On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 21:33 -0500, Ivan Krsti? wrote:
If you give me the benefit of the doubt for having a reasonable
general grasp of the legal system and not thinking the judge is an
automaton or an idiot, can you explain to me how you think the judge
can meet the burden of proof for
On Mar 3, 2009, at 6:38 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
So, the court is not going to pay the least attention to your
elaborate claims that you just like storing the output of your random
number generator on a large chunk of your hard drive. They really
don't give a damn about claims like that.
Perry E. Metzger pe...@piermont.com writes:
[Explanation of why courts aren't Turing machines]
Very nice explanation. The name I've used for this (attempted) defence is the
Rumpelstiltskin defence, for reasons that should be obvious (and at some point
I'll get around to finishing the writeup on
Adam Fields wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 12:26:32PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Quoting:
A federal judge has ordered a criminal defendant to decrypt his
hard drive by typing in his PGP passphrase so prosecutors can view
the unencrypted files, a ruling that raises serious
Marcus Brinkmann marcus.brinkm...@ruhr-uni-bochum.de writes:
* The safest thing to do is to do a clean operating system install before
traveling.
If you have an appropriate netbook (about 50% support this, check your
manufacturer and model type), unplug the SD card containing the OS image and
* Stephan Somogyi:
At 13:08 -0500 03.03.2009, Adam Fields wrote:
When compelled to give out your password
Unless I'm misunderstanding the ruling, Boucher is not being compelled
to produce his passphrase (like he could under RIPA Section 49 in the
UK), but he is being told to produce the
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:05:32 -0800
John Gilmore g...@toad.com wrote:
I would not read too much into this ruling -- I think that this is a
special situation, and does not address the more important general
issue.
In other cases, where alternative evidence is not available to the
Quoting:
A federal judge has ordered a criminal defendant to decrypt his
hard drive by typing in his PGP passphrase so prosecutors can view
the unencrypted files, a ruling that raises serious concerns about
self-incrimination in an electronic age.
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:26:32 -0500
Perry E. Metzger pe...@piermont.com wrote:
Quoting:
A federal judge has ordered a criminal defendant to decrypt his
hard drive by typing in his PGP passphrase so prosecutors can view
the unencrypted files, a ruling that raises serious concerns
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 12:26:32PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Quoting:
A federal judge has ordered a criminal defendant to decrypt his
hard drive by typing in his PGP passphrase so prosecutors can view
the unencrypted files, a ruling that raises serious concerns about
Adam Fields cryptography23094...@aquick.org writes:
The privacy issues are troubling, of course, but it would seem trivial
to bypass this sort of compulsion by having the disk encryption
software allow multiple passwords, each of which unlocks a different
version of the encrypted partition.
At 13:08 -0500 03.03.2009, Adam Fields wrote:
When compelled to give out your password
Unless I'm misunderstanding the ruling, Boucher is not being
compelled to produce his passphrase (like he could under RIPA Section
49 in the UK), but he is being told to produce the unencrypted
contents
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:20:22PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Adam Fields cryptography23094...@aquick.org writes:
The privacy issues are troubling, of course, but it would seem trivial
to bypass this sort of compulsion by having the disk encryption
software allow multiple passwords,
Adam Fields cryptography23094...@aquick.org writes:
Well, it should be clear that any such scheme necessarily will produce
encrypted partitions with less storage capacity than one with only one
set of cleartext. You can't magically store 2N bytes in an N byte
drive -- something has to give.
On 2009-03-03, Stephan Somogyi wrote:
There is a chasm of difference between being compelled to produce
keys, which could be subsequently reused with other encrypted
material, and being compelled to produce specific unencrypted data,
which is much more narrowly scoped and therefore less
With regards to alternative runtime decryptions, recall ...
http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Chaffing.txt
The claim is that the approach is neither encryption nor steganography.
Cheers, Scott
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:53:50 -0500
Perry E. Metzger pe...@piermont.com wrote:
Adam Fields cryptography23094...@aquick.org writes:
Well, it should be clear that any such scheme necessarily will
produce encrypted partitions with less storage capacity than one
with only one set of
At 02:45 PM 3/3/2009 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:53:50 -0500
Perry E. Metzger pe...@piermont.com wrote:
I'll repeat: the law is not like a computer program. Courts operate on
reasonableness standards and such, not on literal interpretation of
the law. If it is
On Mar 3, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Adam Fields wrote:
Is there any disk encryption software for which this is common
practice?
In terms of fairly widely used software, yes, TrueCrypt offers hidden
volumes:
http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=hidden-volume
I asked the same original question on
On Mar 3, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
If it is obvious to you and me that a disk has multiple
encrypted views, then you can't expect that a court will not be able
to understand this and take appropriate action, like putting you in a
cage.
Why do you think it'd be obvious to you
Ivan Krstić krs...@solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu writes:
On Mar 3, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
If it is obvious to you and me that a disk has multiple
encrypted views, then you can't expect that a court will not be able
to understand this and take appropriate action, like putting
To more fully quote Adam's question:
When compelled to give out your password, you give out the one that
unlocks the partition full of kitten and puppy pictures, and who's to
say that's not all there is on the drive?
Is there any disk encryption software for which this is common
practice?
I would not read too much into this ruling -- I think that this is a
special situation, and does not address the more important general
issue.
In other cases, where alternative evidence is not available to the
government, and where government agents have not already had a look at
the
23 matches
Mail list logo