I agree; but being that this was OS X, there is very little chance that something like a keylogger could have been installed without the user's express consent.
OS X uses an encrypted connection with peripherals, like a keyboard or a mouse?
If it doesn't, you can just log the bits on the USB. The operating system is irrelevant, it'll never even have a chance to notice this.
Great. So what would they do if the suspect deliberately writes differently than he usually does? "We're sorry, Mr. Suspect, your handwriting does not match the ransom note we believe to be written by you, try again."? Or "We're sorry, Mr. Suspect, your handwriting does not match the stack of other documents we know to be written by you." (... then why does the court need yet another handwriting sample?).
speak for voice identification
Same thing here. Suspect deliberately changes his voice, so what do they do? "Sorry, your voice does not match the recording of the death threat we believe to be made by you, try again.", or "Sorry, your voice does not match the voice we know you have." (... then why does the court need yet another voice sample?)
This is significantly different because a lock can be cut open,
You can devise a locking mechanism that cannot be opened by force without destroying whatever the lock is supposed to protect.
What would you suppose the court should do if it has seized documents as evidence, but they're all written in a fantasy language that only the defendant uses? "Please Mr. Defendant, translate this for the court."?
Being that this information is an extension of what's in his brain
Yes. The need an expert witness. Unfortunately, the only available expert witness is the defendant. They're requiring him to be an expert witness against himself.
On the other hand, no matter what coercion you use to get him to enter the password, you can't choose what decrypted data you get.
Yes, you can. Just assume that XOR-encryption with a OTP was used; for any such ciphertext you can come up with an appropriate "key" that produces any plaintext you want.
Either he enters the wrong password and you get junk,
"Oh, well, yes I did in fact store 234 GB of seemingly random data on that disk, to use as a quick and easy source of random number."
If the "obstruction" was already in place before the warrant was served or executed, the person in question had no knowledge of the warrant and cannot obstruct it knowingly. Otherwise, it would be illegal to lock your door when you leave the house (the police may arrive at any time with a search warrant and find you absent and your house locked).
You don't have to be a witness against yourself, but you do have to provide physical evidence.
No. You just have to refrain from resisting the authorities (lawful) attempts of obtaining such evidence.
For example, if a fingerprint or blood was found at the crime scene, you can be compelled to give your fingerprint or blood to test for a match.
No, you can't be compelled to give blood. You can be compelled to refrain from resisting the authorities' attempts to draw blood (or rather: If you resist, you'll be properly restrained first, then your blood will be taken, and then you'll be jailed for resisting). Same thing for fingerprints. If you don't want to get ink on your fingers yourself, the authorities will perform the necessary movements for you.
In the case of an encrypted hard drive, there may be no other way to get the evidence other than the owner decrypting it.
A (written) confession is also physical evidence. Sometimes, there may be no other way to get this evidence than jailing the suspect indefinitely until he produces it. Think about it.
The suspect does not have to give the authorities access to anything; the authorities may, in this case, legally use force to remove any physical obstacles that keep them from obtaining the object(s) in question.
A password is not a physical object and hence cannot be possessed. Of course, if the suspect had written down the password, the police could search him, his possessions or any place where the hardcopy is suspected to be for it, because the hardcopy is a physical object and can be possessed.
Capitalism works because money is valuable. Money is valuable because you can buy stuff with it. Stuff is valuable because there's not enough to cover demand. In a society where basic needs are covered essentially for free, money accumulation becomes much less important. In a society where basic and luxury needs are given for essentially free, money accumulation is way less interesting or compelling to anyone.
Err... no. A society where basic and (former) luxury needs are given out for free will find new and still scarce luxuries to separate those who have a lot from those who don't. And so the cycle continues.
Well yes. The network of alien flora did have a look inside the heads of Jake and Grace. It might be a bunch of plants, it might be a little slow sometimes, but it's not stupid.
Including something that viewers made fun of about the movie - the term "unobtanium".
That was one joke driven in with a sledgehammer. However, much of the humor in the movie is more subtle, especially when you consider some of the casts earlier roles. Sigourney Weaver as the chain-smoking, alien-loving xenoanthropologist who ends up having an alien tree grow into her head (which in most other movies is usually the "oh noes, teh evil aliens are invading our bodies and brains!!!"-scene, while it has a completely different connotation in Avatar).
that it's not due to Sully's great skill and bravery that he becomes Toruk Makto and "saves the day"
It wasn't his skill an bravery... it was the planets ecosystem taking an interest in him (possibly because he's less... scienc-ey than the other participants of the Avater project?) and allowing him to become Toruk Makto. Maybe the ecosystem even planted the idea in his head to do so (you mentioned the possibility of two-way communication earlier - mabye this is it. It's very subtle, and yet powerful...).
Short of phone malware that hides selected incoming SMS and deletes them before you open your SMS app
The only reason why SMS-intercepting malware would not do this is gross incompetence of the author. And, unfortunately, malware production has become quite professional.
your phone company bitches at you about having more than one location/identity on their network (SIM presence).
Multi-SIM is not a bug, it's a feature. And the phone company knows and expects that there will be such a situation, because they sent the second SIM card to you (supposedly, in reality they sent it to the crooks).
And the crooks can configure the Multi-SIM setup to send SMS to their phone only. They won't show up on your device. (They can do this because they've already compromised your account, which allowed them to order an additional SIM card in the first place).
This isn't hypothetical, it's already happened a while ago.
They don't even have to steal your phone. They could forge or order a duplicate SIM card, or install malware on your phone. You wouldn't know that someone is using your login.
Great, it's not like there's a dozen ways to compromise this. From malware on the phone to duplicate SIM cards to intercepting the text message somewhere in transit...
#1
"Did you fix the firmware problem yet?"
"A defective cable is not a firmware problem. The device not giving you no measurements instead of noisy measurements with a defective cable is not a firmware problem. From my point of view, the device now giving you noisy measurements and a warning message if a defective cable is present amounted to deliberately introducing a problem in the firmware.
#2
"Did you fix the firmware problem yet?"
"It's not a firmware problem. It's the analog circuitry unexpectedly crosstalking from point A to point B. But it's easier to make the firmware work around this than recall a hundred thousand devices."
There's been numerous instances of the red-light cameras issuing false citations,
Well, in that case they're doing it wrong, since the citation should be issued with at least a minimum amount of review by an actual person.
and those companies pressuring localities to reduce the amount of time a yellow light is shown,
So why isn't the minimum amount of time that a yellow light must be shown fixed by law based on scientific reasons (e.g. current speed limit, expected reaction time of a worst-case, legal driver, etc.)?
Maybe the standard should be that the entire jury goes to jail if their verdict is "guilty" and someone can later prove that the defendant was innocent.
In that case, you'd get pretty much mostly 'not guilty' verdicts, even for defendants who are guilty as heck. They're the safe choice.
Slashdot Mirror
OS X uses an encrypted connection with peripherals, like a keyboard or a mouse?
If it doesn't, you can just log the bits on the USB. The operating system is irrelevant, it'll never even have a chance to notice this.
So he's being required to be an expert witness against himself?
Great. So what would they do if the suspect deliberately writes differently than he usually does? "We're sorry, Mr. Suspect, your handwriting does not match the ransom note we believe to be written by you, try again."? Or "We're sorry, Mr. Suspect, your handwriting does not match the stack of other documents we know to be written by you." (... then why does the court need yet another handwriting sample?).
speak for voice identification
Same thing here. Suspect deliberately changes his voice, so what do they do? "Sorry, your voice does not match the recording of the death threat we believe to be made by you, try again.", or "Sorry, your voice does not match the voice we know you have." (... then why does the court need yet another voice sample?)
You can devise a locking mechanism that cannot be opened by force without destroying whatever the lock is supposed to protect.
What would you suppose the court should do if it has seized documents as evidence, but they're all written in a fantasy language that only the defendant uses? "Please Mr. Defendant, translate this for the court."?
Well, maybe they should have anticipated encryption and devised a way to obtain the encryption keys (surveillance, keylogger, whatever).
Yes. The need an expert witness. Unfortunately, the only available expert witness is the defendant. They're requiring him to be an expert witness against himself.
how can the 5th not apply in this case??!!
This.
Yes, you can. Just assume that XOR-encryption with a OTP was used; for any such ciphertext you can come up with an appropriate "key" that produces any plaintext you want.
Either he enters the wrong password and you get junk,
"Oh, well, yes I did in fact store 234 GB of seemingly random data on that disk, to use as a quick and easy source of random number."
Torture is more unpleasant, but less boring.
If the "obstruction" was already in place before the warrant was served or executed, the person in question had no knowledge of the warrant and cannot obstruct it knowingly. Otherwise, it would be illegal to lock your door when you leave the house (the police may arrive at any time with a search warrant and find you absent and your house locked).
No. You just have to refrain from resisting the authorities (lawful) attempts of obtaining such evidence.
For example, if a fingerprint or blood was found at the crime scene, you can be compelled to give your fingerprint or blood to test for a match.
No, you can't be compelled to give blood. You can be compelled to refrain from resisting the authorities' attempts to draw blood (or rather: If you resist, you'll be properly restrained first, then your blood will be taken, and then you'll be jailed for resisting). Same thing for fingerprints. If you don't want to get ink on your fingers yourself, the authorities will perform the necessary movements for you.
In the case of an encrypted hard drive, there may be no other way to get the evidence other than the owner decrypting it.
A (written) confession is also physical evidence. Sometimes, there may be no other way to get this evidence than jailing the suspect indefinitely until he produces it. Think about it.
The suspect does not have to give the authorities access to anything; the authorities may, in this case, legally use force to remove any physical obstacles that keep them from obtaining the object(s) in question.
Could the all writs act be used to force a suspect to produce a written confession?
"We want you to write down what you know, otherwise we'll jail you indefinitely."
A password is not a physical object and hence cannot be possessed. Of course, if the suspect had written down the password, the police could search him, his possessions or any place where the hardcopy is suspected to be for it, because the hardcopy is a physical object and can be possessed.
Err ... no. A society where basic and (former) luxury needs are given out for free will find new and still scarce luxuries to separate those who have a lot from those who don't. And so the cycle continues.
The picture would be much more interesting.
Well yes. The network of alien flora did have a look inside the heads of Jake and Grace. It might be a bunch of plants, it might be a little slow sometimes, but it's not stupid.
That was one joke driven in with a sledgehammer. However, much of the humor in the movie is more subtle, especially when you consider some of the casts earlier roles. Sigourney Weaver as the chain-smoking, alien-loving xenoanthropologist who ends up having an alien tree grow into her head (which in most other movies is usually the "oh noes, teh evil aliens are invading our bodies and brains!!!"-scene, while it has a completely different connotation in Avatar).
that it's not due to Sully's great skill and bravery that he becomes Toruk Makto and "saves the day"
It wasn't his skill an bravery ... it was the planets ecosystem taking an interest in him (possibly because he's less ... scienc-ey than the other participants of the Avater project?) and allowing him to become Toruk Makto. Maybe the ecosystem even planted the idea in his head to do so (you mentioned the possibility of two-way communication earlier - mabye this is it. It's very subtle, and yet powerful ...).
The only reason why SMS-intercepting malware would not do this is gross incompetence of the author. And, unfortunately, malware production has become quite professional.
your phone company bitches at you about having more than one location/identity on their network (SIM presence).
Multi-SIM is not a bug, it's a feature. And the phone company knows and expects that there will be such a situation, because they sent the second SIM card to you (supposedly, in reality they sent it to the crooks).
And the crooks can configure the Multi-SIM setup to send SMS to their phone only. They won't show up on your device. (They can do this because they've already compromised your account, which allowed them to order an additional SIM card in the first place).
This isn't hypothetical, it's already happened a while ago.
Why break through the wall when you can steal the key to the front door?
They don't even have to steal your phone. They could forge or order a duplicate SIM card, or install malware on your phone. You wouldn't know that someone is using your login.
Great, it's not like there's a dozen ways to compromise this. From malware on the phone to duplicate SIM cards to intercepting the text message somewhere in transit ...
"Did you fix the firmware problem yet?"
"A defective cable is not a firmware problem. The device not giving you no measurements instead of noisy measurements with a defective cable is not a firmware problem. From my point of view, the device now giving you noisy measurements and a warning message if a defective cable is present amounted to deliberately introducing a problem in the firmware.
#2
"Did you fix the firmware problem yet?"
"It's not a firmware problem. It's the analog circuitry unexpectedly crosstalking from point A to point B. But it's easier to make the firmware work around this than recall a hundred thousand devices."
Well, in that case they're doing it wrong, since the citation should be issued with at least a minimum amount of review by an actual person.
and those companies pressuring localities to reduce the amount of time a yellow light is shown,
So why isn't the minimum amount of time that a yellow light must be shown fixed by law based on scientific reasons (e.g. current speed limit, expected reaction time of a worst-case, legal driver, etc.)?
In that case, you'd get pretty much mostly 'not guilty' verdicts, even for defendants who are guilty as heck. They're the safe choice.
We have one in the household. Hour-long lectures on the local train and bus routes and schedules, or on PokÃmon, for anyone who's willing to listen.
I believe the medical term is (socially) "active but odd".