No, but they're not asking you to divulge the password. They're asking you to divulge a decrypted version of the drive. The password is just a means to an end.
The other side of it, is the DOJ, and most other law enforcement agencies, would have access to someone who can break open the safe as well, in like 98% of cases. So not getting the key/combo isn't the end of the world, as it can be opened.
My understanding is that the search warrant would compel you to produce the contents of the safe. Whether you do this by opening it for them, or turning the safe over to them so their people can break it open is irrelevant. The warrant is for the contents of the safe, not the combination to the safe.
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.
So, the real issue here is that the DOJ doesn't have people that are competent at doing their jobs (which, in this case, is gathering evidence).
So, because they can't crack encryption rated to be some of the highest in use, which is also recommended for most government office use, they are incompetent?
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. What really becomes interesting is in hidden encrypted drives, which don't show up in the "My Computer" section.
Hopefully not whenever they think there's an encrypted drive. The Vermont CP case, which involved an encrypted data store, was decided as it was because the TSA officer had seen something on the laptop when he inspected it. The CP was there, the State was just compelling the defendant to release the evidence in non-encrypted form. Hopefully that precedent stays somewhat, as it would be terrible for LEOs to be able to say, "We want to see if there is anything of interest on your encrypted drive."
Yes. For most of those drunk drivers (and I would question whether they are the majority, but I would agree that they are probably a significant amount of the drunks on the road), as long as conditions remain the same, they kinda go on autopilot, like I would imagine most of us do while driving to and from work. It's when something changes, however, that their hampered ability to react and adapt comes out, and bad things happen.
The thing with talking to passengers, is that generally, they are in the car with you, and can see when you need to concentrate more, so they know they need to shut the hell up. And if not, you just tell them to shut the hell up. Problem solved.
And that has what to do with the price of tea in China? Remember, the drivers you'll meet on those courses are generally going to be much better than the ones you'll meet on the 405 during rush hour.
No, you're a lucky dumbass with an entitlement complex. You think that, even though all the data shows otherwise, you're that one special anomaly that the rules don't apply to.
You're gonna get a shitstorm, but from people who have been involved with you. You're not as good a driver as you think you are, and odds are you have caused accidents even if you haven't been a part of them.
actually here comes the a: showing that cops have been encouraged to link electronic devices to accidents for the greater part of 10 years
[Citation Needed]
the reality of "distractions cause accidents" which is not limited to cellphones and gps, the supposed demon in the situation. How did people ever have accidents before gps and cellphones? oh, right.
Ahh, so even though the trend is showing that these devices are an increasing cause of the accidents, just because we can't stop *all* accidents, then we shouldn't even try? So since penicillin doesn't cure *all* disease, we shouldn't continue using it?
Somebody could have been doing something, yes, but there are many accidents where neither of the vehicles involved would be at fault, but rather, a 3rd car.
No, the question is, should we institute an additional penalty if it's found that you were distracted by your cell phone, or other gadget, which caused you to crash.
Except you your logic, you would sign the other 95% and make more money.
Ummm, that does not follow. For one, as he said, he has to have a much higher hit/flop ratio. If there are more flops in that 95%, then he's not going to make more money.
O, the RIAA does not collect from those people, Performance Rights Org's do (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, etc) - they only represent, collectively, the people who actually write the songs that radio stations, pubs etc. make money off of.
The only problem is, you have to be a member of those organizations before they'll pay out royalties to you, and you owe them yearly dues for the privilege of belonging. If you don't belong, they'll still go right ahead and collect dues on your behalf, they just won't send you anything.
Very few. And of the artists who have released something online, without the big labels, most of them were already big to start with (Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead), and many of them really didn't make any money off it.
Healthcare cost go up largely due to the lack of tort reform.
Wrong. Studies have shown that Tort Reform is not the panacea people bring it up to be. In comparing the costs of procedures in various states with and without tort reform, the presence of Tort Reform had no statistical impact upon the price.
>As for TFA this is just damned smart business and if it were Apple or Google doing this the fanbois would be lining up to defend it.
Yes, but there would also be loads of people claiming they're the new evil for doing it, and that they're "Worse than Microsoft ever was."
As for your whole rant about FOSS and RAND licenses, while I may not disagree that it's not Microsoft's fault these projects can't afford RAND license fees, I will say it is largely Microsoft's fault that they have to in the first place. Most of those things shouldn't have been patentable in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but they're not asking you to divulge the password. They're asking you to divulge a decrypted version of the drive. The password is just a means to an end.
The other side of it, is the DOJ, and most other law enforcement agencies, would have access to someone who can break open the safe as well, in like 98% of cases. So not getting the key/combo isn't the end of the world, as it can be opened.
Or until the encryption is broken. Remember, they're not after the password, they're after the contents of the drive.
Where's NYCL when you need him?
My understanding is that the search warrant would compel you to produce the contents of the safe. Whether you do this by opening it for them, or turning the safe over to them so their people can break it open is irrelevant. The warrant is for the contents of the safe, not the combination to the safe.
That would work if they were asking for the passphrase. They're not. They're asking for a decrypted version of the drive.
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.
So, the real issue here is that the DOJ doesn't have people that are competent at doing their jobs (which, in this case, is gathering evidence).
So, because they can't crack encryption rated to be some of the highest in use, which is also recommended for most government office use, they are incompetent?
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. What really becomes interesting is in hidden encrypted drives, which don't show up in the "My Computer" section.
Hopefully not whenever they think there's an encrypted drive. The Vermont CP case, which involved an encrypted data store, was decided as it was because the TSA officer had seen something on the laptop when he inspected it. The CP was there, the State was just compelling the defendant to release the evidence in non-encrypted form. Hopefully that precedent stays somewhat, as it would be terrible for LEOs to be able to say, "We want to see if there is anything of interest on your encrypted drive."
Yes. For most of those drunk drivers (and I would question whether they are the majority, but I would agree that they are probably a significant amount of the drunks on the road), as long as conditions remain the same, they kinda go on autopilot, like I would imagine most of us do while driving to and from work. It's when something changes, however, that their hampered ability to react and adapt comes out, and bad things happen.
The thing with talking to passengers, is that generally, they are in the car with you, and can see when you need to concentrate more, so they know they need to shut the hell up. And if not, you just tell them to shut the hell up. Problem solved.
And that has what to do with the price of tea in China? Remember, the drivers you'll meet on those courses are generally going to be much better than the ones you'll meet on the 405 during rush hour.
If you can't drive your car, get the hell off my road.
It's not your road. And you're a fool if you don't think speed limits help.
No, you're a lucky dumbass with an entitlement complex. You think that, even though all the data shows otherwise, you're that one special anomaly that the rules don't apply to.
You're gonna get a shitstorm, but from people who have been involved with you. You're not as good a driver as you think you are, and odds are you have caused accidents even if you haven't been a part of them.
actually here comes the a: showing that cops have been encouraged to link electronic devices to accidents for the greater part of 10 years
[Citation Needed]
the reality of "distractions cause accidents" which is not limited to cellphones and gps, the supposed demon in the situation. How did people ever have accidents before gps and cellphones? oh, right.
Ahh, so even though the trend is showing that these devices are an increasing cause of the accidents, just because we can't stop *all* accidents, then we shouldn't even try? So since penicillin doesn't cure *all* disease, we shouldn't continue using it?
Somebody could have been doing something, yes, but there are many accidents where neither of the vehicles involved would be at fault, but rather, a 3rd car.
No, the question is, should we institute an additional penalty if it's found that you were distracted by your cell phone, or other gadget, which caused you to crash.
And I say yes.
With all due respect... Are you implying that you are entitled to make money with what you love doing?
No, but I believe you're entitled to an honest chance at it. And the record labels are not doing that.
Most people have a day job that they either accept as "necessary" or flat out hate it.
I fail to see what that has anything to do with anything. Shit sucks for others, so it's required to suck for you?
Except you your logic, you would sign the other 95% and make more money.
Ummm, that does not follow. For one, as he said, he has to have a much higher hit/flop ratio. If there are more flops in that 95%, then he's not going to make more money.
O, the RIAA does not collect from those people, Performance Rights Org's do (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, etc) - they only represent, collectively, the people who actually write the songs that radio stations, pubs etc. make money off of.
The only problem is, you have to be a member of those organizations before they'll pay out royalties to you, and you owe them yearly dues for the privilege of belonging. If you don't belong, they'll still go right ahead and collect dues on your behalf, they just won't send you anything.
Very few. And of the artists who have released something online, without the big labels, most of them were already big to start with (Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead), and many of them really didn't make any money off it.
Healthcare cost go up largely due to the lack of tort reform.
Wrong. Studies have shown that Tort Reform is not the panacea people bring it up to be. In comparing the costs of procedures in various states with and without tort reform, the presence of Tort Reform had no statistical impact upon the price.
A decent judge should be able to see through that ruse, and take appropriate action.
That may be, but this is one instance in which it doesn't have to be that way.
>As for TFA this is just damned smart business and if it were Apple or Google doing this the fanbois would be lining up to defend it.
Yes, but there would also be loads of people claiming they're the new evil for doing it, and that they're "Worse than Microsoft ever was."
As for your whole rant about FOSS and RAND licenses, while I may not disagree that it's not Microsoft's fault these projects can't afford RAND license fees, I will say it is largely Microsoft's fault that they have to in the first place. Most of those things shouldn't have been patentable in the first place.