Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday April 28 2016, @11:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the plead-the-fifth-and-land-in-jail dept.

Another novel application of the All Writs Act is to require suspects to decrypt their hard disks. Refusing to comply landed one suspect in jail without trial. He's been in there for 7 months already.

To me this seems to be a gross perversion of justice. Guilty until proven innocent? I haven't read the All Writs Act, but somehow being detained for 7 months without trial seems like it shouldn't be within the scope of any law -- irrespective of the alleged crime. (Yes, I'm aware of Guantanamo Bay.)

PS: Concerning the alleged crime (child pornography), keep in mind:

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
        H. L. Mencken
        US editor (1880 - 1956)


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2016, @11:47PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2016, @11:47PM (#338666)

    That would be time to lawyer up and sue the gov under the 6th amendment.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2016, @11:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2016, @11:51PM (#338667)

      Boy. What would this suspect do without your brilliant and oh, so helpful insight?
      Quick! Somebody get the parent poster's message to the inmate!

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @12:02AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @12:02AM (#338671)

      The naivety of this comment is astounding. Bravo, AC.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @02:00AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @02:00AM (#338707)

        OK Ill bite. What would you do in this case? Quietly sit in your cell while the gov steam rolls your rights? Remember you have tons of time sitting around.

        Yes the guy is *probably* scum. However, in our society you have to prove it. In a court of law.

    • (Score: 2) by mendax on Friday April 29 2016, @12:34AM

      by mendax (2840) on Friday April 29 2016, @12:34AM (#338677)

      Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) judges have absolute, unqualified immunity from law suits based upon their decisions. No one to sue.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @01:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @01:15AM (#338688)

        Additionally, the 6th only applies to punishments for crimes. The contempt in this case is not a crime. So, they are free to do whatever they want. Same goes for pretrial detainment and hence why Joe Arpaio gets away with so much. Thankfully, there are other laws that do apply, but they do not have the teeth of the 6th Amendment.

        The guy's best shot is to have his attorney argue that no amount of fines or imprisonment will convince the guy to unlock the drives. If that defense is convincing enough to the reviewing judge, then they have to cut him loose.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @01:57AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @01:57AM (#338706)

          The 6th amendment also talks to a 'speedy' trial. Basically they can not lock you up indefinitely without accusing you of something. http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment6/annotation02.html#2 [findlaw.com]

          They can delay it a little bit while they get their case in order. But if they do not have a case then they can not arrest him. They have arrested him. They have not accused him. So until they even basically accuse him they need to figure out how to let him go or end up getting sued. Also *yes* you can successfully sue the government. It is harder to do. But they do screw up.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @04:35AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @04:35AM (#338756)

            Except he isn't being held pursuant to the crime, but rather his contempt. Therefore the 6th Amendment doesn't apply.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @05:57AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @05:57AM (#338768)

              This is a blatant violation of the spirit of the 6th amendment.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @03:41PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @03:41PM (#338988)

              ...grumblegrumblesixthgrumbleamendmentgrumble... the more I read stuff like this, the more I think that the anti-Federalists might have committed a major oops in their push for a bill of rights. Let me outline the way this tyranny works. 1.) Identify a single digit numbered amendment that has something to do with the issue at hand 2.) Successfully argue as an internet lawyer that the particular single digit amendment you've identified does not apply to this particular case because reasons (internet lawyer reasons) 3.) Therefore, the government must be able to do it.

              No! The 9th Amendment says otherwise! I don't even need a single fucking Amendment to tell you why you're wrong.

              From the Charters of Freedom exhibit [archives.gov]:

              The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

              No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

              *sigh* that was a grand old document when it used to describe a government. I wish I could live under a government defined by that charter.... Naah, it wasn't perfect. The three fifths compromise was ugly and did kick a certain can down the road a little under four score years. But it was a good document. Really it just needs a bit of touching up. We could probably git merge in several of the suffrage amendments and rip that three fifths compromise out and replace with the 13th amendment. Personally I'd argue that the states electing senators instead of the people of the states is a feature, not a bug. I mean, we get to dump some cruft, too, like that amendment about alcohol that was canceled by the other amendment. Yeah, there's other patches that have been proposed we'll need to take a serious look at such as enshrining preference or Condorcet voting and admitting first-past-the-post should have died in the 20th century. I'd also strongly recommend removing most of the bill of rights in favor of very strong language making sure it is absolutely clear that if we didn't say the government could do it, it doesn't matter how good of an idea it is, they can't do it until we amend the fucking constitution and properly fucking give the government the power to do it. Maybe call it Constitution 2.0. Sure, it won't be perfect either, but hey, at least we might be able to roll up all the changes since 1.0 into an improved document and have a grand old release.

              These days it's just a museum exhibit.

              UNLESS... Unless people start caring a whole lot more about liberty and the collective welfare. Unless people start thinking deeper thoughts than "taxation is theft!" about how we maximize liberty and freedom for all in a fully automated economy and how we get there without the disenfranchised masses tearing it all down and eating the seed corn in desperation. That's what UNLESS means. But maybe we really do need another dark age or even a full nuclear exchange to really think this global technological civilization thing through....

              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @03:57PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @03:57PM (#339000)

                uhh, taxation IS theft...

        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday April 29 2016, @08:23AM

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday April 29 2016, @08:23AM (#338809) Journal

          Additionally, the 6th only applies to punishments for crimes. The contempt in this case is not a crime. So, they are free to do whatever they want.

          Wait, you say you can be locked away indefinitely without trial as long as they don't say it's a punishment for a crime? Somehow that doesn't sound right.

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Friday April 29 2016, @12:22PM

            by JeanCroix (573) on Friday April 29 2016, @12:22PM (#338882)
            Kind of like how people can be (and have been) arrested solely under the charge of resisting arrest.
  • (Score: 2) by jasassin on Friday April 29 2016, @12:01AM

    by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Friday April 29 2016, @12:01AM (#338670) Homepage Journal

    What's the penalty for not giving the password, compared to possessing child porn? Refusal to talk = life sentence without parole?

    --
    jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @12:08AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @12:08AM (#338672)

      Somewhere along the lines, the right to avoid self-incrimination became obstruction of justice.

    • (Score: 2) by legont on Friday April 29 2016, @12:35AM

      by legont (4179) on Friday April 29 2016, @12:35AM (#338679)

      Well, child porn conviction is a life time sentence - one will never be able to exists with any degree of normality. Also, constant rapes in prison are pretty much a guarantee. Refusing to give up a password makes one a hero currently. There is also a hope ranging from supreme court decision to a revolution.
      A sad truth though - one always breaks sooner or later. Any resolution is better than uncertainty for a normal person.

      --
      "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday April 29 2016, @12:45AM

        by bob_super (1357) on Friday April 29 2016, @12:45AM (#338682)

        > constant rapes in prison are pretty much a guarantee.

        Am I the only one who cringes every time I read something like that stated as a fact, rather than a major unacceptable issue?

        • (Score: 2) by legont on Friday April 29 2016, @12:57AM

          by legont (4179) on Friday April 29 2016, @12:57AM (#338687)

          It does not matter if it is truth or not. The point is - terror is already applied. Therefore people react accordingly.
          In fact it is the only reason to use torture. There is no benefit to the actual investigation. However, population gets the point.

          --
          "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 29 2016, @02:20AM

          Possibly, I'd have to do a survey. I know for my part I pity raped/beaten/killed pedophiles not one iota.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by hoeferbe on Friday April 29 2016, @02:55AM

            by hoeferbe (4715) on Friday April 29 2016, @02:55AM (#338720)

            I know for my part I pity raped/beaten/killed pedophiles not one iota.

            First, pedophiles are different than child molesters.

            Second:  when one becomes obsessed with the enemy, one becomes the enemy.  It ultimately benefits society and the individuals involved to seek justice.  Whenever justice is sought, it must be upheld for all.  Your statement does not come from a desire for justice; it comes from a passive-aggressive desire for revenge.

            • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @07:08AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @07:08AM (#338780)

              First, pedophiles are different than child molesters.

              In this case we are talking about a suspected pedophile, not even a suspected child molester. And only suspected because one person said so, and another GUESSED that child porn would be the most likely content of an encrypted hard drive.

              Well, I guess the second person would have a point - if credit card or other personal information was likely to be on an encrypted drive, we would be reading a lot less about stolen computers resulting in leaked personal information.

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @07:48AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @07:48AM (#338797)

                In this case we are talking about a suspected pedophile

                We're talking about a suspected possessor of indecent images. That's what he may (or may not) end up going to prison for, not for "being a pedophile."

                • (Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Saturday April 30 2016, @12:43AM

                  by CirclesInSand (2899) on Saturday April 30 2016, @12:43AM (#339272)

                  Well then, we are talking about a person who the police are claiming, not necessarily honestly, to suspect of possessing, not necessarily knowingly, images that are, according to the personal emotional reactions of some people, indecent.

            • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 29 2016, @10:29AM

              First, that you would make that distinction leaves very unhappy questions about you hanging in the air.

              Second, you seem to think you know me. You don't. I'm no more obsessed with one type of criminal than any other unless you count politicians. I simply have zero sympathy for this particular variety of scum and think society is better off without them. If that's because they're in prison, fine. If it's because someone killed them in a gruesome manner, equally fine. I'm not passing out torches and pitchforks but I also wouldn't piss on a pedo if they were on fire.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 5, Interesting) by art guerrilla on Friday April 29 2016, @11:24AM

                by art guerrilla (3082) on Friday April 29 2016, @11:24AM (#338861)

                "First, that you would make that distinction leaves very unhappy questions about you hanging in the air."

                wot?
                FUCK OFF, shit bird...
                you authoritarian POS

                • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 29 2016, @11:51AM

                  Was I talking to you? No? Off you fuck then.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @03:56PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @03:56PM (#338999)

                    Hey troll, you realize you sound like an Auschwitz SS guard... right?

              • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hoeferbe on Friday April 29 2016, @01:26PM

                by hoeferbe (4715) on Friday April 29 2016, @01:26PM (#338899)

                First, that you would make that distinction leaves very unhappy questions about you hanging in the air.

                I make that distinction because there is a distinction.  Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children but have not put that desire into action.  They need help to overcome that.  Child molesters are those who have acted to hurt another person.  In justice, we imprison the perpetrator as punishment and to protect the victim and the rest of society from him or her.  The first would be analogous to a thought-crime.  The second actually has a victim.

                Second, you seem to think you know me. You don't. I'm no more obsessed with one type of criminal than any other unless you count politicians. I simply have zero sympathy for this particular variety of scum and think society is better off without them. If that's because they're in prison, fine. If it's because someone killed them in a gruesome manner, equally fine. I'm not passing out torches and pitchforks but I also wouldn't piss on a pedo if they were on fire.

                You're right, I don't know you.  But I stand by what I wrote about your statement not coming from a desire for justice.  Your expression of apathy is incompatible with someone seeking justice.  Justice is a right; it is like free speech -- I may not like what you say, but you should be allowed to say it.  If you desire justice for one victim (the child who was molested) but not another (the raped/beaten/killed child molester) then you really aren't desiring justice -- you're just `defending speech you like` and not really `defending free speech`.

              • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday April 29 2016, @02:51PM

                by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 29 2016, @02:51PM (#338960) Homepage Journal

                It's not

                one type of criminal

                you're obviously obsessed over.

                It's

                Wieners, wieners, wieners.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @04:11PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @04:11PM (#339011)

                  hendrikboom I agree, sir. "The Mighty Buzzard" currently stands as the barometer of freedom of speech.

                  He can spew his dehumanizing hatred all he likes. People like us realize him for what he is: A psychopath who enjoys the dehumanization of others that HE DOESN'T KNOW EITHER.

                  Pop quiz, "The Mighty Buzzard," what happens when there's nothing illegal on those drives and he just forgot the access credentials? Would you spew your hatred at yourself if the FBI caught you with some encrypted drives that you forgot the key/pw? Would you gladly spew your hate towards yourself as someone that you feel deserves to die? No? Congratulations, you're a psychopath.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @04:28PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @04:28PM (#339021)

                First, that you would make that distinction leaves very unhappy questions about you hanging in the air.

                Why? The law clearly makes that very distinction.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @10:33PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @10:33PM (#339220)

                Just the same way you inevitably rape and molest everyone you find attractive right? Not everyone is like you, rapist.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday April 30 2016, @10:24AM

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday April 30 2016, @10:24AM (#339428) Homepage Journal

                  Thank you, Mr. pedophile-defender. It's always easier when you go right ahead and air your abhorrent views instead of everyone having to guess that you have them.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 30 2016, @06:44PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 30 2016, @06:44PM (#339554)
                    Just like the biggest gay haters are often closet gays, perhaps you're a closet pedophile. And that's why you need to channel all that hate to someone else other than yourself.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @12:26PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @12:26PM (#338885)

            Are you a fascist or a supporter of such an ideology?

            Because that's what it sounds like.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 29 2016, @10:18PM

              You really have no idea what a fascist is if you think that. Nothing I have said in this thread could possibly lead any thinking person to conclude I had fascist leanings in any way. Unless, are you pro-pedophile by chance? If so, then I could see you thinking I'm a fascist because I am very much against pedophilia being legal or normalized and do support laws against such. I'll even go as far as to say I think child molestation should carry the death penalty due to the extremely high recidivism rate. Simply put, the world is better off without people who think fucking children is a fun way to spend an evening.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by opinionated_science on Friday April 29 2016, @03:07AM

          by opinionated_science (4031) on Friday April 29 2016, @03:07AM (#338725)

          This does suggest the US justice system is about revenge not rehabilitation...

          But then again, the list of things that you can end up in jail for is so extensive, its clear someone is making money out of it....

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @06:55AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @06:55AM (#338777)

            somewhat related.
            my gut instinct is to be as violent as possible to people who bring pain and misery to others.
            when I try to be rational, I always tell myself that society shuns torture etc for a reason, and I start from the assumption that the interest of society, when faced with someone who intentionally brings pain and suffering to others, is to simply protect itself, not necessarily to rehabilitate.
            I mean... we already have an overpopulation problem, why do our best to save those who reject societal values anyway?
            I haven't seriously thought about this, so I am genuinely interested if you have: why should society concern itself with rehabilitation, rather than just denying the power to inflict pain?

            note: I am specifically referring to general cases of violent criminals. for this particular case of someone refusing to decrypt their drive, I am of the opinion that you cannot be forced to incriminate yourself, and if the only evidence is supposedly on this encrypted drive, then there is no evidence and the guy should go free (although I assume he has been put on several watchlists and even "free" would not be very free).

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @07:12AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @07:12AM (#338783)

              my gut instinct is to be as violent as possible to people who bring pain and misery to others.

              A rather perfect description of a judge who locks up a person until he produces incriminating evidence against himself - no matter if such incriminating evidence exists or not.

              As for the rest of your post, you must love paying taxes. A person locked up costs taxpayers money, where as a rehabilitated person can become a tax paying citizen.

          • (Score: 2) by legont on Friday April 29 2016, @06:25PM

            by legont (4179) on Friday April 29 2016, @06:25PM (#339081)

            No, it's not about revenge. There are two main goals:
            - keep unemployed off the streets (welfare substitution introduced most recently by Clinton)
            - terrorize the rest to compliance
            If technology progress keeps up, we'll see 90% prison population pretty soon.

            Yes, I do realise that by posting this I actually collaborate to the strategy - increase the terror.
            But what can one do in a country where children go to jail for cutting classes [buzzfeed.com]
            I wonder if they got raped over there.

            --
            "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @04:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @04:14AM (#338747)
      There isn't supposed to be a penalty for not giving the password. You have the right to remain silent as they say, and all that "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" that the Fifth Amendment says in plain black and white. What they are doing is blatantly unconstitutional, going against not only the Fifth Amendment but the Sixth as well, which states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial". They haven't even accused him of a crime and he's been there seven months. Either these rights apply to all, scoundrels and scum included, or they apply to none.
  • (Score: 2) by mendax on Friday April 29 2016, @12:11AM

    by mendax (2840) on Friday April 29 2016, @12:11AM (#338673)

    The law in this instance is pretty inconsistent. Some federal courts have agreed with the assertion that being forced to reveal the password to something is akin to forced self-incrimination, which is barred under the Fifth Amendment as extended to all the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Other federal courts have gone the other way. I do not think the SCOTUS has spoken on this matter... yet. It's time they do. Perhaps this case will be the one.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    • (Score: 2) by mendax on Friday April 29 2016, @12:30AM

      by mendax (2840) on Friday April 29 2016, @12:30AM (#338675)

      Ah, I read the article again, this time actually paying attention to it, and it seems that the SCOTUS has spoken on this issue, except it was not a password but a combination lock. It would seem to me that the same reasoning would apply. Again I will repeat, SCOTUS needs to address this issue soon.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
      • (Score: 1) by RobC207 on Friday April 29 2016, @11:00AM

        by RobC207 (3408) on Friday April 29 2016, @11:00AM (#338856)

        Let's wait until there is an uneven number of Justices on the Court though.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Friday April 29 2016, @12:41AM

      by edIII (791) on Friday April 29 2016, @12:41AM (#338680)

      Indeed. There is no possible way that information, needing to be obtained from a citizens mind, with the possibility of sending that citizen to jail, isn't construed as self-incrimination. The problem is that the government simply cannot adjust to their loss of power. Citizens lose power, citizens lose rights, the government does not.

      This is a wake up call for deniable encryption, such as is provided by TrueCrypt. Only with deniable encryption can you give away an apparently working password, but still deny attackers access to the correct one. Apple's FileVault isn't worth shit, nor is anything not providing more than one working password/key.

      That would be a very interesting and entertaining debate in front of the judge.

      Prosecutor: We didn't find any child porn, or anything incriminating whatsoever! He lied! Punish Him!
      Judge: To my knowledge, he gave a password. Can you prove this isn't the correct one?
      Prosecutor: No, we cannot. We strongly suspect this though, and have mountains of circumstantial evidence.
      Judge: Yeah, that's not enough to prove he gave you an incorrect password.

      The only thing stronger than TrueCrypt's containers is OTP, which is provably impossible to show that *any* key is more correct than any other key. More than likely our biggest challenge is just illustrating the math to the judge in both cases.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Friday April 29 2016, @01:19AM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Friday April 29 2016, @01:19AM (#338692) Journal

        I'm not sure that is a great idea because if it can be shown that you have revealed part of the information required to decrypt the drive, someone is going to argue that you waived your right to the rest of the information. I don't know how that case would turn out, but trying to trick the Feds or other cops into thinking they have the information needed, seems a risky proposition.

        As other's have mentioned, a person can't be compelled to reveal a combination stored in their brain to a combination lock. That should extend to encryption by direct analogy. Eventually we'll find out if that is the case. One thing is certain, iris scans or fingerprint readers, that isn't going to provide any protection against a search: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/10/31/judge-rules-suspect-can-be-required-to-unlock-phone-with-fingerprint/ [wsj.com]

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Friday April 29 2016, @02:41AM

          by edIII (791) on Friday April 29 2016, @02:41AM (#338717)

          I'm not sure that is a great idea because if it can be shown that you have revealed part of the information required to decrypt the drive, someone is going to argue that you waived your right to the rest of the information.

          There is no "rest of the information". The entire drive is encrypted as the outer container. In this outer container you put the honeypot data, or data that you're perfectly okay with revealing to attackers as low-value information. The hidden container protects the real data, and that is accessible via the 2nd key.

          Giving the honeypot password should subject you to no data leakage that you're not prepared to accept.

          I myself have dozens of containers, each having multiple containers inside it. Almost every single individual container with apparently valuable information, except a few containers for the protected payload. This does come at a cost though, as I spend 100GB to protect 5GB.

          I can reveal "all" of the passwords for the visible containers without compromising myself at all.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 2) by jasassin on Friday April 29 2016, @06:40AM

            by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Friday April 29 2016, @06:40AM (#338775) Homepage Journal

            Giving the honeypot password should subject you to no data leakage that you're not prepared to accept.

            Revealing the honeypot password isn't going to fool the FBI or NSA or probably anybody anymore. Once they have the honeypot password they can simply look at the size of the container and compare it to the size of the truecrypt file. If the truecrypt file is bigger, there's another hidden container. They just keep breaking knuckles (or if you are lucky enough to be in gbay, feed you cock meat sandwiches) until they have passwords to all the hidden containers required to equal the size of the truecrypt file when added to the size of the honeypot container. It's not really hidden if it's taking up disk space.

            --
            jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @07:20AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @07:20AM (#338789)

              You have no idea how Truecrypt works, do you?

              The Truecrypt file is ALWAYS bigger than the content stored. Your TC container file is set based on the partition size you choose when you created the file initially, adding files into the container will not change the file size.

          • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday April 29 2016, @08:40AM

            by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday April 29 2016, @08:40AM (#338812) Journal

            And now you revealed that you have hidden containers. Sure, you revealed it under a pseudonym, but I'd not bet the three-letter agencies are not able to connect that to your real identity. So good luck if you should ever be in the situation that law enforcement compels you to give up your password. Also, I wonder if there's really no way at all to detect that there are hidden containers (after all, the decryption software has to find them on request).

            --
            The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday April 29 2016, @03:01AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 29 2016, @03:01AM (#338724) Journal

          I'm not sure that is a great idea because if it can be shown that you have revealed part of the information required to decrypt the drive, someone is going to argue that you waived your right to the rest of the information. I don't know how that case would turn out, but trying to trick the Feds or other cops into thinking they have the information needed, seems a risky proposition.

          If what you revealed is incriminating already, then there's a precedent which may land you in hot waters [wikipedia.org] (see below why it only may).
          However, if what you revealed is not incriminating, you aren't in any worse position than before - the prosecution will still have to prove that what remained unencrypted is:
          1. meaningful (not just random data) - this applies even if already incriminating evidence was revealed at the prev step of decryption;
          2. relevant to the case - probable cause - this applies even if already incriminating evidence was revealed at the prev step of decryption
          3. that the defendant has indeed control over the part that is still encrypted.

          The point 1 and 2 are exactly what is intended by the "deniable encryption" schemes.
          With the note that such schemes may not work as intended under oppressive authoritarian regimes - the ones of "if you have something to hide, you must be guilty" kind - in fact they may make the life worse for the defendant.
          Mmmm... wait, what?!?
          (- large grin -)

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @07:18AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @07:18AM (#338788)

            However, if what you revealed is not incriminating, you aren't in any worse position than before

            It is. It's solid evidence that you have access to the drive.

            Then six months later, when they are done brute forcing the encryption, you can't go back and argue "that was a drive I bought off e-bay with the intention of wiping it before using it".

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 29 2016, @07:57AM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 29 2016, @07:57AM (#338798) Journal

              Then six months later, when they are done brute forcing the encryption, you can't go back and argue "that was a drive I bought off e-bay with the intention of wiping it before using it".

              No, you cannot argue is not your drive, but you should be able to argue "Except of what I've already shown you, there's nothing else there that I know of".
              If you can't argue that, then your plausibly deniable encryption [wikipedia.org] package doesn't worth a shit.
               

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 29 2016, @02:41PM

                by tangomargarine (667) on Friday April 29 2016, @02:41PM (#338948)

                Somebody on The Green Site mentioned that this suggests a great way to perform witchhunts: Put a random hard drive in front of a guy and tell him to decrypt it.

                Guy: "That isn't my hard drive."
                TPTB: "So you're saying you won't decrypt it?"
                Guy: "It's not mine. How would I know the key?"
                TPTB: "We've been assured by John Smith here that he's 'pretty sure' the drive is encrypted, and yours."
                Guy: "Even if it was mine--which it isn't--you're not even sure it's encrypted?"
                TPTB: "Your Honor, this man is refusing to cooperate. Throw him in the stockade!"

                --
                "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 29 2016, @02:25AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 29 2016, @02:25AM (#338713) Journal

        Your scenario sounds alright, on the face of things. However, you need to dig just a little deeper into court room life. In my county, for years, the judge and the prosecutor were members of the same country club. That is, they both owned "summer homes" on the river, and in fact, lived only a couple doors away from each other. They dined together, golfed together, fished together - every thing except slept together, and I can't be certain that they didn't do that too.

        Needless to say, the prosecutor was seldom denied any motion, any objection, any suggestion in court. Basically, the judge and the prosecutor spoke with the same mind. Their little party was only upset now and then when an outside lawyer was brought in to handle a case.

      • (Score: 2) by Common Joe on Friday April 29 2016, @04:12AM

        by Common Joe (33) <{common.joe.0101} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday April 29 2016, @04:12AM (#338746) Journal

        This is a wake up call for deniable encryption, such as is provided by TrueCrypt.

        Truecrypt is no longer maintained. Consider Veracrypt, a fork of Truecrypt.

        The only thing stronger than TrueCrypt's containers is OTP

        Apparently, I'm not up to speed on all acronyms and had to look this up. For all other commoners who don't want to look it up, OTP refers to "one time pad". (And not "one time password" or "one time pairing".)

        And to be blunt, even a one time pad is quite weak in this scenario. Where would the one time pad be kept so that it didn't fall into the hands of law enforcement / the court? It has to be kept somewhere. On the hard drive? Somewhere on the Internet? (Don't forget that "they" are always listening.) Multi-gigabyte one time pads are sure to be noticed and generating a truly random one time pad can be challenging and time consuming. (Not to mention that you have to wipe the original file after you're done encryption leaving you vulnerable at that point in time.)

        In theory, one time pads are the strongest form of encryption, but they are cumbersome to use and only best used when sending messages physically (like by thumb drive) or with short text messages. A program like Veracrypt would be best in most computer-related scenarios, though.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @04:46AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @04:46AM (#338761)

          Multi-gigabyte one time pads are sure to be noticed

          Quite frequently they are in front of you, but you don't recognize them for what they are.

          For example, your official DVD copy of the latest horror flick, if ripped and reencoded with very specific parameters, yields a pretty long OTP. The parameters are written down on an old envelope where you calculated the tip at a restaurant; they are disguised as prices of dishes. And you need to use a specific version of a specific ripper - which is not even installed on your PC.

          We are swimming in multi-gigabyte media streams. They are all compressed and, as such, look like half-decent random data. If you want to improve that, combine several video streams, each from a unique offset. Your video library is large enough, and even if the offsets are under 1,000,000 each (which is nothing, in bytes, in a DVD), it creates quite a challenge for the courts. Most likely it's not the NSA or CIA who will be after your data, but your local police and your local prosecutor. They can send the file to the FBI, but they cannot send everything that you have in the house, and in all the houses of other people that you have access to.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @07:22AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @07:22AM (#338790)

            That would work for someone like Snowden.

            However, for something you need easy access to all the time - such as your porn collection - the one time pad is going to be on something that can be accessed easily.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @12:53PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @12:53PM (#338892)

              Why would you encrypt your porn? Documents, yes. Personal letters, yes. 18 inches vs 18 inches, deserves to be proudly displayed in plaintext :)

              • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 29 2016, @02:45PM

                by tangomargarine (667) on Friday April 29 2016, @02:45PM (#338954)

                This entire article is about a guy accused of having child porn and you're asking why someone would encrypt their porn?

                --
                "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday April 29 2016, @05:29PM

              by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday April 29 2016, @05:29PM (#339049) Journal

              Why not just use the contents of one of your DVDs unchanged? Thanks to DRM it should look quite random (didn't check that, though), and law enforcement would need to find out (a) that you used a DVD as key, (b) which DVD you used. Works best if you've got a large DVD collection. And a working DVD drive, of course. :-)

              --
              The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @07:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @07:15AM (#338786)

        Well, in the same fantasy world, the judge in this case would have said "prove that it's even his hard drive in the first place".

        In the real world, providing the false password would be evidence that it IS your hard drive, and suddenly your lawyer has a lot less to work with.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @08:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @08:50PM (#339159)

        This is a wake up call for deniable encryption, such as is provided by TrueCrypt. Only with deniable encryption can you give away an apparently working password, but still deny attackers access to the correct one. Apple's FileVault isn't worth shit, nor is anything not providing more than one working password/key.

        This kind of "plausible deniability" is only useful when you are lying. One should not have to lie to maintain their right not to incriminate themselves. This puts you in a very bad position, as the act of lying to authorities may itself be a crime or have other consequences. Remain silent.

        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday May 01 2016, @04:07AM

          by edIII (791) on Sunday May 01 2016, @04:07AM (#339682)

          You misunderstand the term. It provides you the complete inability to determine if I've lied or not, and an answer itself cannot be solely for the purposes of lying.

          This method provides you the ability to tell a "truth" without anyway to mathematically prove that a "lie" was said. In other words, I can provide information that meets the requirements every single time without ever putting specific other information at risk.

          One way of looking it is about lying or telling the truth, but on an encryption level the term means that you can't discern ciphertext from random noise at all.

          As for the plausible part (my motives for having that random noise around my house), I've decided that there exists no true randomness on Earth because specific properties in the core of our planet introduce strong patterns into our entropy. Therefore, I often fill up random hard drives and flash drives with my "raw entropy data" to be studied later, so that one day I can have a Nobel Prize, some money, and the associated math groupies.

          I'm the man hoarding entropy. I need help. I can't stop. Please help........ ;)

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @12:12PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @12:12PM (#338877)

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibQGWXfWc7c [youtube.com] -- old, but good explanation on the issue.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Kymation on Friday April 29 2016, @12:31AM

    by Kymation (1047) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 29 2016, @12:31AM (#338676)

    As mentioned in TFA, the Supreme Court has ruled on a relevant case. That ruling basically states that a person cannot be compelled to give up the combination to a safe. So what's the difference here? It's "on a computer."

    • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday April 29 2016, @01:17AM

      by edIII (791) on Friday April 29 2016, @01:17AM (#338689)

      That's not the only difference. A combination lock strongly implies that the government could pay $1 million (who cares? It's our taxes right?) to a safe cracker to get inside. Either that, or throw it to some military industrial complex rent-seeker with a new techno-doo-hickey.

      Whatever happens, that stuff they want is only barred to them by physical constraints that can easily made into temporary speed bumps with current levels of technology.

      The government must treat this as different, since math is far less tangible and suspect to irrational influences. Only one way exists (provably) to make that unintelligble data intelligible, and that's through the mind of a citizen to surmount nearly impossible math in viable time frames. Can they wait geological time periods using the energy of multiple suns to open a suspect's encrypted containers? Does there exist any form of key exchange suitably comprised in these methods? Obviously not, therefore it's treated as a much more serious threat to government.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Kymation on Friday April 29 2016, @01:26AM

        by Kymation (1047) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 29 2016, @01:26AM (#338693)

        So you're saying that they get to ignore the Constitution if it's too hard to comply?

        Slippery slope and all that....

        • (Score: 2) by Nollij on Friday April 29 2016, @09:33PM

          by Nollij (4559) on Friday April 29 2016, @09:33PM (#339190)

          That's actually another case [usatoday.com], right now, before SCOTUS, where they are claiming exactly that.

      • (Score: 2) by DrkShadow on Friday April 29 2016, @02:29AM

        by DrkShadow (1404) on Friday April 29 2016, @02:29AM (#338714)

        The government must thread the brain as different, since neronal connections are far less tangible and suspect to irrational influences. Only one way exists (provably) to make that unintelligible data intelligible, and that's through the mind of a citizen to surmount nearly impossible math in viable time frames. Can they wait geological time periods using the energy of multiple suns to decode the neuronal connections in a suspect's mind? Does there exist any suitable form of approximation for this understanding? Obviously not, therefore we must compel defendants to produce the contents of their minds to government.

      • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Friday April 29 2016, @01:57PM

        by Kromagv0 (1825) on Friday April 29 2016, @01:57PM (#338917) Homepage

        Lets say I take your reasoning at face value, I don't, then answer this :
         
        What obligation is one under to interpret data that may or may not be used to prosecute one's self? The investigators have the data, they don't understand it which is their problem not mine and are now demanding that I interpret it for them. When framed like this it seems clear to me that this would now be a 5th amendment violation.

        --
        T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 29 2016, @01:34AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 29 2016, @01:34AM (#338699) Journal

      Also relevant In re Boucher [wikipedia.org]

      In re Boucher (case citation: No. 2:06-mj-91, 2009 WL 424718), is a federal criminal case in Vermont, which was the first to directly address the question of whether investigators can compel a suspect to reveal their encryption passphrase or password, despite the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. A magistrate judge held that producing the passphrase would constitute self-incrimination

      That guy landed in jail only because, previously, he allowed a border officer to see some of the content of his drive (containing some CP), so the court compelled him to decrypt the drive himself because "producing the complete contents would not constitute self-incrimination."

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @08:05AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @08:05AM (#338803)

      As mentioned in TFA, the Supreme Court has ruled on a relevant case. That ruling basically states that a person cannot be compelled to give up the combination to a safe. So what's the difference here? It's "on a computer."

      Ah, but you see, that ruling apparently doesn't apply here because the case is not against the jailed man, he's considered a "third party". He's not even charged with anything except the contempt of court.

      The actual case is "United States of America v. Apple MacPro Computer, et al". The ones on trial are his hard drives, and according to this novel interpretation the Fifth Amendment applies only against the accused. If you're a third party you're under the All Writs Act.

      Of course, if he unlocks the drives and there is something incriminating on them (which there is: "Give me six lines written by the most honest man, and I will find something there to hang him."), be it child porn or anything else, he'll be charged with a crime.

      My take on this is, they should give him immunity from prosecution for anything contained on the drives, then ask nicely. Of course, if there's something bad on the drives, be it child porn or, say, evidence of cheating on his wife, his life could be destroyed without being charged with (or convicted of) anything.

      Additional coverage on Techdirt [techdirt.com], with a few trolls down there in the comments saying things like "I never thought I'd see TD defending child porn". At least I hope they're trolls, because if they're serious, they show a remarkable lack of understanding of how the judicial system is supposed to work, as well as a strong preference for Cardassian system of justice (no "innocent until proven guilty", just "guilty").

  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday April 29 2016, @12:51AM

    by Bot (3902) on Friday April 29 2016, @12:51AM (#338686) Journal

    in soviet russia, files lock YOU!!!

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by arslan on Friday April 29 2016, @02:50AM

      by arslan (3462) on Friday April 29 2016, @02:50AM (#338719)

      Its time to update that outdated meme... in soviet america, files lock you!

      In this case it certainly does.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Absolutely.Geek on Friday April 29 2016, @01:26AM

    by Absolutely.Geek (5328) on Friday April 29 2016, @01:26AM (#338694)

    The other was a forensic examiner who testified that it was his "best guess" that child pornography was on the drives

    It is my "best guess" that I will win the lottery this weekend; time to start living it up.

    --
    Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Friday April 29 2016, @01:54AM

    by CirclesInSand (2899) on Friday April 29 2016, @01:54AM (#338704)

    A small reminder that the most harshly punished crime in any empire is defiance of the powers that be.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @02:08AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @02:08AM (#338709)

    I haven't read the All Writs Act

    seriously? here is the full text of the act:

    (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

    (b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by JNCF on Friday April 29 2016, @03:29AM

      by JNCF (4317) on Friday April 29 2016, @03:29AM (#338729) Journal

      It's fair to note that the link to the very short Wikipedia article containing the full text of the act was added by martyb, and not the original poster (FakeBeldin). It does make for a rather ridiculous summary in the present form. Outside of that unfortunate yet informative juxtaposition it seems generally reasonable to have not read pretty much any given law. We're all careening into different pieces of information.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by deimios on Friday April 29 2016, @09:46AM

    by deimios (201) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 29 2016, @09:46AM (#338832) Journal

    I take your Mencken and raise you a Hitler:

    "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @04:40PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @04:40PM (#339025)

      Hey, that Hitler guy sounds alright.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:30PM (#341515)

    Can I plead the Fifth if my password itself contains an admission of guilt? Personally, I use password "Iam@T3rr0r1st!" on all my important user accounts.