Slashdot Mirror
Merely Cloaking Data May Be Incriminating?
n0g writes "In a recent submission to Bugtraq, Larry Gill of Guidance Software refutes some bug reports for the forensic analysis product EnCase Forensic Edition. The refutation is interesting, but one comment raises an important privacy issue. When talking about users creating loops in NTFS directories to hide data, Gill says, 'The purposeful hiding of data by the subject of an investigation is in itself important evidence and there are many scenarios where intentional data cloaking provides incriminating evidence, even if the perpetrator is successful in cloaking the data itself.' That begs the question: if one cloaks data by encrypting it, exactly what incriminating evidence does that provide? And how important is that evidence compared to the absence of anything else found that was incriminating? Are we no longer allowed to have any secrets, even on our own systems?"
What about using a rare file system? If I want to put all of my stuff on ZFS and the FBI can't read it will they ship me off to Gitmo?
"Are we no longer allowed to have any secrets, even on our own systems?"
Why do you even have to ask? As private citizens we arent allowed to hide anything from the government. Its labeled as obstruction of justice and we get tossed in the can if we dont cough up the keys. Even if we have nothing to hide.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Absent any other damning evidence (other concrete evidence found at the defendant's house, financial records at banks and such pointing straight to the suspect, witness testimony, etc), the prosecutor is pretty much fscked if he thinks a jury (dumb as they may be) is going to buy any counter-argument to even a halfway cogent alibi. Everyone knows that Windows is insecure. Everyone knows someone who got a virus. Everyone knows that identity theft is a Bad Thing(tm).
Sorry, but I somehow don't see how a whole case could hinge on just one bit of evidence: "well, he has an encrypted filesystem, and he keeps invoking the 4th/5th amendments(?) in order to not unlock it, so you must convict..."
Then there's the whole "evidence of absence is not absence of evidence" bit.
Not much left to be useful after all that...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
And the police expect total control of any given situation. Whenever one does not cooperate with the police, the police no longer is in total control and will take whatever measures are necessary to regain total control.
Adding those two points simply will make that anyone who hides stuff from the police is automatically an ennemy that has to be controlled at once.
As a matter of fact, one cannot never win against the police. In a courtroom, yes, maybe, but not against the police.
So the obvious solution is that everyone should perform maximum obfuscation/encrypting of data, the idea being that one cannot jail a whole country.
Yes, the 4th applies until you are ordered to by a judge. ( you cant just turn down a search warrant when the cop is at the door waving it at you ). Once the judge hands down the order you dont have a choice, unless perhaps you try to plead the 5th, and i still bet that wont apply if you refuse to hand over 'documents' that were authorized to be seized by the warrant..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
While languages DO evolve over time, simply using a phrase incorrectly is not evolution, even if the mistake is common.
Furthermore, when you start multiplying the meanings that a word or phrase can have, you start reducing its usefulness. When it cannot make a specific idea clear, in contexts where the meaning may be ambiguous one now has to use even more words to get their idea across.
Anyway, this specific mistake has been pointed out many times on slashdot. Zonk really should know better by now.
There is no promise of Privacy in the Constitution, and even if there ever had been, we'd have ground that right down to a bloody stump by now with the growing power of technology on one side and the exploding power of government and big business on the other. It's hard to even say that in a world with accelerating technology and the ability to grow weapons of mass destruction in your own garage or basement, that there isn't some justifiable need for privacy to give way to greater security.
That said, Govenment and big Business have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they cannot be trusted to wield the power of absoute intrusion with intelligence, dignity, or even a modicum of good taste. Microsoft is planning to turn your personal computer into their data tap in your home, a private spy on your desk... and what about our government, just today, four men falsely accused of murder in Boston by the FBI (two of whom died in prison and two others who spent 30 year behind bars), just got record making settlements of $102,000,000.00 for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. Are these really the folks you wants to be watching every atom of your transparent life day in and day out? God help you if it becomes in their political or financial interest to have you made into "Soylent" (pick a color.)
So if we're going to live in a transparent society, where every person is;
- Videod from the time they leave their front door to the time the get back in the evening,
- Having every network packet they send or receive deep scanned for content, ownership, recipients, and legality,
- Running a computer with hardware and software providing virtually total exposure to data collecting agent both benign and malignant,
- And ultimately where every appliance, every room, every space will be filled with intelligent sensors recording every action, preference,
habit, activity, and affiliation that any of us might have,
then we are clearly far overdue for the creation of a new Bill of Rights. We must begin to think about the implications of our technology, and how the clear and unbridled abuse of that power by a loathsome few endangers all of us. If the world is to become transparent, then we must be assured that the eyes that see us, are fair, impartial, and dedicated to the sanctity of our humanity, and our dignity. In short those eyes cannot be human. They can be programmed by humans (who are themselves seen transparently by all), so that the tools that insure our safety, our comfort, ease, and efficiency, aren't used against us by greedy, power hungry, or despotic men. The temptation for misuse is simply too great, we must relenquish the process of watching people to ever smarter machines who have been programmed to act in our best interest. We need to make the breaking of these laws or personal protections prunishable by the most draconian measures. We need to watch the watcher and perhaps even watch those. We need to give people the blessings of infinite information without robbing them of every last shred of their humanity.In the end, this may indeed be the greatest challenge of the twenty first century
So, according to the morons on that court, even if you haven't actually encrypted any data, the fact that you had the tools to encrypt data was enough to judge criminal intent, sort of like possession of burglary tools. The problem, of course, is that encryption software has legitimate uses.
I wonder if any of those judges had Microsoft Office on their computers - if they did then they possessed encryption software and could be viewed as having criminal intent.
"I think this is a perfect question to ask."
/. I didn't RTFA before shooting my mouth off.
I agree, technically speaking all data is "encrypted", it's the strength of the encryption that varies. Are we to assume that if forensics can't understand it then it is automatically incriminating? - That's nothing short of "guilty until proven innocent", under that policy the suspect can be locked away until he gives the investigators the non-existant key to unscramble the random sequence of bits found in the free sectors of his HDD.
"Also, The linked article...."
As is the custom on
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.