sized the resulting output file with a randomly set seed and with large amounts of overage. The important point is that it may or may not have more than one file hidden and that the size nor pattern for any number of files stored in it is revealed by any of its properties unless you have both keys. It would take some cleverness and a lot of space but it should work.
Then they would have to prove there was a second key to go after you and you could still obey the law.
I find it quite interesting that law enforcement is so ignorant. If they push for this, all it will mean is the rebirth of plausible deniability type encyption solutions.
:-)
"Here is my encryption key(s) MR. LAW ENFORCEMENT DUDE!! HAVE FUN!!!"
What if you are unable to provide the key?
I don't think there is anything wrong with forcing someone to turn over the keys, and searching electronic information as long as it has reasonable safeguards against abuse.
The problem is when it becomes a crime to not do the impossible.
For bonus points, see if you can get the file onto the hard drive of some politician you hate.
OK, what if some pirate put data you don't even get to know about in your computer?
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
This is why systems that offer plausable deniability such as Phonebook are far more secure than just using an unlayered encrypted filesystem.
Give them the "key" then if it doesn't work: "Ah, oops must have gotten corrupted."
/dev/random" as I often use for testing things) That would not be readable and might be considered "encrypted". How can they tell?
/dev/random then deleting it and having it "recovered" by people looking for information. How would they know that it's just random data and not encrypted data?
But seriously, I find it ludicrous that they can even charge you for not handing over "encryption" keys.
What if the file really was corrupted?
What if you just have some random garbage on your drive? (output from "cat
Imagine creating one of these files from
I use an encrypted swap partition. It's encrypted with random keys, if they asked me for them there is no way for me to comply.
I also sometimes delete encrypted swap files. Lets say they look through the deleted files on my drive. Those would be considered encrypted files but I would have no way to access them.
I have encrypted data from backups I did years ago that I have long since forgot the key for. I should probably just throw it out but I'm hoping I will remember the key one day (or find the scrap paper I wrote it on, or computers become fast enough to crack it, or whatever). I couldn't give them the key for that stuff if I wanted!
It just seems insane to charge people with stuff like this. Computers are so flexible and loose it's hard to tell what is really going on. You could string innocent people up so easy with stuff like this.
Britain is much, much further down the road of fighting internal terrorists than we are. This means they've been playing the "if we only had this power, you would be safe" game for longer.
The powers they have now are far greater than those in the PATRIOT act, and they cannot provide the level of safety that we are willing to trade our freedom for.
So the next time the US gov't says "if we only had this power, you would be safe" game, remember that Brittan can't do it with that power and a lot more.
Didn't Tony Blair just give a speech about this? I thought I heard him say that "the terrorists are not going to make us change our way of life."
British, Americans, Canadians -- it appears that we are all cowards, fully prepared to give up our freedom in hope that Big Brother will protect us.
This particular flaw in the law was pointed out to the government when it was introduced.
Encrypted messages containing the details of real crimes were snail mailed to the Home Secretary, then the police were notified, also via snail mail that the Home Secretary had details of the said crimes.
Deleted
Don't worry, there is still a God, and the next president will be worse than Bush.
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
"Unceasing warfare gives rise to its own social conditions which have been similar in all epochs. People enter a permanent state of alertness to ward off attacks. You see the absolute rule of the autocrat. All new things become dangerous frontier districts--new economic areas to exploit, new ideas or new devices, visitors--everything suspect. Feudalism takes firm hold, sometimes disguised as a polit-bureau or some similar structure, but always present." --Frank Herbert
You would think the al kida mailing list members would recieve encrypted MS Word docs with directions for upcoming attacks. mailto:terrorist-members@alkida.org Look! Some more rights just went out the window!
90-days sure seems a lot more reasonable compared to the infinite time that someone can be held by the US.
Sadly, those that back and create these "knee jerk" reactive laws (patriot act, England's variation) don't have a clue that their actions are causing more people to become terrorists. In addition the direction we are going politically will LEAD to more terrorists in our OWN country. "terrorists of the state" will more then likely happen.
... well... always a goal.
Eventually we will have a dictatorship because we (well not me anyway) continue to give out leaders MORE and MORE power over our fellow countrymen. (and women)
Protect me!!! Take my liberties away!!! I "trust" you'll use them for good and protect us.
Stupid MONKEYS!!!! The lot of you... It's like McCarthy-ism... The "Burning Times"... The Inquisition!!!
Any company that tries to take MY land, like that poor guy in CT, they had better expect bullets to fly... I don't give two shits... Eminent domain is ONE thing, but that is NOT what happened there.
See, that is a classic example of "terrorist of the state"... A good citizen "turn to the dark side" because the government and/or a corporation is taking advantage of the powers you MONKEYS have given them.
The only way to beat it is to have money but that is
A quote from one of my favorite Sci-Fi shows...
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote." ~Kosh
That is what will happen. By the time the "monkeys" of this country figure out what has happened it will be too late.
Sure, I'll get modded down in a slit second here, but let's not forget that 3 months is a whole lot less than the current USA standard for unwarrantred detention without a trial. How long is that? Oh yeah - forever.
I would venture to guess that terrorists encrypt emails and other digital content related to their actions. Wouldn't you? Just because it is not in the news does not mean that this is not a problem.
Hahaha this is hilarious. Why don't you do us a favor and cut your internet wire with a rusty saw.
Plus it's also illegal to inform anyone that you've even been asked for a key.
Deleted
...not.
The British government has already shown that it is incabable of resisting the urge to abuse special powers created for the purpose of rooting out terrorism.
Does anyone remember the Guilford Four? Four people - and their families - were thrown into jail with no justification whatsoever.
They've abused these powers before, they'll do it again.
Does this really even help? They can always use steganography .
How can you read a message when you don't even know there is one?
Treaty gives CIA powers over Irish citizens
Coming soon to your shores.
-FL
In the US, if the police have a warrant to search your premises, you have to unlock anyplace they want unlocked, or face comtempt of court. Same with safe combinations. You don't have to tell them where the safe is, though!
I actually hope they get something analogous, but not "hand over the keys". They don't get to have the keys, they get to have you unlock everything they ask to see.
There's a difference.
The battle we're fighting is to keep the New World ("cyberspace") at least as free as the Old World (dirtspace). Terrorism is just the latest problem that the enemy (those who would expand government tyrrany in the name of order) can use against us.
We should allow some intrusion from the Old World into the New, lest they do something really stupid like outlaw crypto altogether.
As if a court order to hand over crypto keys means anything to a criminal, anyway. Would you rather hand over the keys and get yourself killed by your fellow terrorists/hoods/mafiosi (to whom you are loyal anyway), or refuse to hand them over and go to jail for contempt?
sigs, as if you care.
- Worked on military projects - know how to build bombs.
- Routinely use encryption to e.g. send confidential client data over the email system, most of the keys for which I have forgotten once the job was over
- Able to design radio receivers/transmitters
- Former member of religious group whose founder was associated in the minds of the authorities of the time with terrorism (Christianity).
Question is, do I turn myself in before the police come calling in the hope of not falling down the stairs in a police station, or should I just head for Afghanistan where I might even find a job?No, it's not funny. I used to visit London when the IRA were bombing regularly and, do you know, Britain didn't have these idiot laws then. They did have an idiot law that Irish Republicans could not be heard speaking on television and radio, and all it did was bring Mrs. Thatcher into contempt. And, do you know, the IRA are slowly turning into legit politicians. I am convinced that Blair is merely determined to suck Bushes neocon butt in the hope of making huge amounts of cash lecturing to Republican ladies lunch circles when he retires from being elective dictator, and as he will be (a) rich and (b) protected by the Special Branch, he won't give a shit what a mess he has made of the country. But beware, Tony. The Chileans have turned on Pinochet. And Britain has no shortage of bright Muslim lawyers. One day you too might yet end up in a war crimes court.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
"When difficulties arise and the authorities want sweeping powers to 'protect' the citizens, should the citizens give up important civil liberties for what is probably just an illusion of safety? When are you ever safe enough in these times? Maybe the citizens should stop and ask themselves how much they really value their civil liberties - just how far should you go?"
You don't have liberty without security, so what's the point of talking about preserving all your civil liberties when you're not free anyway? In reality compromises must be made to maximise freedom.
Vote for Pedro
Both parents are coming at this from the wrong angle. They are both advocating 'one steb back', or 'raising the ante'.
What actually needs to be done is to draw a line and say, "beyond this point you cannot go" I will not surrender any more of my liberties for any reason whatsoever. This must apply to all immoral laws and regulations that strip away your rights.
The root of the problem is foreign policy. That is what needs to be fixed with utmost urgency, not the lack of powers the police have to force you to reveal your private keys, or tap your phone or otherwise violate you.
Retreating into more secret and clever ways to protect your data doesn't address the problem and source pressure that provides governments a 'reason' to strip your rights away; its actually diverting engergy away from forcing government to do the right thing in foreign policy and hence, solve the entire cause for the erosion of your rights in one swift stroke.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
I mean, look at what all the millions of video cameras and acceptance of torture have done...
As long as you are having even slightest amount of random-looking data on your disk they can charge you with "refusing to hand over your decryption key"?
Sounds like the terrorists are winning. You see, a lot of these terrorists come from dictatorship/police state type locations from around the world. Their fed up, and they are tired of other nations imposing their will on them. So what do they do? They pull little stunts, like what we've been seeing on TV, to make those nations police and regulate their OWN citizens. The people of the UK are supposedly "not afraid," but their government appears to be.
You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
if(user is muslim)
{
do your thing
}
else
{
take it easy
}
Call me racist, antireligious or whatsoever, but if the UK is going to take liberties away from the people, wouldn't it be better to narrow their search so the LEAST people are affected?
I'm going to let you in on a deep, dark, dirty secret. They aren't really trying to solve the problem. Terrorism is a boon to the US and UK governments, because it gives them an excuse to push the respective nations closer to a police state.
A police state is not a consequence of misguided attempts at preventing terrorism, but is instead an end being achieved under the cover of fighting terrorism.
Remember, Terrorism is an end to a means for the terrorists, and the governments "fighting" it.
Think the war in Iraq was about Sept 11 or WMD? Think again. It was because defense contractors have well placed connections. For corporations, your life is only worth what they can get out of it. If they can sell military ordinance by getting your children killed in Iraq, so be it. Their gods are money and power, not the ones your Priest, Rabbi, Cleric, Circle Leader or anything else are telling you about. If you think I'm being paranoid, just look up corporate environmental management. Hell, just look up what Coca-Cola is doing in India.
Human life is just another natural resource for corporations. Nothing more.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Cops will always be cops.
Cops will always be nosy. Cops always want to stick their snouts in other people's business. Cops don't know about innocent people; for them, everyone is more or less guilty (for various values of "guilty" between 0 and 1).
Cops have to rout out crime, for them, there is no other endeavour worthy of any attention. Cops will always want the widest-ranging powers to do their "investigations", no matter the cost (in money or civil liberties).
Cops have no respect for "civilians", that is, those people who are not anointed with policeness. For cops, civilians are the matter from which criminals are made.
Cops pretend that they herd together to back each other up against criminal assaults; yet, cops rarely face criminals that shoot them. In fact, a locomotive engineer will kill more people through his career than a cop! No, really, cops think they are a caste above the rabble, and that for them to stop crime, they have to sift through the rabble's business.
Cops will use anything to ensnare "criminals". This is why there are laws that clearly say that you are under no obligation to talk to cops, because in their twisted ways, they will always find something to nail you down, real or imagined. And anything that looks like obstruction, like holding encrypted information, is a roadblock to their own endeavour, that is, stick their snouts in other people's business.
Cops have that paranoid attitude caused by their belief that everyone is more or less guilty. The friendliest cop will think nothing at stabbing you in the back, if he thinks you are remotely guilty of anything.
Cops have the power to kill or thoroughly wreck someone's existence. Yet, they yield this power with minimal education and training.
Here, cops have an acronym for non-cops: "FCs". As the "C" means "civilian", I'll leave what the "F" means as an exercise to the reader.
Cops despise non-cops. So, it is not surprising that in any instance, cops will look towards expanding their power of sticking their snouts in everybody's business.
They keep demanding solutions to problems that don't exist. . .
.but it might wise to wear a lot of Kevlar while you do it.
The police are using the current fears to petition for a police state.
Gee, there's a shocker. We've never seen anything like that before.
Next thing you know the military will be claiming their lives would be a lot easier with martial law and the religious leaders will be hawking theocracy for morality.
Just say "No!". .
KFG
Dear British people, there is a way to escape your oppressive government. Go here. for more information. Your rights are well guarded in that land.
OK, then what if you had the key except it was in your jacket pocket and you had taken the jacket to the dry cleaners and when you got it back, it was the wrong jacket so you went back to the cleaners and you found out that they had given the jacket to someone else and they gave you the name and address and you went there but he wasn't home so you waited for a while and he didn't show and so you went home and came back the next day and waited for hours and he finally showed but when you confronted him he said he had accidentally left the jacket on a subway train, so you went to the subway lost & found depot but no-one had turned it in and they said to try again in a week but you forgot about it and then the police detectives showed up at your door and asked for the key and you told them the story but they didn't believe you, so you said "hey is that an elephant over there?" and while the detectives investigated that you ran back to the subway lost and found and they said they had the jacket and so you took it and started to run back home but got hit by a bus and the bus kept going and your jacket was stuck on the bumper of the bus and eventually it fell off and a hobo found the jacket and it fit just right and when he searched the pocket he found the piece of paper with they key on it and he threw it away and it stuck to the tire of a passing car which just happened to belong to your neighbor and he drove home and the paper came off the tire and the wind blew it to you front door step and the detectives who were still looking for the elephant found it and didn't know it was the key but thought it might be an important clue about the elephant and put it into a baggie and tagged it for the missing elephant case and it went into the police evidence storage lock-up and somebody found it (but not the elephant) years later and realized it solved the missing key case but that they would have been complicit in hiding the key?
Who's responsible then, Mr. Smarty-Pants?
Obviously what is needed is a method for dual encrypted files. Basically an encryption/steganography combo. When unencrypted with the 'fake' key, you just get whatever text you encrypted with that key - something uninteresting like expired credit card numbers or letters to grandma and it looks like you have complied with the order. Meanwhile the real key unlocks the data you want to keep secret.
Naturally the algorithms would require that it would be undetectable that this is what you have done.
Some alarm systems have something similar. When you open the business you use the real code. When the robber forces you to open up at gunpoint you use the fake code. The alarm does turn off as expected but it also calls the police with an "under duress" alarm.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
too bad I am dsylecxic my seepling is just aufful.
hire is thee key
the pass code is "My hovercraft is full of eels."
RSA key mynipplesexplodewithdelight
here is a little test message;
Ya! Ya! Ya! Ya! Do you waaaaant...do you waaaaaant...to come back to my place, bouncy bouncy? If I said you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me? I...I am no longer infected.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Windows XP - encrypted file?
Granted it's encrypted based on a password, but anyone technical enough to know that, will also know that the password is not the encryption key, and that they *don't have* the encryption key - just the encryption key's key.
Next up - someone jay-walks, and then the police hold them for the extended period by claiming that *terrorists* jay-walk, and then ask for all your encryption keys because they wanted to strip all your pr0n collection off your encrypted external hard drive.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
I'd say they happen especially in police states. Look at the French Resistance in WWII, for example.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Profiling would violate the rights of people who might actually be dumb-bomb wannabes.
It's much safer to violate the rights of people who are probably innocent.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
dd count= if=/dev/random of=subway_bomb_plans
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
I expect that they don't. They probably know that what's only in your head is still safe from subpoenas.
Actually, it makes perfect sense.
The goal isn't to end terrorism, but to convert the democracies into police states.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
I have the same amount of proof you do.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
GWB: OK Tony, it's been over three years since I knocked down the WTC... about time for you to get your ass in gear. What're you gonna do to top that?
TB: I'll see you and raise you 10, you lowlife wanker! And after it's over, we'll pass a law that makes your Patriot Act look as toothless as your mama without her dentures!
(Not sure I got it verbatim, I was crammed into an air vent and couldn't take notes till afterwards...)
You're rebellious shouts of F C U K are pitifull, but not unexepected. History has passed you by and your country is being overrun by American culture and immigrants who refuse to assimilate and "Be British". In fact, your own citizens, nurtured and raised by your social system, are now expressing their contempt at your very society by exploding bombs in London. How impotent you must feel. So what do you do? You lash out at the United States. Not exactly a healthy response nor particularly productive, but expected.
dir c:\windows\system32d ll
wininparse.dll
TWAINhpUBET.
msls400.dll
Kinda look like OS files, don't they?
And they will, until the get flagged by the forensic software that compares the directory listings for a regular windows install to yours.
Then they become red flags, screaming for attention.
Better to make your computer look like it's infected with a known virus, and you aren't updating your definition files.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
"Your bizarre "humor" infects every avenue of communication not sullied by the right wing paranoia that drips almost intraveinously - all based on the same inferiority complexes that lead you to either worship or despise even a chip-shop lad from these parts. "
My dear British chap, did you just call AMERICAN humor bizarre? Wow. That sound you hear is my head exploding.
You have provided a wonderfully rational argument that shows the futility of addressing any terrorist style attacks with more laws . . . unfortunately rationality seems to have a very low correlation government action.
Then, if somebody demands/coerces the key from you, you can simply provide one of the alternate keys, which decrypts the cipertext to reveal an innocuous message.
Obviously the system would have to be designed such that it would be impossible to detect how many messages are simultaneously encoded, and no way to determine any one key using knowledge of any of the other keys. But it might be mathematically possible.
Has any work been done on this?
Even if the NSA can decrypt your PGP files, you have to ask yourself, would they break cover to decrypt YOUR files and testify in court? I mean, what the hell are you encrypting?
Innovate... X key looks like it unlocks the file but instead it just creates a random spreadsheet, diary entry or what have you.. How about instead the key you give to the "law" just fucks up the file so bad that it is gone? The imfamous self destruct sequence... Another thing but unrealted...how about a pin number that when you are getting jacked at the local bank limits your balance to $200 or so and calls the police at the same time? To the thief it looks like you complied...
Yes yes yes! Once again, it's the USA's fault. You do realize, of course, that business that people don't frequent fail. So that Blockbuster on the corner, that you despise, must be appealing to somebody over there.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Interesting quote that one of my friends just emailed to me. Think it really applies here.
"They that give up liberty for security deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin
A million monkeys and this is the best sig they could come up with...
What if i dont have the key, what if the key only presents itself when certain circumstances are met?
I dont know my key, I know part of it but not all. The rest uses unique infomation from hardware that is easily hidden far enough away and also easily destroyable (a-la-wireless mac addresses md5 hashes or its hardware serials md5 hashes). All this using One time pad encryption. I dont really have anything incriminiating really. Just wanted to prove to myself I could do it!
I have a password so you simply cant nick my gear and get in but you need the password hash and the hardware hash to get it, then a hash of that. And I dont know it. Not that I will be a terrorist or anything like that. Yet if the authorities come around and demand my private documents I would make good of destroying anybodies use of the data.
Then even under intense torture I couldnt give them access even if I had the password. Sounds daft. But if nobody actually knows the full key I can protect me from myself.
Oh, well - not anymore anyway.
There it is, another gratuitous government intervention into a free market. This proposal will put professional factorizers like me out of a job. I don't think that my rates are too unreasonable.
I mean hey, if they intend to make fighting terrorism easier with the demands for encryption keys, I find it highly unlikely that anyone plotting something like the london attacks, would be willing to give any keys to the police, not even the car keys. How do they think this will help anything actually?
If I was a terrorist with encrypted material about bombing or something like that and the british police demanded the encryption keys, I would rather go to jail in contempt or whatever, than 'cuz of those plans. I think the police knows this already...
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
This is a bad analogy which is why it leads to a false conclusion. Being "fit" does not imply having a strong immune system (which is the part involved when you are sick).
You could say that the real measure of your autoimmune system is found when you are exposed to infectious agents. That makes a lot more sense, and works well as an analogy to our case.
Remember that Great Britain was the first country to say in the Great Charter: No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land. Now, they have to find a balance between this and the fight against terrorism.
Bonjour !
We've already lost.
All the rest is commentary and excuses.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Or they'd be in my library records and find out that I got Applied Cryptography out of the uni library the other day and then I'd be for it -if I'm interested in cryptography, I MUST have something to hide...
Seriously, what's the point of encrypting something if it's a criminal offence to not decrypt it when someone asks you to?
Eep! gotta go - cruise missi....NO SIGNAL
FGD 135
Providing them with the facilities to access the encrypted content would therefore amount to you committing copyright infringement, wouldn't it?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Anything that you fail to mention when questioned that you later rely on for your defence can be used against you in a court of law
Police last night told Tony Blair that they need sweeping new powers to counter the terrorist threat, including the right to detain a suspect for up to three months without charge instead of the current 14 days.
and, a bit further down:
They also want to make it a criminal offence for suspects to refuse to cooperate in giving the police full access to computer files by refusing to disclose their encryption keys.
Yes, they want to hold someone for up to three months without charge even if no private keys are involved -- and that's what should get you jumping on your chair right now!.
If they want to search my bedroom, they get a warrant, and they search my bedroom. If they want to search my computer, including encrypted files, they get a warrant and I give up my key...
Laws like this have the potential to harm innocent people. Who goes to jail if n of m keys are required? You cooperate by revealing a key and naming other holders. Now what happens if these other people claim they don't known anything about encryption keys?
Every Windows system contains a few blocks of encrypted data in some places. And be it only the Windows Media Player DRM keys, or the passwort database.
Should be easy enough to hide some information in there.
An interesting problem arises if you get another worm or virus that encrypts portions of the users hard drive. Preferrably with PGP or some other program. Does that make anyone a criminal if he doesn't own the keys to the files?
--- Eat my sig.
Common leftist comeback fitting attitudes of most of them
You said it brother! When a leftie runs out of (their admittedly short list of) arguments, they always resort to namecalling. Saves actually thinking through stuff (after all, "feelings" will only get you so far in a debate).
The right's always "spewing hate" while the left is just coming up with "common-sense solutions". Al Franken says "rush limbaugh is a big fat idiot"? (Hmmm...how many idiots have $200 million contracts?) Bush is a moron? (With a Yale MBA that is.) Clarence Thomas is a "dangerous sexual predator" (and an Uncle Tom) but Bill Clinton's private life was the business of no one but him. (Don't get me started on the kind of name-calling leftist mush-heads dribble about Ayn Rand.)
""Frankly, our goal is to reduce (China's piracy levels) to zero," Gutierrez said He declined to specify a timetable, but acknowledged it could be a lengthy effort."
If that's his goal he's doomed himself to failure from the getgo. No one has been able to reduce piracy to zero. Lengthy? try impossible.
For anyone who believes this guy can make good on the above claim, I have a bridge in NY I'd like to sell you.
"They that give up liberty for security receive neither" - zmollusc
BTW, is it considered 'giving up your liberties' when you aren't even fricken consulted about it?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
If the British citizens didn't spend thier money the UK Gov't gives on the Dole (lazy bastards) the US Businesses wouldn't have any customers and no customers means they would close up and go away. Not to menton your immigration system is even MORE porus than the one on this side of the Atlantic! And this system where you get to be in the Gov't because your family has been there for 200 years since some King made him a Nobleman or something. Your country is it's own worst enemy!
Where does this get the police with their [panoptikon dreams of demanding any record of anything?
I see they have cranio-rectal inversion disease in Old Blighty as well. As much as I don't like some of the stuff you're ranting about, the consumer ultimately dictates what products and services they want. And Blockbuster isn't going to show up in your smarmy neighborhood, showed up because consumers wanted it. Wanker.
Drink tea - as it has been grown in Britain for over two-thousand years. Have one of out lovely chapatis - a native delicacy - and relax!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
So what's to stop them accusing me of supplying key B? Well they can do that, but they can't *prove* I've given key B since B could be randomly generated by the tool. I can claim (in feigned ignorance) that this is so and I've given them the key to A. They might suspect I've given them a key to B but they can't prove it. And if my benign B is sufficiently lurid that its possible I *did* encrypt it, how are they the wiser?
So they might jail me anyway but a 50% chance of innocence is still a better defence than none at all unless I hand over a key.
You guys pay taxes that goes to figurehead royalty. Whine when that gets taken care of.
If you're worried about what happens if someone decrypts your PGP files, you've got worse problems than just having your PGP file decrypted. Like maybe there's a number of gun barrels pointed at your noggin, right now.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
It's no different than any number of "wars" we've been fighting for years and years. The "war on drugs" was expanded a lot in the 90's, and it hasn't gotten us particularly far. But it sure is popular to protect the poor childrens from pron...err...drugs. Sorry, I was getting my battle of the decade confused again.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
The UK needs a 5th Amendment, such as in the US. You cannot be forced to incriminate yourself. Now, I know what everyone is thinking. That this means they can't ask for your keys. No, if the US passed this law, they could still ask for your keys. Courts have ruled there is some evidence, which you must turn over, such as telling the police/court what your name is.
However, here's how to get around this little problem with a 5th Amendment: Encrypt your key with a passphrase that is an incriminating statement by you. You can then plead the 5th Amendment.
Best thing to do is to admit guilt to the worst thing they can assume about your encrypted files. For instance, in the reference of your friend with an offshore account, store his encrypted file in your own encrypted file. Then, make the passphrase:
This f1le contain$ my illegal drug smuggling money and the loc4tion I hid the Gun after I k1ll3d a guy.
Now, doesn't matter if that's true, but just assume the worst they could come up with. The only way they can get the key now is to guarantee you immunity from prosecution for those crimes, which is the only way the court can force you to testify against yourself. And, once they do that, you're home free. It won't help your friend (his own encrypted file, inside your encrypted file, should be set up the same way, if he's smart), but it'll save your own butt. Just make sure you get state and federal immunity first!
IANAL, but I am a sneaky bastard.
I8-D
sort of like RANDs million random digits, I store large random blocks of data.
Who says they are encrypted? Care to prove?
And if forced to "decrypt," I will just claim I am using a Vernam one-time pad and my "key" just so happens to descrypt the "code block" into the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Appealing to these children, who now prefer "Kimpossible" to "Bill and Ben"...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
1. multiple bombings in UK
..
2. proposed law giving the police access to encrypted information
1. 9/11
2. PATRIOT act
1. Oklahoma City
2. a bunch of similar laws.. which were obviously prepared beforehand, just waiting for the 'excuse'.
1. pearl harbor (arguably the US had info about this beforehand)
2. entry into WWII
1. jfk
2. escalation in vietnam
For politicians willing to sacrifice any freedoms of their people, there's no limit to what they would do to put/allow their 'excuses'
-AC
Consider all citizens in public places with dark skin carrying any bags or backpacks to be extremely dangerous...contact the authorities immediately.
In reality, freedom either exists or it doesn't and isn't measured in quantities, therefore it cannot be maximized or minimized, you are simply free or you're not.
FYI, more russians died in ww2 than americans. Does that mean we should all love russia? :P
Unlike you - who manage to spend your tax dollars, not on your lazy sick people - but rather to build fanatic "mujahaddin" fighters, who later turn their bloodthirsty sights on the homes of their CIA paymasters!
Good shot. Americins seem to love Ameria so much, but express only contempt for many Americans themselves - as if there were some magical phantasm of "America" that were comprised of something other than the people dwelling therein.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
My encrypted drive password is "I Forgot It"
but seriously, my hobbies include random number generation, data compression, and encryption, as well as large number series (Pi, fibonucci, etc.); I have many very large files of apperently random data. But I also have sensitive data belonging to other people; I've worked for various laywers, a government agency, and a couple small businesses as a basic security advisor (among other jobs) not all the data I have is my own, and I don't know what all of it is (for the lawyers, my home is their off-site backup location, and I have copies of client paperwork that would send them to jail for a few hundred years, if it were all added up, but that is under attourny/client privelidge)
I guess I'm in a similar situation with ISP's; there should be a burden of proof that the key exists in the defendants possession in the first place.
Some of my hobby research includes 2/3rd's keys:
say the real key is '10100101'
generate a random number '00110111'
xor them '10010010'
then break it up into 3 sections
AB
BC
CA
A and B each have half the real key, so they can get in.
A and C have the first half, and can rebuild the second
B and C have the second half, and can rebuild the first
the problem is that A and B each have half the real key, square-rooting the brute force time.
I've been thinking about generating multiple sets of random numbers, and the result of xor'ing the key by each of them...
key: 01011010
rd1: 10100101
rd2: 00011100
rd3: 10110010
xr1: 11111111 (hmm, tried to be random, got the exact inverse...)
xr2: 01000110
xr3: 11101000
noone gets the root key, and they rotate which random/xor number they get, A gets rd1 and xr2, B gets rd2 and xr3, and C gets rd3 and xr1.
so A and B can get the key by rebuilding xr2 and rd2, B and C can get the key by rebuilding xr3 and rd3, and C and A can get the key by rebuilding xr1 and rd1.
if any one user is captured or turns traitor, their key alone will be of no help to cracking the master key; while the other two remaining users may be able to get together and re-key the data to a newly selected third user, effectivly excluding the old, captured key.
I'm sorry.. how is it again that children come about the income to pay for the rental fees? Oooohhhhh... their parents.
It's ok, here in the US we have a non-parenting epidemic as well. Oh no... I'll bet your lack of parenting is our fault too...
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Question: If the guy didn't create the file but some automated software agent downloaded it for him, is he still liable for a key he has no way of knowing?
Possibility: Perhaps keys are automatically kept in escrow so that others can get it? Maybe even the keys generated by the trussed computing platform itself? But then of course the machine's owner still doesn't have it, though if he also stored his own private files encrypted on such an untrustworthy platform maybe they can get those also without needing to even let him know they did so? Now wouldn't that be funny if the only person in the world not permitted to do with his own data as s/he wants is the machine owner? But that is a part of the problem with Trussed Computing and DRM...this bit of legal sillyness simply makes the issue even more obvious that trusted computing is about the fact that trusting the user is not.
I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight.
Well, not to diminish the importance of the Russian front, but the Russians mostly died defending Russia. the Americans mostly died retaking France and invading Germany. You gotta admit, dying to protect YOUR home is a bit more noble than dying to protect MY home.
They want to be able top hold you WITHOUT charge for a month, then when you refuse o give up your encryption keys they have a criminal charge against you? Sounds awfully suspect to me. Anyway, does the U.S. Judicial system have this power? If not, I can clearly see how they could do without it across th pond.
erin go bragh!
It's the output of my random-number generator.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
And even if they did, a simply warrant would cover them. I see no need to start taking away folks rights due to this...
Way to prove the terrorists are winning...start taking away the rights of your citizens.
Truecrypt has already solved this problem. I like this quote from the manual:
It may happen that you are forced by somebody to reveal the password to an encrypted volume. There are many situations where you cannot refuse to reveal the password (for example, when the adversary uses violence). Using a so-called hidden volume allows you to solve such situations in a diplomatic manner without revealing the password to your volume.
I'll remember that next time I'm shopping for a buggy whip.
The rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords is being phased out, once this lot is dead, that's it.
Terrorists will have no problem finding ways to hide their data or use encryption schemes that no one knows about. Giving away some "keys" implies using RSA or other mainstream encryption method. What about other methods? It's not like there isn't any. And facing a new encryption method, there could be nothing at all to give to the police. Meanwhile, "regular" citizens will lose a major freedom. When will someone in charge get a clue?
It just looks like terrorists are actually beginning to win: they are slowly but surely changing our western societies of freedom and democracy to totalitarian regimes. And we even think it's all our own ideas. Sad. Very sad.
Of course it's a sham. The government needs a way to keep people distracted so they don't start noticing all of the problems with thier own government. As long as there is a war on with something, any time there is a problem, they can either blame it on the "enemy", or as a necessary thing for fighting the "enemy".
This request by the UK police is a good example. They want to be able to force you to give up passwords, so they say that it is necessary for fighting "terrorists". Along with holding them for a longer period. Of course, they will promise not to abuse this power, but bullshit, it will get used every time they think it will give them an edge over a suspect.
As I often do these days, I find the following quote distubingly apropos:
Of course the people dont want war...that is understood. But voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
-- Hemann Goering
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
The royalty actually contribute more back to the economy (via the Crown Estate)than they take out.
Last year they put 160million back into the economy and cost around 70million. This isn't including any extra tourism benefits they may or may not bring.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Just conveniently forget your encryption keys when your arrested. How can they prove that you remember them?
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
And when suicide bombers don't give a shit about their own lives, what good (read they have no material ownership to worry about) is all going to do anyway?
Absolutely nothing.
All that is achieved is finding out the names of the suicide bombers and seeing who they are _after_ they have blown themselves and a few Joe Public to bits.
Because if the "religion of peace" was really that, there wouldn't be a bunch of sand nigger imams in England telling Blair to change the foreign policy of the UK.
Please join
Britons United against Greator Govermental Executive Reform Ostensibly From Fear
B.U.G.G.E.R.O.F.F. stands with the government! We cannot allow the morons from The Society Of dissenting Organisms For Freedom to undermine the war on terra! Please write your representative and tell him your views. S.O.D.O.F.F is an extremely dangerous organization which threatens our Purity of essence. Being an american I can only lend moral support. On that note I wish to let all Britons know that the American Society for a Secure Homeland Over Liberty and Equality is here to help!
Together A.S.S.H.O.L.E. and B.U.G.G.E.R.O.F.F are a perfect match.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Make your pass phrase self incriminating. A hypothetical example of a pass phrase might be: "I stole a candy bar from Joe's Grocery Store". Then, be sure to tell the judge that your pass phrase alone, is a statement which would directly incriminate you of a crime, and thus, you must not be compelled to reveal it.
Problem Solved.
The other problem with this, is that it's not going to compel a terrorist into giving up the password. These people are willing to blow themselves up for their cause, do you really think they are going to balk at sitting in a jail, rather than giving up information which might hurt their cause? Insted this will be used in normal criminal investigations where the police don't have enough evidence to get a warrant (or whatever the UK equivilent is), they will just force the suspect to give up all of their passwords, and then start fishing for something to pin on the person.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Do you think somebody willing to kill themselves for their cause is going to divulge an encryption key while jailed?
to have dual encrypted data? note: IANAC, so bear with me here. You have your seekrit stuff encrypted, but wait there's more! One layer is medium innocuous, the second layer is where the real stuff lives. The first key unveils the stuff that is meant to be found,if some authority figure and or badguy demands your "key". Swell, give it to them, the data gets unencrypted, they can look at it. But what if what they are now looking at is still encrypted, and in such a way it doesn't look like it? Perhaps what they are looking at now looks like data that you might be expected to have, but in reality it is from a one time pad maybe?
First they came for the catholics,
and I said nothing because I wasn't catholic
Then they came for the witches,
and I said nothing because I'm not a witch
Next they came for the jews,
and I said nothing because I'm not jewish
Now they've come for me,
and there is no one left to say anything for me.
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
How about I forgot the passphrase? Fsck them... If they want in they'll have to crack it...
I mean, if Saddam was such a problem for so long, surely we wouldn't have colluded with him...right?
Face it, you got played by the Media and the Administration.
Blar.
The Americans didn't do much protecting / defending until after _their_ home _was_ attacked.
After which they went chasing the culprits round the world with as much military force as they could.
WWII or war on terror - take your pick. Not to diminish the importance, but in both cases America only got involved because it was directly provoked, not because of some altruistic / noble motive.
Don't you guys just put a floppy in the fridge under the juice, like I do? They NEVER look there...
if you do :
USA government = bad
then surprise surprise:
USA government == bad
kidding...
But seriously, Chomsky's facts are ok. And his statements are a lot more subtle than the above. But there are different selections of facts, and there are several ways to interpret the same facts, and he'll stick to one single way till he's solidly proven wrong. Which is not easy, because he's smart and methodical. And, because you're not dealing with hard sciences here. Theories still die with their owners in this part of science.
A simple example. You can conclude that the US has done an awful lot of nasty stuff, in an absolute sense. If you contrast that with the projected public image, that's shocking. But what if you divide this amount by its geopolitical weight? It's a very big player. That doesn't change the facts, but it changes the way you look at them.
BTW, My Irish ass resents all royalty by default.
Wow, I didn't know that Michael Moore was a slashdot member!
I thought all of the "fifth-pleading" is supposed to occur during the Grand Jury phase so as not to bias the jury in the way you've just described.
Also, it applies to providing evidence others that also incriminates yourself. Like, you know about the murder because you were there doing drugs or something. That's why courts have immunity. afaik, once granted immunity, you must provide testimony/evidence or you can be held in contempt. (since the evidence you provide can't actually incriminate you any more.) but IANAL.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Truecrypt is an open-source virtual drive encrypter which offers the feature of "deniability". It lets you hide additional files in the free space of the encrypted drive, protected by a second secrety key. And it guarantees that both unused free space on a normal encrypted drive and free space used to hold additional hidden data all looks completely random regardless of the content or lack of content. Therefore you can easily deny that there is any additional hidden data, and there is no basis for anyone to say otherwise.
My backup key would be the joke that is referred to in Monty Python's Killer Joke.
Simply state publically that you're going to be placing large files of random bits on your hard drive. They're not encrypted. Ideally, you can't tell an encrypted file from a random one.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Sure seems like it - how something like this gets modded up I'll never know.
Why do they hate us? Well shit - it's not just the US/UK they hate after all! Let's compile a list shall we?
- The Russians (because of Afghanistan and Chechnya)
- The east Indians (because of Kashmir)
- The Isrealis (because of the Palistinians)
- Anyone else who dares to defy 'Allah's Will' - whatever the Imam says it is this week.
The radicalized 'religion of peace' is destoying much progress made in the Arab world. Whole governments are being held hostage by these wackjobs and there is a common thread that a lot of people from the West do not understand - it's all about control.
With Democracy, with so-called human rights, women are given more power. In radical Islam, the women have less rights than most farm animals and here's the thing: THE MEN WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. It is one of the many appealing reasons why this way of life is being defended by use of terror and intimidation at every level. It all starts (or started) at home.
When you see these videos (and yes, they were on Fox News also), you need to grasp them in context. Were these shots taken from the Sunni triangle after a few soldiers found their buddies burnt bodies strung up on a bridge somewhere? Were these people themselves intimidated to put up a fleeing suspect?
The images are never enough by themselves to tell the whole story.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
What I heard on BBC was that they were there to warn the people that there might be a suicide bomber in the area... that's the real tragedy.
And the militias have been around since the war began. Remember a man called [Shi'a cleric] Al-Sadr? As in Sadr City (formerly Saddam City) area of Baghdad? Well he has been well behaved - and kept his men from attacking both the Sunnis and US forces. He knows that a civil war is the WORST thing that could happen. WHAT THE DO YOU THINK THE TERRORISTS WANT??? THEY WANT A CIVIL WAR! Militias are NOT good for Iraq - a civil war would destroy the country - and break it apart.
The jailing of somone simply being a suspect in a crime, IMHO, is the grossest form of injustice in the world today.
As a related item, people being accused of a crime, in some cases, even lose their jobs and their lives completely ruined only to have the charges dropped later or to be found not guilty of the crimes they were charged with.
In the U.S. and other "free" countries, I just cannot wrap my wits around why this is tolerated by the powers that be and the citizenry at all.
In many ways, at least in the U.S. and, it is becoming increasingly so, if a person is accused of a crime (or crimes), a person is effectively treated as if they are guilty. Loss of jobs, families, property, etc. just going through the judicial process is punishment, to a great degree IMHO. If the person happens to have the charges dropped or be found not guilty, there is almost no recourse for the "life or property lost" as a result of the process they were put through. Lip service is paid to "innocent until proven guilty", in a very big way in this regard.
I have a truecrypt container on my system that I, I'm sad to say, have forgotten the password for. I think I'll keep it around, just-because.
If I'm "arrested" I can reference this post where I say that I've forgotten the password, so there's nothing at all suspicious about it.
Wait, did I just spoil it by adding that?
Belief is the currency of delusion.
They sort of have something like this now where you encrypt data into a jpeg or an avi. It looks like a downloaded copy of LOST (so you get sued by RIAA or the MPAA for a few grand) but actually it's plans for a nuke-q-lar bomb.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I thought you threw "their tea" away because you didn't want to pay "your taxes".
Jeremiah, don't feel bad.
The U.S. is getting it's due as we speak.
What you really need is a trip to the U.S., so you can see that your idea of the U.S., and it's corporate, staid and sterile consumerism, is both a Hollywood/Madison Ave. creation and a sad reality...
You see, the U.S. is becoming more and more a third world country everyday, and don't just blame the immigrants, blame the govt. and the korporate kulture that has 'off-shored' us (U.S.).
You see, if you look closely enough at the good ole' stars and bars on the American Flag, you will see in small print in the corner,
MADE IN CHINA
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Surely a 'quality' encrypted file is impossible to tell from a file full of random data. When you set up a encryprted file system, the first thing you do is to fill a large file with random bytes. Whats to say you got bored at this point, and never touched the file again - how can they tell you really have an encrypted filesystem hidden therein?
Increasing the amount of time that someone can be held is only vaguely related to demanding the disclosure of encryption keys. (The vague relation is a very dangerous one -- people's freedom and the encroachment of police state.) If the Government wants to lump these things together, it's an obvious power ploy and a bad idea. If either of these ideas (incarceration time, encryption) actually has merit, perhaps they should be debated seperately? Would that strategy be better, or worse, in terms of the gradual erosion of freedom. Super-laws that eliminate the normal protections of the people's rights under law are by definition a poor idea, no matter how pragmatic they seem.
Revoke the key, assuming you're using PGP. Then nobody gets into the files. I'm just spiteful that way.
It's not like this is going to help them find terrorists anyway. They speak in codewords. "Weather is fine here. Ready to deliver to market" etc. I doubt they actually bother to use encryption.
Only on
WHy do you think they call the department that hires and fires you HR, Human Resources :)
I used to have a boss that would refer to you as a resource to your face instead of hinting you might have a name or be a human being. Labor is just like raw materials and capital, stuff you feed in to corporation machinery to produce profit.
Needless to say the powers that be like both their labor and raw materials to be as cheap as possible, hence globalization of the work force so you have the opportunity to compete for a job against someone making 30 cents an hour in China.
The power that be also like their labor scared, obedient and drug free which is why police states are such a hot commodity with pro business governments like the U.S., U.K, China and Singapore. If you do it just right authoritarian states are very profitable, you just have to make sure workers don't start throwing their wooden shoes, sabots, in to the machinery(sabotage).
In authoritarian states you have no problems with labor unrest and you can set wages arbitrarily low and workers can't complain. If you look at the U.S. in the early 20th centurty, early attempts to organize labor, get a livable wage and a work week that wasn't 12 hours a day 6 and 7 days a week, were often met with guns and blackjacks from either the state or private security firms.
Thats how to to run an efficient economy.
@de_machina
But in all this consternation of you arresting me, bag over my head and all that. I totally forgot my passphrase.
Why are you hooking up that generator to two wires that go nowhere?
Oh
- -- Truth addict for life.
OMFG! What color have you painted your tinfoil hat?
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
I have mod points but I've commented.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
You don't have liberty without security, so what's the point of talking about preserving all your civil liberties when you're not free anyway? In reality compromises must be made to maximise freedom.
That's not insightful. That's just nonsense and doublespeak, and exactly the sort of confusion about "reality" that the current administration wants you to believe. You have it backwards. Such "compromises" as those imposed by PATRIOT, and the powers now desired by the British police really are demands that we give up freedom.
Anyone who tells you that giving up those freedoms will make you any safer is simply lying to you, or is tragically misinformed, or both. As long as terrorists have a will to attack people, and a willingness to die to achieve their objectives, they will sometimes succeed.
The only thing you achieve by giving up freedom is to allow 1) the terrorists to succeed in fundamentally altering the nature of our societies for the worse by giving in to terror, and 2) giving far too much power to a small group of people who now have no accountability to anyone else. Do not forget that it has been demonstrated time and time again that when such powers are granted, they -- are -- invariably -- abused. If you can't come up with examples of your own, try on the Jananese-American Internment during World War II, Senator MacCarthy, Herbert Hoover, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanimo Bay. If you want another, grimer example, look to the Argentinian Disaperado, as the path we're now treading rapidly leads in that direction.
You can't "protect" freedom by giving it up. We have freedoms only as long as we are willing to fight to protect them from the people who try to take them away from us. In this case, these demands are of far greater danger than what they claim to want to protect us against.
"Security" is not -- nor ever has been -- nor ever will be -- some concrete thing you either have or don't have. There is always an element of risk in anything we do, and in all things there is a point where we must simply resort to a certain amount of trust. Freedom does not require a "secured" society, but rather one that understands that freedom requires a certain amount of personal responsibility to be aware of what is going on in the world around us, and an acceptance that there are certain things that are sometimes, whether we like it or not, beyond our own personal control. If we are to be free, we must accept that we are adults, and that we bear that responsibility ourselves. We cannot simply hand over our freedoms to some arbitrary custodial parent or elder sibling to control us 'for our own good', and call that freedom.
To quote Benjamin Franklin, from the Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759:
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."He was right, then, and it is still true now. I would much rather maintain those essential freedoms, accepting that to maintain them does entail a certain but entirely acceptable amount of risk, rather than give them over to a small cadre of individuals who, without oversight, are empowered to remove those rights with impunity, all in the name of some false illusion of "security".
If I wanted to store incriminating evidence digitally, here's what I would do:
1) Find a friend with OS X who uses dyndns (or static IP) and exposes their machine to the internet
2) Ask to be able to use some of their drive space as backup
3) Set up an encrypted disk image over there, or just set the whole home directory as encrypted (don't know the repercussions of the latter when working with that login remotely, but that would be an interesting experiment...)
4) On OS X, you can mount and work with encrypted disk images remotely
5) Unmount when you're done and hope nothing's logged (or turn off logging for this)
6) If they ask your friend, he has the "plausible deniability" of "I gave him a login on my machine but have no idea what he did with it"
7) And speaking of which, what if this "friend" is an ISP hosting a site you own?? Are they then "aiding and abetting"?
Right. I remember when Iraq attacked the U.S. I was scared to death.
Hijackers on 9/11/2001 were mostly from *SAUDI ARABIA*. Bin Ladin attracts newcommers to his cause mainly by expressing a distaste for U.S. presence in *SAUDI ARABIA*.
We invaded Afghanistan, spent 4 or 5 months there, and basically pulled out. Then we, for no justifiable reason, invaded a soverign nation and deposed the elected head of state.
Yes, we were provoked. But, it's time to ask the two critical questions:
1.) Are we attacking the right people?
2.) Why did they attack us in the first place?
Understanding the enemy is the first step to defeating him.
sig?
It's no different than any number of "wars" we've been fighting for years and years. The "war on drugs" was expanded a lot in the 90's, and it hasn't gotten us particularly far.
It was mental conditioning for the people of the US to accept being at war without knowing who they were fighting against. When I suggested as much to people back then, they thought the name was stupid, but my fears were groundless. After all, it was just a metaphor...
By 2001, however, George Bush was politically able declare war, in the full military, non-metaphoric terms, on "terror" itself. He was going to kill *something*; he just hadn't decided who was to blame yet. The misuse of the word was no longer a metaphor: the US was going to war, and it didn't even know against who, and no one really cared. They all just wanted to fight back against someone...
So, they went to war in Afganistan, and later in Iraq, and perhaps soon to Iran, and so on...
After so many years of boring repetition, Americans have gotten used to fighting imaginary wars on abstract concepts, and the real impact of the actual wars they're fighting doesn't really sink in the way it used to. The best way to wear people down mentally is time...
1) We should've done the job right the first time and gotten rid of Saddam then. Leaving them there increases the risk that he just might so senile and start selling weapons to terrorists. The Russians came out with intelligence that Saddam was planning _his_own_ terror attacks on the US.
2) They attack the west because the US, Britain etc etc are in the Middle East preventing Osama from toppling non-Islamist governments and turning the region into an Islamist wonderland. If he did that, do you think he'd stop in the Middle East? Why not in Europe? Across the Atlantic? Russia, China, India? It might sound a little cliche but world domination by radical Islamists is the goal.
Just use the DVD CSS code to scramble your encrypted files. The MPAA will insist the police are not allowed to have the key, and if the police crack they key, the MPAA will sue them.
Um, the 9/11 guys blended in reasonably well, judging by their success.
I'm a Londoner who works for a company that makes Linux based DVRs (sorry 4 the plug!) and have been affected by the recent terrorist attacks in that some people I know witnessed the attacks, and I have been involved in the retrieval of CCTV footage.
The way the emergency services have reacted here, especially the Police, has been incredible. The quick reactions from the fire and ambulance services undoubtedly saved lives and the CCTV systems on the public transport infrastructure (not all ours btw) have provided excellent images. The speed at which the Police and related services have performed the investigation has kept the baiting, news hungry public informed, and provided reassurance that the perpertrators will be caught (or have already gone to see "Allah"!).
However, watching the news discussion programmes on TV tonight I'm disturbed by the way the interviewers on the BBC, the public transport employees, and various others are pushing for increased security measures on public transport.
Apparently the New york and London undergrounds (aka subways!) are starting random searches of people. There is supposed to be no bias to whom they choose to search. On BBC news they showed a middle aged woman who looked like Anne Widdecombe being searched on the London Underground.
As unpleasant as it may be, you have to use profiles to determine who the likely trouble-makers are. A 60 year old white lady with a posh English accent isn't likely to be carrying a bomb in her handbag. Of course the same principle applies around the world.
I believe our liberties are almost in the perfect balance in the UK at the moment (let's not go into ID cards though!).
YES, there are lots of cameras in the UK but mostly in busy public places where they are needed most. If you don't want your privacy invaded, go to your house. That level of privacy should never be taken away from you.
We've got the balance just about right here, there is no need to change any policy. The chain of command for these groups will be traced back, maybe not to the top, but the quantity of evidence suggests that significant progress will be made.
These days people have camera phones and anyone can film you without you likely to notice. Have you seen the amount of camera-phone footage from the recent bombings? In some cases it's valuable evidence, but at the same time we have to realise that we are open to having ourselves filmed without our knowledge.
Londoners need not fear the terrorists any more than the impingement of their liberties.
I used to have a boss that would refer to you as a resource to your face
Where I work, it's the norm to speak of needing "a design resource" rather than "a designer", or that "there may be issues getting enough resource" rather than "we might not have enough people".
I try not to let it bother me; sometimes I even succeed.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Get out of bed on the wrong side this morning?
America only got involved because it was directly provoked, not because of some altruistic / noble motive
That was how it used to be when we were still sane. Now, we have the doctrine of pre-emptive strike which states that we attack before you attack us, because we know that you are about to attack us...uh... someday in the future. Can you say Iraq?
By knowing the encryptiong keys of the bombers, then the police too can know the secret of the resurrection.
I would venture to guess that they speak in codes, or talk around the subject, or just plain don't send that sort of thing by mail.
Back in 2000 a couple of Acts were passed that allow various authorities the power to demand access to decryption keys; it's not like this is anything new.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Wow, how unheard of is this??? A nation is attacked, unprovoked, by a small but murderous gang of disenfranchised people previously unknown to the populace, damage is done, people are killed, and the government of said nation seeks broad new powers to defend the democracy and protect the people, sacrificing a few petty human rights that only terrorists would use anyways along the way...
Hmm, I wonder where they end up? I'll have to study up on my 1930s German history and find out!
Yes, there were other circumstances there as well, but it's just too close for comfort. "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"?
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Hell, they can't even ensure security in maximum security prisons.
Privelege wouldn't apply: it isn't an all-around exemption for criminal activities, just incriminating statements/documents relating to some legal action. It is far from infinite, and if they knew you had some documents, they could simply subpoena your lawyer too and slap him with an accomplice charge also.
Sure, unless the person trying to get your data see's a program called "TrueCrypt" in your Start menu, runs it, chooses Help -> About, goes to the website (or just Googles the name TrueCrypt) and reads all about the second hidden partitions that requires a second password.
Other than that, it seems like a very good program (sorry if that sounds sarcastic - it really does look good otherwise.)
What a blatant fucking waste of time. Do you really think a terrorist is going to *give* you his key on demand?
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
.. just keep bashing those civil rights together guys !
Sigh...
) They attack the west because the US, Britain etc etc are in the Middle East preventing Osama from toppling non-Islamist governments and turning the region into an Islamist wonderland. If he did that, do you think he'd stop in the Middle East? Why not in Europe? Across the Atlantic? Russia, China, India? It might sound a little cliche but world domination by radical Islamists is the goal.
See, that's a whole lot different than 'they hate our freedom'. You have to understand the guy attacking you before you can defeat him. Given the sort of guy you have described, we a) shouldn't have bothered Saddam, b) shouldn't be so buddy buddy with the saudis, and c) should pull out of SA just as soon as we aren't reliant on their oil.
That last point is probably the biggest sticking point, but given the massive oil sand reserves in canada, I'd pay $4/gal if it meant not buying from SA and basically cutting off the air supply for loony tune Wahabists.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
It is now illegal to refuse to divulge your encryption keys or passwords if requested by the New Zealand Police. Before this was passed (last year? Late 2003?) you were not required to incriminate yourself by being compelled to provide access to encrypted data.
Like the combination to a safe.
There are already rules about how and when the cops can force you to open your safe.
The same rules should apply to encryption keys and computer passwords since (after all) they are the electronic equivalent of putting physical documents into a locked file cabinet or safe.
I never said the response was sane, just that it was a response.
Regardless of whether or not anyone but GWB believes Iraq is in anyway related to 9-11, I'd still contend that Iraq wouldn't have been targeted if 9-11 hadn't happened.
Bin laden proved a bit too hard to get so GW thrashed around looking for what he thought was an alternative good/easy/daddy-hates-the-guy-anyway target.
Without 9-11 he wouldn't have been looking for targets at all - in fact at that time he looked more like he was pursuing an isolationist policy.
Sources please on the Russians with strong evidence that Saddam was planning his own terrorist attacks. It really seems like you're smoking some good crack man because if what you're saying is true, Bush and Co. would be milking that cow until it died.
As for point one, you're probably one of those freaks who thinks the same thing about Vietnam. How many dead bodies must stack up for you to change your mind? I guess if we nuked North Vietnam, we might have taken the fight out of them. Nothing like an apocalypse to make the other guy see we're going to keep to the course.
A reminder: the UK is still a monarchy. We still have an "unwritten" (i.e. nonexistent) constitution. And we don't have rights, we have privileges that haven't been revoked yet.
:(
True, most of the time we behave as if that isn't the case. Maybe one day we'll even abolish the monarchy and repeal all those dodgy laws. Sadly, the majority of britons actually seem proud of our bizarre and repressive heritage, so that probably won't ever happen
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
This is the way it has been in Australia for ever. We are required to provide our keys if directed by warrant - wo don't have the luxury of the right of non-self-incrimination.
One answer is to use Steganography software to give plausable deniability. With a program like DriveCrypt you can have an encrypted file or bootable partition with two keys - One, that you can hand over to the police unlocks some harmless (but seemingly sensitive) files like pr0n the other which you don't disclose unlocks your real data.
While the Police can see an encrypted file it can be unlocked with the first key and they cannot prove the second key exists.
Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
From context, I'm assuming that the "soverign nation" to which you refer is Iraq and the "elected head of state" is Saddam Hussein.
Let's look at the election that last confirmed Saddam's status as an "elected head of state" (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2331951.stm ). He was the only candidate and he got 100% of the vote according to Iraqi officials (which appears to be a significant improvement - as in the prior election he had only gotten 99.96% - perhaps the 0.04% that previously voted against him were, shall we say, "unavailable" to vote this time?). Doesn't this seem a little suspicious to you?
It does make me wonder, where did the crowds that were so eager to pull down his statue not that much later come from? Did they really vote unanimously for him? Oh, perhaps they were American soldiers in disguise?
(News flash - KIM Jong Il was reelected leader of North Korea in 2003. Oops, he was the only candidate also. He must be VERY popular if no one even thinks they should run against him).
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
As I understand it, encryption works through software using a given algorithm to convert a given (readable) set of data to an unreadable form. The person encrypting has a key they could use to decrypt the data into a readable form.
Could software be written with the following functionality? I specify the jpeg I want to encrypt (say a picture of me in leather with a rose between my teeth which I use as my profile on a sadomasochism site), specify the encryption algoritm to use, specify the key, and lastly specify a decoy jpeg (say a pic of a rose).
The software then provides me with an encryped file which can be decoded to the original using the key I specified, and it also provides a key which, if used, will convert the encrypted file to the decoy jpeg.
"If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments." Earl Wilson
I never said the response was sane, just that it was a response.
Huh? I was agreeing with you about the response to prevocation while at the same time making the point that it is not that way anymore. I happen to believe that the previous doctrine of attack only when attacked was sane. I think we are totally in agreement here. Sorry if it came off differently.
i think the far more disturbing portion of this is the request that police be allowed to hold a person for up to 3 months with out charge. Similar things have been done in the past. If you do not find this alarming, you should watch the movie "In The Name Of The Father". It provides a reasonably accurate portrayal of how police used (then) recently granted powers to to hold Gerry Conlon and others for extended periods of time, with out charge, and used that time to force them confess to a crime they did not commit.
3 months would give police enough time to force almost anyone to confess to nearly anything, even without the person's encryption keys. Although they would certainly have enough time to beat those out of the suspect too...
Goodness.
Your parents get you an internet connection for your 15th birthday and now you have a vehicle to express all of your idiotic opinions.
Except of course, they are not your opinions at all, are they? You've just been watching too much Fox news.
-- Karma: Bad. Fucking stupid slashdot mods
It was.
There are at least 10 posts claiming that liberty and security aren't related, including the Franklin quote. This is nonsense. How can you consider yourself free if you can't even walk out the door without worrying about someone taking your life? The one function most rational people can agree a govt.'s job is, is to make and enforce laws to protect individual rights. These include life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Now if your govt. is unable to protect your life, your individual right is jeopardized. Therefore a rational person must make choices that curtail his liberty in order to minimize risk to his life. Liberty, therefore, has been compromised, and freedom lost. Note: quoting a famous person who says something is so, doesn't make it true.
Vote for Pedro
"...actual people involved in the investigation sometimes have to move very, very quickly. It's almost like those guys need a judge on some IM device, willing to help them out in the field if it comes down to that."
As any plumber knows, a pipe is usually secure; it's the joins and the open ends that leak first. Therefore, legislation is a rather obvious cracking tool. This is true even in the U.S., where 5th amendment "guarantees" are a presumption of guilt and are actually unavailable for use by parties who would NOT otherwise incriminate themselves. In other words, you may not invoke the Fifth unless you WOULD incriminate yourself. Law is what the Supremes say it is, and bears no resemblance to anything you may have learned in grade school. Law is a rubber hose.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
How about making an encryption utility that can take multiple encryption keys (one or more) and you can save multiple files (or folders) with each encryption key all in one place. So if someone makes you give your key at gunpoint, you give them the dummy one(s) and tehy will get the dummy files decrypted. Rest won't be decrypted because the key for those wasn't entered.
Yer Wife doesn't just use a skillet?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
" I agree; bin Laden is being assisted by a lot of people. Now why do you think that is?"
For the same reason Hitler was followed by normally well-adjusted people. He's formed a cult of personality and moves a lot of people to do bad things in his name. He has his reasons for hating the U.S., but apparently he loves our money and technology.
Bin Laden has (like Hitler) found a way to tap into the cultural and religous strengths of Arabs and twist it into something horrific. America has done NOTHING to warrent these types of attacks on innocent civilians.
I saw you equate Bush with Bin Laden in an earlier post and I can only think that you'd also agree that Camp Gitmo is somehow comparible to Soviet gulags and Pol Pot. Give me a physical break!
Do the country a favor will you? Put away your hatred (which is really fear) for G.W. and think what's best for the country. I think the DNC will find that they will win elections again when they learn how to do more than criticize and whine.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
That essentially allows them to take you in whenever they want, as long as there is something called "data" in your possession.
Let me explain...
Suppose your friend Terry R. Ist offers "I'll let you borrow a music CD from my collection if you let me borrow one of yours."
"Okay," it sounds reasonable to you and you pick out a disk.
Now suppose the disk contains data Terry didn't tell you about. You enjoy the music on the disk but don't notice the data is even there because your CD player automatically skips over that track.
Then, the authorities (or the rather less authorized authorities, as the case may be...) come in to your place and find this disk, get in a huff and then demand something called the "decryption key" from you. They may question, pressure, shout, torture and jail you, but, of course, they will not extract it, as you couldn't possibly know it, and may not know what decryption is, for that matter, as you may not even own a computer.
So, even if you are a perfectly innocent person, it sounds like you would still have to worry about whether you will get that unwelcome knock on the door.
That said - the one mistakenly accused on Thursday/Friday has already been released - so not even taking the 14 days they could have.
I'd have not liked to be that person though.
As an aside - the pictogram thing below came up with "plebeian". Nothing to do with Debian is it?
It's not nonsense at all. You simply still miss the point.
How can you consider yourself free if you can't even walk out the door without worrying about someone taking your life?
How? Because I'm a rational individual who has an active, reasoned, carefully considered view of the world. Because I'm not ruled by childish fears.
Because I understand and acknowledge that the world is an inherently dangerous place, and when I walk out the door I'm not constantly grippped with fear and _don't_ constantly worry about someone taking my life.
Every time I get in my car to drive anywhere, it entails risk. Someone might run into me, and I might not be able to do anything about it, and it might kill me. Every time I get on an airplane, it entails risk. There may be a simple mechanical failure that causes it to crash and kill me. If I go for a walk, or even stay home in bed, there's still a risk that same airplace might just happen to fall out of the sky and kill me. (Notice here that I mention mechanical failure, not terorrists. Mechanical failure is much more likely. And even then, it's still safer than driving my car.) If I try a new food, there's always a small risk I might be deathly allergic to it. If I'm bitten by a misquito, there's a small chance it might carry Blue Nile Virus or Bird Flu, or even Malaria, and that might kill me. If I go to a restaurant, there's a small chance that a food worker has hepatitis. Eventually, something is going to happen to me, and I'm going to die.
And, none of that makes me any less free. I'm just adult enough to acknowledge that that's just the nature of life itself, and that no one can change that, 'the government' no more than anyone else.
As for people agreeing that the government's job to make and enforce laws to protect individual rights, I'd suggest that while that's a noble and laudable sentiment that I wish were true, that it is a bit naive, and a bit of a misunderstanding of how law works in the every day world. Laws don't grant or protect rights. Laws restrict rights. Even the US Constitution, or the French Rights of Man, or the Constitution the EU is still debating, don't grant or protect people's rights. They acknowledge that they are inherent to life. If your premise was true, for example, rather than having all sorts of ballot initiatives in the US attempting to ban gay marriage, or, even worse, idiots who want to amend the Constitution to attempt to deprive people of their rights, US lawmakers would be following the lead of more enlightened countries such as Canada and Spain to pass laws to protect gay rights. Wanting the right to marry someone they love, and have that union legally recognized certainly looks like pursuit of happiness to me.
Lawmakers are sadly, often irrational, and no good laws have ever come as a kneejerk reaction to a significant and tragic event that is then rushed through on a groundswell of passion or fear rather than reason.
If your government is unable to protect your life, your individual right is jeopardized.
That's part of the point all of us have been trying to make, that you haven't yet grasped. The government isn't able to protect your life. And no matter how many liberties you give up, it never will be able to protect it. People (not just terrorists, but anyone) don't need guns, or knives, or explosives to hurt you or to kill you. Someone could stab you to death on a bus with a ball point pen. Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to carry pens on buses? Or, with a little training, they could break your neck with their bare hands. Does that mean that in order to use mass transit, we should all be handcuffed? But wait, then they could still strangle you with the cuffs.
Do you understand the point? Everything is about intent and opportunity, and being able to recognize and take advantage of events.
Sure
The Crown Estate, worth more than £5 billion, is unique. Almost £185 million was generated for the Treasury and therefore the taxpayer, last yearPlus as I said; any tourism benefits as well as being a bunch of people trained since birth to be ambassedors for the UK.
Royals cost Britain £37m a year (not including security costs)
Not that I necesarily agree with them myself but the cost of them is a poor argument for binning them. The £30million is but a drop in government buckets anyway...I had a discussion previous with an attorney friend of mine and even now if a court orders you to give your encryption keys and you dont, they can charge with contempt. Frankly I give give a shit. I dont do anything illegal, and it is my personal property, not theirs. Since when did it become a crime to have privacy? I am not above the automated destruction of the computer itself to ensure they get nothing permanantly. Things just keep getting worse... for their sake they better watch whos toes they step on.
While much of US law derives from English Common Law, and much of the US revolution was about Englishmen in North America wanting their rights to be respected the way Englishmen in Great Britain often had their rights respected (but often had them violated as well). And the "Right to remain silent" phrasing comes from the Miranda decision in the mid 20th century - the right was inherent before that, and the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution clearly indicates the right not to testify against oneself, but court insistence that the police remind you of that before beating an answer out of you, and not letting them use evidence collected if they didn't do it, is relatively recent.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Welcome to the new Patriot Act America.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
There are too many crypto systems out there that use persistent encryption keys when they don't need to. RSA's fine for sending somebody blind email, but if you're setting up a session, e.g. SSL or SMTP transfer, the right choice is to use a Diffie-Hellman key exchange to create a temporary session key, and use RSA/DSA/etc. signatures on the DH keyparts. That means that your persistent keys are only used for forgery prevention, not for encryption, and the keys that were used for the actual encryption aren't stored past the end of the session, so you've got nothing to hand over to the cops, and you can demonstrate that to them if they insist.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
My family has a long history of service in the military, everyone of them who is still alive is sickend by how the ideals they fought to protect are being set aside.
Basic human rights apply to ALL, deny one person those rights and you set the stage for those rights to be denied to ALL.
I wonder how many people will babble about "Tinfoil Hats" without reading the other replies to the parent post.
You seem to assume that corporations have your best interests at heart, and seem to have a rather rosy view of human nature. I hate to break it to you, but corporations do not have your best interests at heart. All they care about is making money, and your life doesn't really mean anything to them.
Just watch the news for a while. You'll see a lot of corporations treating human beings like any other commodity, like cattle or tin.
My favorite current example is not even related to the Iraq situation or the "War on Terror."
Just do a Google search for Coke and India and . Take a look at that situation, and see what Coke's Indian divisions are going to the water table, and the industrial waste they're selling as "fertilizer." Do some reading on the history of the situation, and tell me you'll ever drink Coke again.
I'm not going to waste breath with platitudes. I'll just ask you to take a look at the actions of corporate America. You'll quickly see that, to corporations, your life isn't worth any more than what they can get out of it.
Hell, take a look at the heat Costco is taking for paying their employees a decent salary and offering great health benefits. Despite being one of the five largest retailers on the planet, and despite growing like a week, Wall Street is ripping them a new one. Analysts think the company could increase it's margins by paying it's employees what Wal-Mart pays them, and raising their prices. In other words, their stock value is being challenged because they aren't treating people like cattle or horses.
You might want to do a little research and read a few newspapers before you start throwing around lines about tinfoil hats.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Ok, first off, the parent was mostly about government, not corporations. It mentioned what a boon terrorism was for government, and that they were purporting the violent actions.
It THEN tied corporations to the boon. No, I do not believe corporations have my best interests at heart. Furthermore, I don't see any reason they should have my best interests at heart. A corporation is in business for one thing, and one thing only... profit.
That some corporations turn a profit by exploiting is a terrible shame. That most corporations realize that if they do turn a dime by exploiting people will mean that, upon people's realization of said exploitation, they will no longer be profitable, is reality.
That someone would suggest our government is creating the terrorism to turn a few pennies is absurd.
And I'd rather be weaing rose colored glasses than peril sensitive ones.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
I thought that the fact that Iraq was a target was well documented even before the elections. At least that's what transpired across the pond (sorry no referebnce, speaking from memory, I recall reading this all over the place at some point).
I think the 11th of sept was just a convenient excuse to finally attack Iraq (for some obscure reason, presumably to have a stronghold in the midst of the mess of conflicting people that is that region nowadays, although that's a personal interpretation).
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Obviously, it impossible to lock things down far enough to give real security
To end terrorism, we should heal the root causes rather that fight the final consequences.
Or maybe we don't really want to end terrorism ?
Maybe we're better off living in a world at war, making hudge profits selling weapons, stealing and wasting all of the planet's natural ressources ?
The door that has the best lock is the one that can safely remain open .
With that aggravating beauty, Lulu Walls.
I think you are missing the point a bit.
Let's say you have kids. I kill you. Then I provide your kids with good education and your wife with financial and other support and what not. When they criticise me for killing their father/husband, and I say: "Well, what I did is in the past, and it was bad, but what has that to do with the fact that my caring of you now, and you're better off?", wouldn't you think that that was utter bull, hypocritical and outright vile? EVEN if they would truelly be better off without you, it wouldn't excuse what I did, and it wouldn't justify my actions.
Well, that's what I think of your (similar)response about invading Iraq too.
About the 'killing terrorists': the parent poster was being ironic, in case you didn't got it. He was alluding to your fallacy of "why do you support Saddam?", when it's not about supporting Saddam at all. One can be perfectly against the hypocrisy and the foreign policies and warmongering and imperial dellusions of the USA, without that meaning one is "supportive of saddam".
And actually, no: people in the first place want to make sure they and their family survive. All things necessary (as in: essential, such as food) for that will be on their top list. Freedom is not on that top-list with the majority of the people. And apart from that, what they got now is not freedom, but the uncertainty of comming back, when they leave their house.
As for 'now living better', as seen in material terms, this is blatantly untrue, and only shoved up your brain by the typical one-sided USA media. The truth is, as another poster already explained, that Iraq was one of the most prosperous countries in the Middle East. They had far better working roads, electricity, water, etc. then they have today - at least *before* the war, the sanctions and this latest occupation occured.
But ofcourse, if you're the cause of the total destruction of the infrastructure, it's easy to say you ameliorated it, afterwards.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---