Man Who Refused to Decrypt Hard Drives Still in Prison After Two Years

[Fugus]

Again, going back to the premise of a book code, they know it's a book, but they have no idea which book. Drive encryption is not like locking papers in a safe (that is your general login password), it is encoding those papers and then putting them in the safe. They have the "safe" and they have opened it. They just cant decypher what is in it. Do you understand the difference?

Unless it can be proven that literally no other person ever had access to an encrypted drive, knowing the password is incriminating.

Again, they know the book, the book is entitled "The encryption code for the persons computer" they know exactly what the book is, what they don't know is the contents of that book.

I know what encryption is, it is a safe to protect your belongings so that even if it is stolen, others can not open it to use it. I understand exactly what it is. They have the safe, they can't open it though. Now, if he actually started writing texts in code in that safe, then you might have something, but he wasn't pulling a Nostradamus. He literally took his contents and put it behind a combination lock. That is what the encryption is.


You mean unless you can prove that more than just him had access to that drive is what you mean. But the rest just sounds weird. If someone else had an encrypted drive before makes no difference because the ownership of THIS drive they already know of and is confirmed. And the fact it is HIS encryption again has already been confirmed. So him giving them the key is not self incrimination logically. (Even though the courts have bad verdicts on it as others have claimed because they don't know what they are talking about).

The encryption IS the safe and just putting the safe "On a computer" like a bunch of stupid patents, doesn't change that fact that it is a digital safe.

[Deleted]

What stupid argument is that? It's his own choice to be in jail, if he wants a trial he has to unlock he drive if he does not we should assume the worst which could be nuclear terrorist plans. What i'm trying to say is if he says he's innocent why not unlock the hdd?

I dont think he has Information about the US Military on his HDD

[Fugus]

@Kellhound here.

The neither the hard drive nor the computer itself is the safe. At best it could be seen as a door to a room. Most people have their unlocked but to most, even if you locked them they can be opened with something as simple as a screwdriver quite literally as I used to do that to people and would physically remove their computers hard drive and hook it up to another computer to get the contents off of it for them.

Now, encryption on the otherhand, THAT is the safe. That is what protects the information. The operating systems that encrypted contents automatically, I could not help them with as I could not remove the contents of the safe without their combination.

This person, their computer and the harddrive they got, basically they managed to get into the room, now when they looked in the room (IE his harddrive contents) that is where they found his safe, he has already admitted it was his safe at this point so a moot point trying to argue otherwise. They are asking for the key to that safe. He knows the combination of that safe but refuses to divulge it.


Sorry to change the analogy but couldn't keep to it while being accurate to the events.

[Kellhound]

Again, they know the book, the book is entitled "The encryption code for the persons computer" they know exactly what the book is, what they don't know is the contents of that book.

I know what encryption is, it is a safe to protect your belongings so that even if it is stolen, others can not open it to use it. I understand exactly what it is. They have the safe, they can't open it though. Now, if he actually started writing texts in code in that safe, then you might have something, but he wasn't pulling a Nostradamus. He literally took his contents and put it behind a combination lock. That is what the encryption is.


You mean unless you can prove that more than just him had access to that drive is what you mean. But the rest just sounds weird. If someone else had an encrypted drive before makes no difference because the ownership of THIS drive they already know of and is confirmed. And the fact it is HIS encryption again has already been confirmed. So him giving them the key is not self incrimination logically. (Even though the courts have bad verdicts on it as others have claimed because they don't know what they are talking about).

The encryption IS the safe and just putting the safe "On a computer" like a bunch of stupid patents, doesn't change that fact that it is a digital safe.

Forget it, you are too stuck on the "key" thing to even grasp the differences I am talking about.

[Zeta333]

if it was as simple as that there wouldn't be a debate about it.

it is as simple as that, you can debate a rock on wether its a rock if you want, but its still a rock. he refused a court order, hes in jail untill he complies. He knows he will be in jail for as long if he does comply so hes not doing shit. Chimos get killed in prison.

[Fugus]

Forget it, you are too stuck on the "key" thing to even grasp the differences I am talking about.

I understand the differences you are talking about just fine. I just know enough about what encryption is to go with it.

[phalk]

He will clearly never unlock the disk because he knows he will get a terrible sentence. This is obvious.

But I really think even the worst of all people should have a right to defend themselves and that includes a right to not incriminate themselves.

The right thing to do here would be to try and decrypt the disk without needing his aid I think. Really hard to judge this situation.

Hypothetically, imagine if he REALLY did forget the disk's password? (For god's sake I don't think this is the case, don't bash me). Would this still be fair?

[Zeta333]

There wouldn't be a hash on his PC to be compared against under any typical configuration. OSX doesn't use hashes for file integrity checkingm so there's no reason for the hash of the unencrypted file to exist.

And without the hash having been created by his computer before the file was encrypted, there's no way for them to calculate it, because the file is encrypted and the encrypted version of a file (and that's even assuming the encryption is file-level rather than full-disk, in which case they wouldn't even be able to differentiate individual files) would have a totally different hash value.

so then maby there is more to the evidence than what they are releasing to the public, this is going to shock you, but crimelabs and police departments release vague details and not all of the details and sometimes misleading details to the news to either keep the case confidential or force someone elses hand in the public. Im better they didnt tell the full story to the public and they dont have to. Cus armchair generals on mmochampion dont know shit about the case.

- - - Updated - - -

As far as my opinion goes, this is the current law...if they want people to decrypt their information they need to update the law in order to force them to open it up. Make a law that literally says you can jail a person as long as they refuse to decrypt a hard drive for all I care.

But as long as it isn't...don't force a person to do something they shouldn't do by law.

how is it against the current law?

- - - Updated - - -

He will clearly never unlock the disk because he knows we will get a terrible sentence. This is obvious.

But I really think even the worst of all people should have a right to defend themselves and that includes a right to not incriminate themselves.

The right thing to do here would be to try and decrypt the disk without needing his aid I think. Really hard to judge this situation.

Hypothetically, imagine if he REALLY did forget the disk's password? (For god's sake I don't think this is the case, don't bash me). Would this still be fair?

if someone is prone to forgetting the password to somthing like this they ALWAYS have it written down somewhere.

[Fugus]

He will clearly never unlock the disk because he knows we will get a terrible sentence. This is obvious.

But I really think even the worst of all people should have a right to defend themselves and that includes a right to not incriminate themselves.

The right thing to do here would be to try and decrypt the disk without needing his aid I think. Really hard to judge this situation.

Hypothetically, imagine if he REALLY did forget the disk's password? (For god's sake I don't think this is the case, don't bash me). Would this still be fair?

Actually, at this point, he has a legitimate claim that he forgot the password after 2 years. So he could make that claim and probably get out on it.

[phalk]

Actually, at this point, he has a legitimate claim that he forgot the password after 2 years. So he could make that claim and probably get out on it.

Is it possible for the disk to be permanently held by the police? For a brute force codebreak, for instance?
He should have the "benefit" of doubt and then when the disk is decrypted he should have his sentence.
But then he could flee in the meantime. This is a really troublesome situation.

[Masark]

this is going to shock you, but crimelabs and police departments release vague details

Crime labs habitually make shit up.

Contrary to the public marination in CSI, etc. forensic "science" is largely anything but.

- - - Updated - - -

Is it possible for the disk to be permanently held by the police? For a brute force codebreak, for instance?
He should have the "benefit" of doubt and then when the disk is decrypted he should have his sentence.

Unless he used a really shitty password or the encryption is an utter joke, all the stars in the universe will have gone out long before any attempt a brute forcing would succeed.

[Zmaniac17]

People who use cryptography do that on their own risk. There is no reason for an ordinary man to use encryption, and those who abuse it to facilitate their crimes, must pay the adequate price.

So are you saying that no ordinary person would want to encrypt their data to keep it safe from hackers or thieves? Do you use your computer for business or finances? Do you lock your phone or tablet? Do you use your credit card online? I'm sorry but this argument doesn't hold water. Encryption is everywhere. I have at least 20 different passwords in my password manager that I cannot remember offhand.

[Fugus]

Is it possible for the disk to be permanently held by the police? For a brute force codebreak, for instance?
He should have the "benefit" of doubt and then when the disk is decrypted he should have his sentence.
But then he could flee in the meantime. This is a really troublesome situation.

Like Masark said.

The disk could be permanently held by the police, but a brute force attack would take so long he and potentially his great grand children would die of old age before it was cracked which is honestly the entire point of encryption. To make it take so long to break that it is effectively unbreakable.

The whole "benefit of the doubt" part, he should have that already in a functional system with the whole "innocent until proven guilty part" he SHOULD have already had this with the case to the point they had a reason to believe that he knew and wasn't saying.

As of now, he definitely has a reasonable doubt to claim he forgot after 2 years in prison.

[ge0]

it is as simple as that, you can debate a rock on wether its a rock if you want, but its still a rock. he refused a court order, hes in jail untill he complies. He knows he will be in jail for as long if he does comply so hes not doing shit. Chimos get killed in prison.

You say he refused a court order. He says he doesn't remember the password. This isn't a debate over a rock being a rock.

I think people are rightfully bothered by this. It reeks of guilty until proven innocent and quite frankly its disturbing how willing people (like you) are to throw other people's lives away. Glad not everyone posting here shares your mentality.

[Zeta333]

You say he refused a court order. He says he doesn't remember the password. This isn't a debate over a rock being a rock.

I think people are rightfully bothered by this. It reeks of guilty until proven innocent and quite frankly its disturbing how willing people (like you) are to throw other people's lives away. Glad not everyone posting here shares your mentality.

so then all child mollesters have to do is encrypt thier child porn and then they can never be charged for having it becuase you dont want to force them to unlock it. Sorry but thats not acceptable.

[Elim Garak]

so then all child mollesters have to do is encrypt thier child porn

Child molesters are not punished for possessing child porn. Duh.

Possession of child porn doesn't a child molester make.

[Zeta333]

Child molesters are not punished for possessing child porn. Duh.

Possession of child porn doesn't a child molester make.

you collect and view child porn for pleasure, your not different or better in my book. You get equally fucked in prison as well.

[Flarelaine]

This is the only issue I am finding. I side with the judge on the 5th amendment BS, but how can you hold someone in contempt if he truly forgot? There's really no way for the court to prove that he is lying, and so should never be held for not providing a password.

I've forgotten passwords the day after I've made them...

I don't even need a court to hold someone who forgets the password to his own home hard drive in contempt.

- - - Updated - - -

Contempt of court needs to be done away with, or at least massively curtailed.

I believe contempt of court is one of the better things about the Angle-Saxon legal system. Yes, I understand it is abused occasionally. But consider an ex-communist country where a crony capitalist regime is steering steadily towards authoritarianism (such as the one I live in). Legally, everyone has the right to know where the money goes, but neither government bureaus nor state-owned enterprises are forthcoming. Requests for informations are the legal avenue, but they are denied, appealed to the end and when the courts still order the requests should be served, they just get ignored. With no consequence.

[Deleted]

No, it should not. Giving a key is not logically giving a testimony.

Why can't a defendant be called to testify against himself?
After all, he could be asked questions that do not relate to any criminal activity?
The answer to that is of course that the defendant is protected from all such requests - Even if we alter this to a locked box that they need to get into, the defendant should not be obligated to comply with a request for the key.

[Elim Garak]

you collect and view child porn for pleasure, your not different or better in my book. You get equally fucked in prison as well.

Your book is irrelevant