Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOJ: We Can Force You To Decrypt That Laptop

Posted by samzenpus on from the show-us-everything dept.

betterunixthanunix writes "A mortgage-fraud case may have widespread implications for criminals who use cryptography to hide evidence. The US Department of Justice is pushing for the defendant to be forced to decrypt her hard drive, claiming that if they cannot force such decryptions, law enforcement will be unable to gather important evidence. The defendant's lawyer and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have made the claim that forcing such a decryption would be a violation of the defendant's fifth amendment right not to self-incriminate. The prosecutor in the case has insisted that the defendant would not be forced to disclose her passphrase, but only to enter the passphrase into a computer to decrypt the drive."

110 of 887 comments (clear)

  1. I don't recall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "I'm sorry, but I don't recall my passphrase. I guess the stress of this case has made me forget it!"

    If it works for the DoJ it should work for us...

    1. Re:I don't recall... by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Informative

      If it's anything like the movies, a search warrant allows police to search property by any means necessary. So no, they can't force you to open a safe, but they can certainly force the safe open (which, for a safe almost any private citizen can afford, is not terribly challenging.) The thing about encryption is that it isn't so much a "safe", it's more analogous to a private citizen having their own moon on which to store valuables. Getting access to it isn't a matter of will, its a matter of effort (years and years of crunching, even for a massive supercomputer.) As long as the only way to unlock the encryption is in your head, they can't legally force it out.

    2. Re:I don't recall... by JonahsDad · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I'm sorry, but I don't recall my passphrase. I guess the stress of this case has made me forget it!"

      Wow! That actually is my passphrase.

    3. Re:I don't recall... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing about encryption is that it isn't so much a "safe", it's more analogous to a private citizen having their own moon on which to store valuables.

      It is more akin to speaking and writing everything in your own private language, and forcing the police to determine how to translate that language.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:I don't recall... by Znork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to TFA, yes, you can be obliged to hand over the key.

      With regards to encryption it's an old problem that's solved by using multiple pass keys; the one you hand over decrypts something reasonably embarrassing like your tranny porn collection, while the real key decrypts the actual material you want to hide.

      So trying to force people into divulging encryption keys is just asinine; it will merely lead to widespread adoption of readily available methods to defeat it while failing to accomplish the desired goal.

    5. Re:I don't recall... by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 2

      And outlaw secure Internet-based monetary transactions? Yeah, that'll go over well...

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    6. Re:I don't recall... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 5, Informative

      That pesky constitution is why. For that matter, the supreme court has already ruled on this issue. In the US you cannot be forced to give up a password. The DOJ can bitch all they want, but it's already a settled issue.

    7. Re:I don't recall... by JabberWokky · · Score: 3, Informative

      Being jailed for contempt doesn't last forever in the real world. Once it's clear it's not going to be forced, that's the end of being jailed. I'm not sure where you got "seize all your assets", as I've never heard of that happening, even in cases where the witness gets chained because they lunged at the judge (you see some odd things working at a courthouse). Not related to contempt charges for lack of testimony, at any rate.

      That said, the whole question here is if you can be forced to give up your password. If not (if it's like a safe combination or the location of a storage unit), then there is no "crime of failing to give up your password". No judge can compel you to give it up. If they can't access it, they can't have it. Plain and simple. The question here is if a password falls under something that can be compelled, like a warrant to be able to walk into your bedroom and search because somebody said they saw you hide something in there (i.e., with cause), or if it's something more akin to compelling somebody to tell you where you put something, which the court can't do.

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    8. Re:I don't recall... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      Burning the note would be obstruction of justice.

    9. Re:I don't recall... by MikeyO · · Score: 2

      If it's anything like the movies, a search warrant allows police to search property by any means necessary

      Actually, if it is anything like the movies, a quirky, slightly overweight, but cute computer genius that works for the feds will type 4 or 5 keystrokes, then the computer will flash lots of semi garbled text while emitting cute little beeps for 10 or so seconds until the encryption is broken.

    10. Re:I don't recall... by hey! · · Score: 4, Funny

      The thing about encryption is that it isn't so much a "safe", it's more analogous to a private citizen having their own moon on which to store valuables.

      It is more akin to speaking and writing everything in your own private language, and forcing the police to determine how to translate that language.

      Actually, it's like putting the evidence far away and making the police fetch it in your car, only they have to hotwire it because you don't give them the keys...

      Yeah, I know it sucks, but at least I *tried* to put it automotive terms.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re:I don't recall... by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      You dont know that the safe combination itself is non-incriminating, thats an assumption. Alot of safes have self setting combinations, what if i set my combo to be my decryption password??? And to be clear, no one can be FORCED, they can only be asked. Have we forgotten about 'the right to remain silent'?

      --
      Good-bye
    12. Re:I don't recall... by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      You cannot be held for life in the USA. Dont be retarded. The longest term ever was 14 years, and honestly the judge should be shot for it.

      --
      Good-bye
    13. Re:I don't recall... by Totenglocke · · Score: 2

      Wait, you mean the US occasionally still uses the Constitution? I thought that had been outlawed years ago..... huh, who'da thunk?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    14. Re:I don't recall... by idontgno · · Score: 2

      The fact that a judge can hold you in contempt doesn't mean what the court ordered is Constitutionally permissible. A sufficiently power-mad or "law-and-order" judge might order you to testify against yourself in the most explicitly unconstitutional fashion and then clap you in jail for pleading the Fifth, and you'd be there in jail until someone took the case to a higher authority (perhaps a Habeas Corpus appeal?).

      That's the distinction between "can" (is capable of) and "may" (is permitted to).

      In other words, being jailed for disobeying a court order is not proof that the court order was valid, only that the judge has the power to hold you in contempt. Being in jail doesn't always mean you were wrong.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    15. Re:I don't recall... by JASegler · · Score: 2

      No not forever.. The record so far is 14 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick

  2. not fair to ask you to rat on yourself by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    hey, if you did something wrong and would be going to jail, why the hell help them even more? either way you go to jail, right?

    they won't KILL you if you don't unlock your encr. stream. they will lock you up either way.

    so don't give it to them. you cannot be forced to hang yourself.

    fuck the DOJ.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:not fair to ask you to rat on yourself by Skapare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's what the 5th Amendment is about ... you don't have to do their work for them.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:not fair to ask you to rat on yourself by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You shouldn't need to be forced to clear yourself either.

    3. Re:not fair to ask you to rat on yourself by Svartalf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, NO, they are not allowed the privilege to "not agree".

      If you invoke the Fifth in a criminal case, discussion STOPS. On the spot and there is NO further questioning allowed. Regardless of whether it's a State or Federal Court, per the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifth.

      If you invoke the Fourth and can PROVE that they violated that one, Case DIES on the spot. No further discussion, all evidence that stems from the improper warrant action must be discarded and is forever usable. Again, this is regardless of whether it's a State or Federal Court.

      Now...what remains is whether this court deems the forcing you to decrypt things is a violation of the Fifth. Personally, I see it as being so. It's making you potentially incriminate yourself- which is PRECISELY what the Amendment was intended to prevent. It's irrelevant what form that self-incrimination takes. If they don't "see" it that way, you can bet your bottom dollar it'll be appealed right up to the Supreme Court because it's just that- a direct violation of the Fifth as much as forcing testimony out of you on the stand or in a police interrogation room.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    4. Re:not fair to ask you to rat on yourself by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      contempt gets you the joys of an indefinite stay at jail. Until you comply or they finally accept that you aren't going to.

    5. Re:not fair to ask you to rat on yourself by VGPowerlord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In addition to what anyGould said, pleading the fifth will likely be used against you in court.

      I probably don't need to mention that pleading the fifth makes you look guilty as hell.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    6. Re:not fair to ask you to rat on yourself by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      the supreme court will save us?

      what century did you come from??

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:not fair to ask you to rat on yourself by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      people and privacy rights come first.

      'solving crimes' always comes second.

      we have ignored or forgotton this in our insatiable need to find 'bad guys' and seek vengence.

      better that some bad guys go free than even 1 innocent man get locked up.

      core american principle.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  3. Unfortunately.... by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From TFA:

    Much of the discussion has been about what analogy comes closest. Prosecutors tend to view PGP passphrases as akin to someone possessing a key to a safe filled with incriminating documents. That person can, in general, be legally compelled to hand over the key. Other examples include the U.S. Supreme Court saying that defendants can be forced to provide fingerprints, blood samples, or voice recordings.

    That sounds like a rather spot on analogy. Sounds like precedent is against her. The argument that the passphrase, itself, is the incriminating self-testimony seems really weak, both because the passphrase is not being required, and because the passphrase is not, in the end, what will incriminate her.

    IANAL, of course.

    1. Re:Unfortunately.... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On the other hand, decrypting data amounts to interpreting evidence for the prosecutor. Suppose the defendant had been using secret code words, known only to her and her co-conspirators; should the prosecutor have the right to compel her to explain those code-words? What makes AES any different, other than the fact that it is a well-designed and difficult to crack cipher?

      The argument that the police will be unable to gather evidence if criminals use encryption is just as weak, considering the techniques they have developed for defeating such measures:

      http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/crypto-spy.pdf

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Unfortunately.... by idontgno · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Me too, but EFF's perspective is also useful, and forms a valuable distinction:

      The Fifth Amendment generally protects a person from being compelled to give testimony that would incriminate her. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 34 (2000) (Hubbell I); Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 408 (1976). The privilege is limited to testimonial evidence, or a communication that "itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate[s] a factual assertion or disclose[s] information." Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 210 (1988) (Doe I). Put a different way, the privilege protects the "expression of the contents of an individual's mind."

      (Quote from EFF's amicus brief, emphasis mine)

      So, while you can be compelled to surrender a physical object (the key to the safe, in the previous analogy), the 5th Amendment is specifically is about something in your mind.

      If the "locked safe" in the previous analogy is not locked, but hidden, can a defendant be compelled to disclose its location?

      As to the DoJ's "end run" based on the principle "don't tell us, just type it into the computer".... would the 5th Amendment not apply is a defendant is compelled to type self-incriminating testimony into a computer instead of speaking it to a law-enforcement officer?

      The DoJ, IMHaUO*, hasn't got a leg to stand on.

      *In My Humble and Uneducated Opinion... IANAL, after all.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    3. Re:Unfortunately.... by ClubPetey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Simple solution, just make your pass-phrase "IKilledAGuyIn1998@Work!"

      Not only does it meat the requiments of a strong password. Your pass-phrase WOULD be incriminating evidence, and they cannot get you to reveal it.

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
    4. Re:Unfortunately.... by batquux · · Score: 2

      My password is: "I will never tell you my password!"

    5. Re:Unfortunately.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Geeks tend to think that logical technicalities will work in the legal system. In reality, they tend not to.

      A judge will look at the logic, the evidence, and your reputation/disposition and make a judgment about how credible your explanation really is. If this is some old encrypted file you haven't accessed in years, the judge will probably give you the benefit of the doubt. If you've had a documented injury and medical witnesses testify that memory loss is common in such cases, the judge will not impose sanctions on you. But if this is an encrypted volume that you clearly accessed frequently, and had every intention of accessing in the future, the judge will likely not be persuaded into believing that conveniently you forgot the password for no particular reason. Your story will be even less credible if you're a nerd or geek who has a reputation for paying attention to details, remembering minutia, and setting up a properly secured system. It is simply not credible to claim that you forgot the password (without a good explanation). It's possible, conceivable... but not likely and certainly not an iron-clad defense.

      Judges do not take kindly to BS explanations, and will probably find you to be in contempt of the court.

      I'm not saying that this is right or how the law ought to be. I'm just saying that thinking up conceivable excuses is a far cry, in our modern legal system, from actually evading a court request.

    6. Re:Unfortunately.... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      Being required to enter the passphrase into a computer that the DoJ controls is exactly the same as being required to give your passphrase to the DoJ. There's no difference. Hell, what it boils down to is: Don't give me your passphrase; just enter it into this computer which I control. How many Slashdotters would balk at that? Hopefully most of them.

      There are any number of ways that the DoJ could get your passphrase if they wanted it, and were permitted to demand that you enter it onto their computer - a keyboard dongle, a software keylogger, a hidden camera showing the position of your fingers - even just a hidden microphone could be used as there have even been programs written that can do acoustical analysis to determine which keys were typed. They might even be able to do a plaintext attack on the encrypted data using a decrypted file. Not that any of that would matter, anyway - they don't need your password any more once the data is decrypted.

      If you're required to type your password, you've just given it to them, for all intents and purposes.

    7. Re:Unfortunately.... by haystor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If only judges dealing with lying politicians took the same dim view. The "I don't recall" defense works particularly well for politicians, even under oath.

      --
      t
    8. Re:Unfortunately.... by dougmc · · Score: 2

      That sounds like a rather spot on analogy. Sounds like precedent is against her.

      Did you read the next paragraph? They gave a number of precedents that were for her.

      The point is that this could go either way, and the story did try to give both sides.

      The argument that the passphrase, itself, is the incriminating self-testimony seems really weak, both because the passphrase is not being required, and because the passphrase is not, in the end, what will incriminate her.

      IANAL, of course.

      Traditionally, defendants have not been required to assist in any manner in building the legal case against them. Giving up the password assists.

      Your home can be search (with a warrant) without your assistance. Your brain cannot -- at least not yet. (And be very afraid of what the courts might rule if we ever do have the technology to read people's memories!)

      As for the argument that "the passphrase is not what will incriminate her", using that argument we could require that murder suspects tell us where the body is. After all, it's not the location of the body that will incriminate them -- it's the body itself.

      Really, what it boils down to here is that analogies aren't going to solve this. The issue isn't so complicated that the courts need an analogy to simplify matters. Instead, they'll simply rule on which is more "fundamental" -- our right to not self incriminate, or the prosecutions right to get needed information.

    9. Re:Unfortunately.... by brit74 · · Score: 2

      > "So, while you can be compelled to surrender a physical object (the key to the safe, in the previous analogy), the 5th Amendment is specifically is about something in your mind."
      So, what you're saying is that the DOJ can compel someone to hand-over the key to a safe, but if that same exact safe had a combination lock, then the DOJ would be powerless because they can't ask you for the numerical combination that would open it? Seems like a bizarre distinction.

      > "If the "locked safe" in the previous analogy is not locked, but hidden, can a defendant be compelled to disclose its location?"
      It's not a hidden safe. The DOJ knows *exactly* where the hard drive is and that it contains data.

    10. Re:Unfortunately.... by sconeu · · Score: 2

      Let's say I've written my incriminating evidence in Klingon. The prosecutor doesn't have access to anyone who can read Klingon. Does he have the right to force me to translate said evidence for him?

      Similarly, encryption translates English text (this is the US we're talking about) into "mumbo jumbo". How does forcing me to translate the "mumbo jumbo" into English differ from the Klingon scenario above?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    11. Re:Unfortunately.... by zill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Let's not forget about politicians' all-convenient "I'm not obliged to recall that fact." exception either.

    12. Re:Unfortunately.... by Bysmuth · · Score: 2

      Put a different way, the privilege protects the "expression of the contents of an individual's mind."

      I thought this was the most interesting quote from TFA because it raises the question of what exactly constitutes an individual's mind. I once read a philosophy paper promoting a school of thought called Active Externalism that says that the interaction between a user and an object or interface can constitute a kind of distributed cognitive system. From the open-access Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

      [A]ctive externalism asserts that the environment can play an active role in constituting and driving cognitive processes. Hutchins (1995) argues that the successful completion of a typical commercial flight requires complex interaction between the pilots and the instruments in the cockpit. He claims that an adequate analysis of the task would need to treat the whole distributed system as a cognitive system with memories, representations, and cognitive processes that extend outside the pilots' heads. Clark and Chalmers (1998) is a widely-discussed defense of active externalism. In one argument, they introduce a thought experiment where someone with Alzheimer's disease has to rely on a notebook to retain information and find his way about. Clark and Chalmers argue that because the notebook plays an active role in the cognitive life of the patient, its contents actually constitute some of that person's non-occurrent beliefs, and so these belief contents are “not in the head”.

      Given the extent to which we rely on our laptops - calendars to help us remember where to be, photos to help us remember the past, etc. - I wonder if a laptop wouldn meet this qualification. If so, maybe the contents of the laptop actually constitute the individual's mind in the first place!

      (I'm not saying I really believe this is true or that there's any chance a court would ever buy it, just that it's an interesting thought experiment.)

    13. Re:Unfortunately.... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      If it's a combination lock the DoJ is free to hire a lock smith to open it up. They are trying to do an end run because opening it up is an expensive and long process. They have the data they are free to attack the crypto. Fact is it could be decades before they do that successfully.

      We have swung way to far into the governments need for info.. The end runs around spousal protects for the mob cases were the start of the land slide (your supposed to be able to confide in your spouse similar to doctor/lawyer privilege they started threatening them with conspiracy if they did not testify).

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
  4. Search And Seizure Explained - They Took My Laptop by tdc_vga · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a presentation discussing the issue of force password disclosures and laptops I gave at DefCon 17: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibQGWXfWc7c

    Check the law and make up your own mind.

  5. The EFF's argument makes sense. by FoolishOwl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am no lawyer, but the argument that this is a fifth amendment issue seems strong to me.

    How is allowing the defendant to keep the password private a meaningful concession? The password has no value if the hard drive has been decrypted.

    1. Re:The EFF's argument makes sense. by Matheus · · Score: 2

      ...mostly because of the worst abuse of passwords: She probably uses that password elsewhere and having the information in the public domain could potentially lead to more of her life being exposed than what's required for the case.

      This is just another good reason for not reusing passwords.

    2. Re:The EFF's argument makes sense. by CeasedCaring · · Score: 2

      But she is being asked to enter the password, not share what the password is. So she can tell her lawyer, who will go over to the laptop and type it in without anyone looking. Thus its unlocked, and the police don't know the password.

      Unless of course the police installed a keylogger before making their demand ^H^H^H request.

  6. Still violates the 5th by zooblethorpe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The prosecutor in the case has insisted that the defendant would not be forced to disclose her passphrase, but only to enter the passphrase into a computer to decrypt the drive."

    That would still seem to violate the 5th amendment. The relevant text is bolded below:

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Anyone of more legal background care to comment?

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
    1. Re:Still violates the 5th by aardwolf64 · · Score: 2

      She's not being compelled to be a witness against herself... The hard drive is a piece of evidence that is in effect a "witness" against her.

      It's like you're hiding a dead body in the trunk of your car... and you've modified it with a special lock that cannot be forced. This is the equivalent of them getting a warrant on searching your car, and you being forced to come up with a key.

    2. Re:Still violates the 5th by chipwich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. Your analogy is part of the problem. The DOJ and Feds have subverted the concept of innocent until proven guilty into If you're not doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to hide.

      By setting up your analogy with the statement that there is a dead body in the trunk, you've already presumed guilt, nothing any civilized society should be doing.

      What kind of a crime can be committed where the only access to incriminating evidence lies in the mind of the accused? We're entering a dangerous era of thought-crime. Why doesn't the DOJ just apply some random permutation on the data so that it generates some unrelated and arbitrary but incriminating documents?


      TL;DR - Law enforcement should either do better detective work to find evidence without relying on the accused to provide it, or save taxpayer money, cut the whole "democracy" shenanigans, and just use false or forced confessions.

    3. Re:Still violates the 5th by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      It's like you're hiding a dead body in the trunk of your car... and you've modified it with a special lock that cannot be forced. This is the equivalent of them getting a warrant on searching your car, and you being forced to come up with a key.

      Actually, it's not quite. RTFA, because they are not insisting that she provides the key to unlock the car/hard drive, instead, they are providing the option that she can type in her password, (keeping the passphrase secret) to unlock the drive and then allow access to the police. I'm not sure how one proves the chain of evidence at this point.

      But, back to the car analogy, what if your defense is that your car was stolen and modified after the theft? What if your defense on the computer is that a prior owner (or a virus, or someone who did some maintenance on it) left behind the compressed folders? The problem is that providing the key or even just unlocking the encrypted folders provides the information that you were aware of the folders and their contents.

      The article doesn't say whether or not juries will be told that she unlocked the drive, which is another material detail.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:Still violates the 5th by joebagodonuts · · Score: 2
      You have already concluded there is a "body" - and therein lies the problem.

      Much of the discussion has assumed the guilt of the accused. The correct principle is presumption of innocence. The accused should not be compelled to provide assistance, especially to parties who are already looking to convict.

      It's not like the Prosecution wants to find proof of innocence. It's better for them to secure the conviction

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    5. Re:Still violates the 5th by smartr · · Score: 2

      There is no such thing as a physical lock that cannot be forced. Warrants don't force you to give a key up, they give cops permission to do whatever is necessary to search. I don't see how a warrant requires anyone to help the police do their work. Anyhow, what if you don't have a key to your unbreakable lock? Should you be compelled to reveal who does? I plea the 5th... I plea the 5th... I don't know it. I don't have it. The criminal I paid has it.

    6. Re:Still violates the 5th by jittles · · Score: 2

      Except that there is no such thing as a special lock for a trunk that cannot be forced, or bypassed. And besides that, if you can decrypt the drive then you have shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is your drive. You have in effect incriminated yourself, if there is incriminating data on the drive. So even if they do not get the password, they can show a video of you decrypting the drive to the jury and say "See! Only the person who put the data on here would know the encryption key!"

  7. Re:Self-Destructing Key by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    obstruction of justice.

    probably that's what they'd say.

    but which would you rather 'deal with' - that or the fact that they successfully stole your soul? so to speak. forcing someone to unlock their most private journal is a sign of an evil state.

    I am under no obligation to comply with the illegal and unconstitutional wishes of evil leaders or states.

    but you may have hit on something: if they raise the anty and sell the idea to the public that they are now 'forced' to unlock their journals, I do expect to see more 'destroy on tamper' seals on things.

    tit for tat. hey gov, you really want to fight your own people in this way? re-think that, guys. this is not a fight you want with the geek population. we actually outnumber you!

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  8. Torture anyone? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why do US authorities not just torture people to get the information they need? Wouldn't that be more effective and convenient?

    Oh wait...they already did in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo...

  9. Unlock a safe by grahamm · · Score: 2

    If you have a safe with a combination lock, can the authorities legally require you to either tell them the combination or unlock the safe? The passphrase to allow access to an encrypted drive is equivalent to the combination of a safe, so the same rules should apply.

  10. Taking a leaf out of the UK's book by Geeky · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sadly this is taking a leaf out of the UK's book. I say sadly, sad that we got there first on this sort of nonsense. It's a crime not to reveal passwords when required to do so. It's part of the Regulation of Investigatory Power Act 2000 (look it up!)

    If I recall someone demonstrated the stupidity of it by sending an encrypted file to the then home secretary. He was then in possession of a file that he could not possibly decrypt, but it would be a criminal offence for him not to supply the passphrase to decrypt it if required to do so. In other words, a law that he could not possibly obey no matter how much he wanted to.

    Despite this demonstration of the stupidity of the act, I believe it still stands.

    --
    Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
  11. In the UK... by BandoMcHando · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... they already can.

    (Legally compel you to reveal crypto keys or render the relevant information intelligible that is. Well, you could refuse, but that's an offence obviously. Section 49 of Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIPA)).

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/49

  12. Interpretation by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "The prosecutor in the case has insisted that the defendant would not be forced to disclose her passphrase, but only to enter the passphrase into a computer to decrypt the drive."

    I can see that there is a difference between forcing the disclosure of the password and being able to read something that is already decrypted, however I can't see how that wouldn't still be self-incrimination. I assume the police would either bring her to the evidence room and tell her to enter the passphrase, or they would simply demand that she deliver an un-encrypted copy of the drive. Either way they are forcing her to give up evidence that may be used to incriminate. This seems to be a seriously frightening precedent to set.

    They would never be able to take someone accused of murder and say, in effect: "look, we KNOW you did it, we just lack all the evidence needed to convict. You are now ordered to show us every place you visited on the day in question, including where the body is hidden."

    -d

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  13. Papers and effects by Compaqt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whoever said that you have to arrange your papers and effects in such a way that the government can understand it?

    Does this also apply to paper documents?

    Are you not allowed to write your thoughts in a coded manner?

    Is it also OK to use euphemisms in your diary?

    Is it the government's position that you also have to interpret your diary for the prosecution?

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  14. Re:Self-Destructing Key by Psx29 · · Score: 2

    I'm thinking along the lines of two-factor authentication that requires a USB key or other external device which could be set to erase itself.

  15. "I forgot" worked for alberto gonzales by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    sounds like the best course of action is to say you forgot your passphrase. Problem solved.

    1. Re:"I forgot" worked for alberto gonzales by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 3, Funny

      What if your passphrase is "I forgot"?

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:"I forgot" worked for alberto gonzales by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 2

      A part of the 5th amendment defense is against self-incrimination.

      It is a distinct point of evidence that you have the passphrase to an encrypted (and incriminating) file. Your best course of action is to not affirm that you have a passphrase to that file.

    3. Re:"I forgot" worked for alberto gonzales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, because when faced with a pervert who likes to torture you just for his own pleasure, that will really make him "believe" you.
      (And make no mistake, most people are like that. All they need, is an excuse to validate it. Like from an "authority". If you don't believe me, you haven't been in a POW camp.)

      Gonzales would have spit out whatever you wanted him to say, had he been attached to electrical wires by his junk and a steel Christmas tree up his ass. Or whatever other horrible things they do nowadays.

      Unless you destroy the key before his eyes, nothing will get you out of the questioning. Words will be worthless. Proof will be ignored.
      No matter what, nothing will get you out of the pain.
      Because if they know they can't get what they want, they will only hurt you more.
      There is no way out. All you can do, is repress reality, wait until it's over, and hope you're still alive by then.
      Or kill the bastards at the first chance you get. (Yeah, that includes you, DO(in)J!)

      One thing is clear: The USA is NOT a democracy. And this is as much the department of justice, as Miniluv is the ministry of love.

    4. Re:"I forgot" worked for alberto gonzales by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

      Alberto Gonzales didn't forget, the guy flat out lied. There was an infuriating exchange in Congressional testimony between Sen. Schumer and him that flat out showed he was lying and smiling about it the whole time.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  16. Re:Self-Destructing Key by lobsterGun · · Score: 2

    They will have cloned the drive before they let her anywhere near it.

  17. xkcd has this covered by tag · · Score: 2

    http://xkcd.com/538/ Their mistake was waiting until it got to trial. Now this method is harder to use.

  18. DOJ encryption policy by slshwtw · · Score: 2
    Here's the DOJ's FAQ on their encryption policy: Basically they are asking developers to create encryption software that has a government backdoor, and for corporations and individuals to use it voluntarily. They seem to think that:

    Many criminals will use encryption that permits access by law enforcement, if that is the type of encryption that is commonly used and included in over-the-counter software

    Because criminals buy their encryption software at Best Buy...

  19. Re:Self-Destructing Key by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

    new password tech: the model you have in your mind, on how to vary the password based on current date and time and the matching code in the auth-modules.

    there, fixed. there isn't 'one' password anymore, it varies based on when (maybe even where, if you can pull that off). maybe even based on other things: how many times its been booted or something. some variable that raises the bar beyond static passwords.

    not needing those DES cards, but still having a varying password that is coded in your system and also in your mind.

    slightly better: every user (who wants stronger protection) takes the source code, changes something, compiles and then deletes the source. you keep the secret of the algorithm only in your mind.

    again, goverment: you really want to declare war on your geeks like this? this cannot end well, for both sides. please reconsider. we want peace and to be left alone with our privacy. why is that fundamental human right SO DAMNED HARD for you gov types to understand?

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  20. TrueCrypt FTW by brunes69 · · Score: 3

    This is why anyone serious about security uses TrueCrypt or other encryption systems which have plausible deniability built in. If she was using TrueCrypt, she could give them the password they are looking for, without revealing ANYTHING about what is actually on the drive.

    1. Re:TrueCrypt FTW by BosHaus · · Score: 2

      One counter to plausible deniability from their perspective could be this though: For instance with full disk encryption, they can look at your router/dhcp/etc logs and see that physical computer has been on the network. When you enter in your plausible deniability password you end up booting an OS that hasn't been booted in 4 months. I think they'll call bullshit.

    2. Re:TrueCrypt FTW by Skapare · · Score: 2

      Or it can be an OS that is made to look like it was booted when the real one was, and erase the code that sets that up (the real OS restores it). It could just be a copy of the system parts of the real OS but not the data.

      Or maybe only the /home and /var parts are encrypted (or whatever equivalents exist on some-other-OS).

      Be sure to keep some normal adult pr0n in the bogus area.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  21. Re:Self-Destructing Key by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Begun, the clone wars has.

  22. True plausible deniability by madhatter256 · · Score: 2

    I read an article to truly protect you from self incrimination, because regardless of who you are, you will be "forced" to give up your pass phrase or "willingly" decrypt the HDD. With this set up, you can 'willingly' give up your passphrase but for the 'dummy' partition and they won't be able to tell that there is a hidden partition because the space available will only show that of the dummy encrypted partition, not the whole HDD. Unless, of course, they take out the HDD and see the capacity, but you can go further and print out a fake a HDD label with a size similar to that of the dummy encrypted partition... This article is a great how-to on truly protecting yourself.

    http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/create-hidden-partition-truecrypt-7/

    --
    Previewing comments are for sissies!
  23. Re:Warrant's Work? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure why, with a proper warrant, this shouldn't happen.

    For the same reason that you cannot get a warrant for someone to tell you the location of a dead body.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  24. Re:Self-Destructing Key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "No, that really is the password, the file(s) must have gotten corrupted. What did you do to my laptop?"

  25. Re:This is an easy decision. by BosHaus · · Score: 2

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#United_States Actually, they can hold you until you provide what they want it seems. They held one man 14 years for contempt of court.

  26. Re:What if the passphrase is typed in wrong? by gknoy · · Score: 2

    ... unless someone followed even the remotest bit of common sense and made a copy of your drive before asking you to decrypt it. Trying to self-destruct the data is both futile and a VERY fast way to get either an obstruction of justice charge or get nailed with contempt of court. Better to let the lawyers fight it out.

  27. Re:Self-Destructing Key by cfalcon · · Score: 2

    What you describe is not possible in any way.

    An "encrytped hard drive" or an "encrypted file" are both the same thing: a very very large number. When the government took possession of the medium that stores that number, they then permanently know it. It's a series of 1s and 0s, and they have it for sure, definitely, it can never be altered. So whatever procedure you have in mind is like saying, what if the number 8 simply decays in September. It doesn't make any sense.

  28. OK, so here is my simple question by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How do I prevent them from adding anything to the system after it is in their possession.

    If I turn over my key to the encryption I want a method to ensure than anything they use against me was put there by me, not by them afterward.

    Can that be done?

    After all, if they are willing to force an issue you can be sure some will make sure something is wrong. Its not like the current Administration is concerned about the rights of its citizens, they are making Bush Jr look like a staunch civil liberties advocate

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:OK, so here is my simple question by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      You can't do much against an arbitrarily corrupt process, particularly if the corruption extends to the court of appeals or all you have is a narcoleptic public defender; but digital forensics cases are(for exactly the reason you described) typically handled fairly carefully.

      The drive containing evidence will be cloned through a "hardware write blocker", a device designed and certified to ignore all ATA/SATA/SAS/SCSI/whatever commands that have the potential to modify data on the drive, and only allow readback. All actual forensic examination will occur on the clone or clones, and the expert witness who did the analysis would(in theory) be in deep shit if he fabricated evidence and lied about it in court(which could be detected by, say, your own expert witness calculating hashes for all the data structures on the original disk, and demanding to see the hashes for the "incriminating" material from the forensics.

      Obviously, there are ways around that, and more ways if nobody is much paying attention, or somebody really wants to take you down; but it isn't as though they just turn the computer on, tell the PD tech guy "Now, don't you be copying any kiddie porn onto that computer" and then leave the room...

    2. Re:OK, so here is my simple question by jpmorgan · · Score: 2

      Chain of custody. Evidence tampering isn't something that was suddenly invented after computers became popular, in case you never watched the OJ Simpson trial. Credibility of evidence is something trial lawyers know a lot about.

  29. Plausible deniability by xded · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or you may use a plausible deniability system. But in doing that you may want to be reasonably sure that no data leaks exist, or you may find yourself in an even worse position.

  30. Re:When Can They Force Decryption? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do they have to show cause first or is this a new tool in the arsenal of the TSA?

    You guys need to get your government departments straight. This is NOT the TSA. The TSA are the ones at Fargo International Airport who x-ray your flip-flops and make sure you're not taking nail clippers onto an airplane. They're not tasked with searching your laptop - They're only tasked with X-raying your laptop and your kid's teddy to make sure there isn't a bomb inside. If they suspect criminal activity they have to call the police.

    The US CBP (Customs and Border Protection) *do* have the right to search the contents (i.e. files) of your laptop when you are entering the USA. They can search your laptop, search your luggage and search your person. In the same way they can require you to open a locked box that you might be travelling with, they are require you to open your 'locked' laptop. The courts have backed them up - See: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10172866-38.html

    So don't get TSA and CBP mixed up - They're different.

    [Insert dozens of obligatory Slashdot posts here about TrueCrypt "Plausible Deniability" here.]

    Finally, note that this article has nothing to do with airport or border security - It's about a court case.

  31. SQUIDS - maybe 10 years away? by Smallpond · · Score: 2

    So once the technology is available to directly read someone's thoughts, I assume they will allow the same argument. You can't be forced to say what you're thinking, but you can't stop them from looking inside your head because the evidence is there.

  32. Two things by mlwmohawk · · Score: 2

    "I don't recall" work great for Ronald Reagan. I'm sure there is precedent that it is acceptable under oath.

    Second, and this is a technical solution, we need a forked compression system, where two different passwords give you two different sets of contents. Where encrypted data looks like empty space on the faux system. When the faux system is engaged, the encrypted data is destroyed. Hopefully one uses backup.

  33. Couldn't it be said . . . by ToddN · · Score: 2

    Strictly speaking, couldn't it be said that the data in an encrypted volume technically exists only in your mind?

    I possess a hard drive full of meaningless bits, that reasonably can never be brute forced. There are no documents there, no .jpg files, no audio, no video.

    The 30+ character key to reconstitute those bits into something readable resides only in my mind.

    Therefore the act of decrypting the volume technically involves the creation of those files anew.

  34. Re:When Can They Force Decryption? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

    from the TSA to a cop in a coffee shop, to force decryption.

    Again, that's my point. The TSA are *not* LEOs - Even if they have nifty badges on their shirts. They're no more an LEO than the security guard outside a Wal-Mart. If they suspect a crime, they need to call over an LEO. The cop in the coffee shop is an LEO, and yes, once he had a warrant he could compel you to type in your password, in the same way he could compel you to open your safe.

  35. Re:Self-Destructing Key by mmcuh · · Score: 2

    Not if your adversary just copies the data and decrypts it elsewhere.

  36. Contempt of Court by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope the defendant doesn't give in. Personally, I'd rather sit in jail on contempt of court charges than go to big boy prison for whatever the state were investigating me for. At least with the contempt of court charges, I run the chance of becoming a cause celeb for standing up for principles, which is way better than being convicted of a crime.

    I got into an argument about this very case with my (non-American) girlfriend the other day. She honestly doesn't get the fifth amendment and assumes that anyone who invokes it is basically admitting guilt, which isn't the case. She's from central America. You would think that people down in that part of the world would have some recent memory of unjust laws. Just because something is the law, doesn't make it right, and it is better for all of us that we keep the fifth amendment intact for cases when the law is not just than to violate it just so that someone can get convicted of fraud, murder or anything else.

    1. Re:Contempt of Court by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

      You seem to think the purpose of the fifth amendment is to allow the guilty to evade justice. Not so buddy. Fifth amendment is also closely related to obstruction of justice. You can not destroy evidence. You can not refuse to hand over evidence. Only thing you can do is to refuse to help the investigators decode and link the evidence. Also you get the right to any exculpatory evidence (evidence of you innocence) in the hands of the prosecution. Seen in totality, requiring the decryption of a hard disk is nothing more than the requirement to open you office safe.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  37. At a minimum, Miranda will need a rewrite by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

    Now that compelled testimony (prohibited by 5th amendment) and compelled speech which may be used to obtain evidence, have suddenly become two different things, Miranda warnings will have to be reworded.

    "You have the right to remain silent," will have to change to "You have the right to withhold information which may be used against you, but do not have the right to withhold information which leads to other information which may be used against you." And that's just a first draft off the top of my head but probably still doesn't work quite right.

    It's going to take a lot of lawyers working a lot of years to rewrite Miranda, I think. And somehow I doubt it'll be comprehensible when they're done.

    Law is too complex for humans.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  38. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  39. Oops. I forgot it. by blair1q · · Score: 2

    What password?

    I bumped my head when you put me in the police car. Can't remember a thing. Other than my 5th Amendment right to give you nothing you can't find on your own.

  40. Re:When Can They Force Decryption? by element-o.p. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...and yes, once he had a warrant he could compel you to type in your password, in the same way he could compel you to open your safe.

    Well...that's still to be determined by the courts.

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  41. Re:When Can They Force Decryption? by pluther · · Score: 5, Funny
    What are you talking about? I've seen lots of movies with hackers in them. It never takes more than a few minutes to get through any security.

    Perhaps the problem is that the graphics they're using to crack the password just aren't fancy enough...

    --
    If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  42. Re:When Can They Force Decryption? by Unequivocal · · Score: 2

    Exactly! Wow, I'm deep into the comments before anyone has started talking sense! The whole article is about the legal issue as to whether or not the courts can compel you to reveal your password. The courts cannot force you to testify at your own trial, and the question here is whether disclosing your password is tantamount to testimony (IANAL).

  43. Re:When Can They Force Decryption? by s73v3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Fifth Amendment wouldn't stop you from the contents of a safe for which a search warrant was obtained, so I don't see why it would be any different for an encrypted drive.

    Remember, you're not being asked to incriminate yourself. You're being asked to produce an unencrypted version of a drive that is already known to exist, just like you would be asked to provide the contents of a safe that is known to exist. How you actually go about doing this (letting the DOJ crack open the safe, or giving them the password) is irrelevant.

  44. Password = Confession by The+Other+White+Meat · · Score: 2

    Your password should be a direct admission of any crime you are actively engaged in. Your password could then be used under a "fruits of a poisonous tree" defense.

    --

    --- Generation X: The first generation to have SIG lines inferior to their parents... ---
  45. My take on it by Dyinobal · · Score: 2

    My take on it is simply this, the knowledge they need is in the defendants head, giving or otherwise providing that knowledge self incriminated and thus goes against the 5th amendment. The police can ask you where the bodies are buried but they can't make you tell them. Something in someones head is always protected under 5th amendment laws as far as I'm concerned.

  46. Dear DOJ by swamp+boy · · Score: 2

    Dear DOJ,

    Each step you take like this causes us to take one step closer to a revolution.

    Sincerely,
    Cranky citizens

  47. Re:Self-Destructing Key by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

    Did you even bother to read anything on that link? Blaming an entire org for one or two loudmouth racists would be like saying all of us southerners like to spend our weekends lynching anybody that isn't white.

    I have several friends and family that have been in the military and I can tell you they take their oath to the constitution VERY seriously. Read the link, see what they are fighting for. you'll see they simply want to uphold their original oath which wasn't to a single man but to the Constitution of The United States of America. Frankly I think we need a lot more people like that, that are willing to risk everything for what they believe in.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  48. Re:When Can They Force Decryption? by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 2

    Well, it's happened.

    --
    Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
  49. Re:When Can They Force Decryption? by wshs · · Score: 2

    They are incompetent because they have no evidence, not because they can't crack encryption. If the entire case hangs on the ability to decrypt digital data (which really has no verifiable chain of custody), then the prosecution isn't doing that great of a job.

  50. Re:When Can They Force Decryption? by berzerke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...the police will open it...

    There is the big difference. You didn't have to do or say anything. Same for say a blood sample or DNA sample. You don't have do (or say) anything to provide it. They do all work. But in forcing you to decrypt, they are forcing you to take action against yourself. That's self incrimination, and that's a violation of the fifth amendment.

    Not that it will help much when most judges think they are above the law. Case in point.

  51. Re:When Can They Force Decryption? - Wrong by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

    "The courts have backed them up ..."

    Wrong, in the general sense. The courts can force you to reveal your passwords, only in cases where they can already show that the encrypted data contains something illegal. They do NOT have the right to force you to reveal your password or decrypt your data just so they can find "evidence".

    The article you point to in that link failed to emphasize that the customs agents had already seen child pornography that was contained in his encrypted data. Therefore, they already knew that there was illegal material in it.

    The courts have NOT supported forcing someone to reveal encrypted data under any other circumstances.

  52. Re:When Can They Force Decryption? by nabsltd · · Score: 2

    It isn't that they can't get competent people to crack an "electronic safe", the problem is that the electronic safes are exponentially harder to crack than the physical ones.

    So, what you're saying is that if someone designed a better physical safe that was much harder to crack, it would be OK for the police to demand that you open it?

    Eventually, this ends up as "well, it's just so darn hard to prove people are guilty, so let's just find ways we can throw them into jail without any effort on our part".

  53. Re:When Can They Force Decryption? by arth1 · · Score: 2

    Now, that case says that he was being compelled to release a decrypted version of the Z: drive, which they had already seen exists. To me, that isn't any different than compelling someone to open a safe which is known to exist.

    The obvious solution is to make it illegal for the prosecution to use any evidence they have not specifically requested to see, and which would be irrelevant to the case. I.e. if they find evidence for a different crime, it can't be used if the person first pleaded the fifth regarding the contents. So then the prosecution has a choice between (a) saying yes to getting the evidence through compelled disclosure, but knowing they can only use what's requested and not prosecute for, say, murder they discover as part of that investigation, or (b) say no to a compelled disclosure, and either do without the evidence or break into it themselves, in which case they can use any information they find there.

    Seems simple enough, and guards the fifth, so I bet it will never become reality.

  54. Divorce Court! by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    Wasn't there a case in NY where a guy was getting a divorce and refused to give over his account numbers where he stashed all his loot as he didn't want his wife to have any of it.

    The judge basically said he was in contempt of court and could stay in jail until he felt like sharing that information.

    He stayed in jail in protest in contempt of court for like 12 years before I think they finally released him (or is he still in jail, I have no idea).

    This seems like a very similar issue.

  55. Re:When Can They Force Decryption? by Savantissimo · · Score: 2

    But if you have not admitted that it is your laptop, or have not admitted that the encrypted file is yours or that you know the password, then they are asking you to divulge information - perhaps not the password itself, but the information that you know the password, that the data is yours. You cannot be forced to testify to any of these facts. This is why you should not say anything at all when asked questions by government officers, even if the questions seem harmless. (Don't lie, either - that is a crime in itself.)

    --
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  56. Re:When Can They Force Decryption? by tmosley · · Score: 2

    The better analogy is them forcing you to give them the coordinates of where the bodies are buried.

    They can search likely locations without your help (by brute forcing your password), but if they actually want to find it, they have to get you to tell them where it is.

    This is CLEARLY self incrimination, and EVERYONE has the right to remain silent when they are under arrest. PERIOD.

    Anyone who claims otherwise should be disbarred, have their citizenship stripped, and be dumped in North Korean territory.

  57. Re:When Can They Force Decryption? by protektor · · Score: 2

    And which court cases are those that the judge ordered them to reveal a password when they have absolutely no idea what was encrypted on the drive? I have only read about cases where they had to reveal the password when someone/a witness had already actually seen what was on the encrypted drive.

  58. Re:When Can They Force Decryption? - Wrong by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

    To clarify this point: if somebody (say a couple of undercover detectives, for example) SAW you put known contraband in your safe, then a court can force you to open that safe. If, on the other hand, they don't know of anything illegal in that safe, but only THINK there may be EVIDENCE of something illegal contained in your safe, the 4th Amendment prevents them from undertaking such a "fishing expedition", merely to try to find evidence.

    The court case under discussion appears to be a case of a fishing expedition. They THINK there may be EVIDENCE of illegal activity contained in her encrypted data. This is clearly a 4th Amendment issue, not at all like the case of the guy in the airport with observable child porn.