Because this sounds very much like a promise to make everybody even more infantile, incompetent and dependent on some digital moron to tell them what to do. "Idiocracy" comes to mind.
You really have no clue what you are talking about. If the password manager is known to support " thousands of decoys by design" not only will they know about it, it will be very suspicious. They will just copy all of them and the decoys will be worthless. And they may lock you up for a few days because you pissed them off. Anybody with the least amount of actual clue will not cross such a border with a password manager with actual valuable passwords on their laptop. As to the encrypted laptop, no, the decoy will _not_ satisfy them. Either they need a court order so search in the first place in which case the situation does not arise. Or they can demand you open the encrypted volume, and to open the hidden encrypted volume as well (that they know the software you use supports) or else. In the second case you are screwed, no matter how "plausible" your deniability is. Oh, and incidentally, unless you were very careful and created the hidden volume shortly before the laptop was stolen, the presence of hidden volume can be detected with enough reliability to give probable cause.
"Plausible deniability" is for morons that do not understand how the real world works.
Very much so. They go after the easy targets first, because there they get the least resistance. When they start going after people that just have a different opinion or do not want to pray to the "big leader" every day, the methods of personal destruction without any valid legal recourse will be well established. And at some time they will just start to go after anybody they do not like. It is a well established pattern throughout human history.
So it comes down a judge being intelligent enough to understand this, or the victim goes to jail indefinitely until they reveal a non-existent password.
And that is exactly the problem. "Plausible" deniability cannot be made reliably plausible. The only valid approach is that nobody can legally be forced to cooperate in anything that he claims could incriminate him _and_ he must be the judge of that. Nothing else will ever work due to fundamental limitations. Incidentally, civilized legal systems have that. Not many of those left and they were few in the first place.
The security experts say "plausible deniability" cannot be implemented. They are right (and yes, I am one of them). Wanting something that cannot be made reality is stupid, no matter how beneficial it would be.
And maybe invest the resources in law enforcement to go after those that produce this stuff and the (doubtlessly many more) that abuse children but do not document it? Naaa, that would not give so many easy "victories" and, worse, the supply of the stuff could dry up because the actual problem gets solved, meaning less funding for law enforcement. We cannot have that, can we? "Cui Bono" looks very, very bad here.
Making the possession of data illegal has many very serious problems, not at all how easy it is to abuse it.
They get around that by claiming this is not punishment. This is just incentive to comply with the court's wishes. Of course, to any sane person, that argument is pure evil in itself and cannot hold water at all.
No, there is not. There cannot be. It is impossible to prove he is able to decrypt those drives unless he demonstrates that he can. Anything else is called "speculation", not "incontrovertible evidence". Get your terminology straight.
It is only legal to hold them in contempt if they ARE capable of complying with the order.
Which happens to be impossible to prove due to fundamental restrictions of how reality works. Hence the government just assumes they are capable and you need to prove they are incapable. Which you cannot do, due to fundamental restrictions of how reality works.
And there your argument goes out the window completely.
First, why would any activity to break Tor cause people to use it less? Is the submitter implying that it is better to keep your mouth shut and cower in a corner? Seems to me he is.
Second, anybody that accesses FB via Tor is already known and identified when they log in because FB knows how they are. Keeping that in mind, the last sentence of the "story" could not be any more stupid, unless the submitter is actively trying to spread fear. Again, I think he is.
People do not care. And they are right to. Offer a service at a reasonable price and good quality and most people will see it as a fair offer and will be willing to pay. Offer it at artificially inflated prices, at bad quality or not at all, and people will look for alternate sources. That is how the world works. If some disconnected-from-reality law-makers think differently, then the problem is with them. They do not define how reality works at all, although many of them seem to suffer from that delusion. Suppressing copyright infringement (no, not "piracy", the whole term is a shameless lie) does not even work in the worst fascist regimes. The only thing that works is making fair offers.
Indeed. The thing is the lawyers are too arrogant and stupid to understand that it is not them that define how reality works. They try very hard and do a lot of damage (and is always surprising to see society tolerate their evil machinations which make everybody much poorer), but in the end, actual reality trumps deranged fantasies every time.
If you have a product that in principle you can sell and a customer that wants to buy it (but can, as a second option get it by other means) and then you refuse to sell, that must be the most demented and stupid "business strategy" ever. This does not even have to do anything with right or wrong, it is just the customer working around terminal stupidity of the supplier.
That is bullshit. Copyright is not a natural right, it is entirely artificial. You do have a natural right to copy anything you can. Anything restricting that is purely artificial and (in a sane society) needs very good justification and may not even work, as for example, *surprise*, in the case of copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
There really is no long-term alternative. Of course, it is a very un-American thing to do, so do not expect it anytime soon.
Because this sounds very much like a promise to make everybody even more infantile, incompetent and dependent on some digital moron to tell them what to do. "Idiocracy" comes to mind.
With the amount of money you can "launder" this way, just moving cash would be significantly easier.
That must be the most idiotic comment I have read for a long time. Well done!
In other words, you have exactly nothing. Thanks for confirming that.
You really have no clue what you are talking about. If the password manager is known to support " thousands of decoys by design" not only will they know about it, it will be very suspicious. They will just copy all of them and the decoys will be worthless. And they may lock you up for a few days because you pissed them off. Anybody with the least amount of actual clue will not cross such a border with a password manager with actual valuable passwords on their laptop. As to the encrypted laptop, no, the decoy will _not_ satisfy them. Either they need a court order so search in the first place in which case the situation does not arise. Or they can demand you open the encrypted volume, and to open the hidden encrypted volume as well (that they know the software you use supports) or else. In the second case you are screwed, no matter how "plausible" your deniability is. Oh, and incidentally, unless you were very careful and created the hidden volume shortly before the laptop was stolen, the presence of hidden volume can be detected with enough reliability to give probable cause.
"Plausible deniability" is for morons that do not understand how the real world works.
That sounds very constructed. Do you have any evidence something like that is happening here?
Never. But the person I responded to seems to indicate it was.
Very much so. They go after the easy targets first, because there they get the least resistance. When they start going after people that just have a different opinion or do not want to pray to the "big leader" every day, the methods of personal destruction without any valid legal recourse will be well established. And at some time they will just start to go after anybody they do not like. It is a well established pattern throughout human history.
So it comes down a judge being intelligent enough to understand this, or the victim goes to jail indefinitely until they reveal a non-existent password.
And that is exactly the problem. "Plausible" deniability cannot be made reliably plausible. The only valid approach is that nobody can legally be forced to cooperate in anything that he claims could incriminate him _and_ he must be the judge of that. Nothing else will ever work due to fundamental limitations. Incidentally, civilized legal systems have that. Not many of those left and they were few in the first place.
The security experts say "plausible deniability" cannot be implemented. They are right (and yes, I am one of them). Wanting something that cannot be made reality is stupid, no matter how beneficial it would be.
And maybe invest the resources in law enforcement to go after those that produce this stuff and the (doubtlessly many more) that abuse children but do not document it? Naaa, that would not give so many easy "victories" and, worse, the supply of the stuff could dry up because the actual problem gets solved, meaning less funding for law enforcement. We cannot have that, can we? "Cui Bono" looks very, very bad here.
Making the possession of data illegal has many very serious problems, not at all how easy it is to abuse it.
Nonsense from the side of information theory. But this is not about truth at all, this is about the exercise of power.
They get around that by claiming this is not punishment. This is just incentive to comply with the court's wishes. Of course, to any sane person, that argument is pure evil in itself and cannot hold water at all.
No, there is not. There cannot be. It is impossible to prove he is able to decrypt those drives unless he demonstrates that he can. Anything else is called "speculation", not "incontrovertible evidence". Get your terminology straight.
This interpretation is just fundamentally evil as it negates the intended protection for the accused. But what do you expect in a police-state.
And in other news, if the judge just says "screw him" then the person is screwed. And nothing is ever going to happen to the judge for that evil act.
It is only legal to hold them in contempt if they ARE capable of complying with the order.
Which happens to be impossible to prove due to fundamental restrictions of how reality works. Hence the government just assumes they are capable and you need to prove they are incapable. Which you cannot do, due to fundamental restrictions of how reality works.
And there your argument goes out the window completely.
First, why would any activity to break Tor cause people to use it less? Is the submitter implying that it is better to keep your mouth shut and cower in a corner? Seems to me he is.
Second, anybody that accesses FB via Tor is already known and identified when they log in because FB knows how they are. Keeping that in mind, the last sentence of the "story" could not be any more stupid, unless the submitter is actively trying to spread fear. Again, I think he is.
People do not care. And they are right to. Offer a service at a reasonable price and good quality and most people will see it as a fair offer and will be willing to pay. Offer it at artificially inflated prices, at bad quality or not at all, and people will look for alternate sources. That is how the world works. If some disconnected-from-reality law-makers think differently, then the problem is with them. They do not define how reality works at all, although many of them seem to suffer from that delusion. Suppressing copyright infringement (no, not "piracy", the whole term is a shameless lie) does not even work in the worst fascist regimes. The only thing that works is making fair offers.
Indeed. The thing is the lawyers are too arrogant and stupid to understand that it is not them that define how reality works. They try very hard and do a lot of damage (and is always surprising to see society tolerate their evil machinations which make everybody much poorer), but in the end, actual reality trumps deranged fantasies every time.
In other words, artificial scarcity. That counts as malicious in any sane system of ethics.
If you have a product that in principle you can sell and a customer that wants to buy it (but can, as a second option get it by other means) and then you refuse to sell, that must be the most demented and stupid "business strategy" ever. This does not even have to do anything with right or wrong, it is just the customer working around terminal stupidity of the supplier.
That is bullshit. Copyright is not a natural right, it is entirely artificial. You do have a natural right to copy anything you can. Anything restricting that is purely artificial and (in a sane society) needs very good justification and may not even work, as for example, *surprise*, in the case of copyright.
Very, very true.