DOJ: We can force you to decrypt that laptop

[jedi]

Pure speculation here, but couldn't you keep a sufficiently powerful magnet in your house and just throw it on your hard drive if/when the police/mafia/your parents come in to break down the door?

Yes but you need a very big magnet for that to work. Also it does require you to pull that HD from your machine which many do not have easily accessible. ie. Most people can't just open their computer case & take out the hard drive in a few seconds.

Best way if you are real short on time to to have the computer pre-wired to just blow up (ie. explosives on the hard drive) but even then I'm not sure you can be certain you have destroyed the dics (physically) enough. Plus would that not mean you have destroyed the evidence?

Seems like the double encryption would be the way to go.

So.... you admit that the drive was encrypted with a 25 digit password?

Seems to me it would be better if you just SHUT UP.

He does not have to say anything about the drive being encrypted or not. Anyone with PC skills will know when they get a drive if it's encrypted or not. That is not the issue. The issue is getting the drive decrypted if you don't have the password and it's a freaking long 25+ one that is many of characters (ie. not something you find in the dictionary but something that makes no sense. ie: dssu76723A*$3=-.,Jhgrt7eaj%4rahd)9765=['$32@

 

[Wwwildthing]

Clearly, you are missing MY point...

 

[jedi]

Believe me.. if you spent the time it would take to crack it, even KNOWING it was 25 characters, it would still take you decades if not centuries.

Then, when you finally got in there, if any of us were still alive by that time, the payoff would not be what you were expecting.

Finally, who says it's not actually 21, or 24, or 35. Maybe I just picked 25 out of thin air. Give me SOME credit.

Clearly, you are missing MY point...

Probably but I still think we should waterboard him and then do the Chinese water drip method on him as well. Even if jbombelli gives up the password or not I say continue on. After all he is a gun-nut!

 

[88GT]

Don't count on it.
Peoria Parents Sue Wal-Mart, AG's Office After Kids are Taken Away Over Nude Vacation Photos of Them - Phoenix News - Valley Fever

Grandma Arrested for Child Porn (bathtub photos of granddaughter)

Texas Officials Arrest Parents and Take Away Their Children for Taking Pictures in a Bathtub and Breastfeeding « JONATHAN TURLEY

Nope, still good. They were doing that **** long before I had kids. All photos have been screened against the nanny state standard. And I don't use a 3rd party for developing or printing.

 

[96firephoenix]

they can not force you to open your house.. they can let you choose to open it, or have it busted open ...

same way they can let you choose to decrypt your laptop or have it decrypted by an analyst/hacker. She is within her rights to deny them the password to her computer. They are within their rights to hack it.

DOJ needs to stop power-grabbing.

 

[PeaShooter]

I have a buddy who investigates for the State Police and we were talking about evidence on computers and he mentioned that they have rainbow lists? (I think that was what they were called). Basically a brute force hack that doesn't take very long to accomplish. I haven't done any research into them, as I have had no need, but just throwin it out there...

 

[NYFelon]

Rainbow Tables are usually ineffective against many modern password encryption schemes.

 

[jbombelli]

I have a buddy who investigates for the State Police and we were talking about evidence on computers and he mentioned that they have rainbow lists? (I think that was what they were called). Basically a brute force hack that doesn't take very long to accomplish. I haven't done any research into them, as I have had no need, but just throwin it out there...

There's no such thing as a brute force hack that doesn't take very long to accomplish, unless the user did something stupid like set his password as "guitardude" or something equally lame.

Here's a quick math lesson regarding big passwords like mine. We'll use 25 digits, since that's the number I said earlier in this thread.

There are 94 possible characters to use (26 upper case letters, 26 lower case, 10 numbers, 10 characters above the numbers, and 22 additional characters, looking at my keyboard right now and counting them up). That makes the total number of combinations in a 25 digit password 94 to the 25th power (please note I am dropping all decimal places), or:

12,436,428,680,229,493,334,448,956,650,620,782,820,747,936,530,432

If your brute force system can check 1 billion possible combinations every second, it will take this many seconds to check them all:

12,436,428,680,229,493,334,448,956,650,620,782,820,747

Divide this number by 60 to get the number of minutes, again by 60 to get the number of hours, again by 24 to get the number of days, and finally divide that by 365 to get the number of years, and here's how many years it will take to check every one, at the rate of 1 billion per second:

394,356,566,471,001,183,867,610,243,867,985

Even if your rainbow chart and brute force system is so good that it reduces that number by 99%, you still get an inconceivably large number. Just take two decimal places off the end:

3,943,565,664,710,011,838,676,102,438,679.

That is way longer than the universe has been in existence.

Now, keep in mind that the above assumes the person using the brute force system KNOWS it's a 25-digit password. If he has to go through all the possible 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23 and 24 digit possibilities before getting to 25 digits, well - I'm sure you know what that will do to these numbers.

THAT is the power of a password that looks like #^si9*8';}=)75*./!di4kc=t, and it's the reason government wants to be able to legally force us to provide our passwords.

 

[RichardR]

Meh, there is nothing on my computer(s) that are worth the hassle of encrypting.

The only files that I probably wouldn't want some strangers looking through are a few naked pictures of my wife.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Well, that kind of stuff on my computer would definately keep me from ever being elected to a political office to say the least.

Probably not if you were a Democrat, judging by the "peccadillos" of the folks they've embraced in recent years.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

It is not probable to brute force the level of encryption provided by modern day algorithms. Modern day encryption is not done by obfuscation, it is done by algorithms that create mathematical difficulty to decrypt (the amount of possibilities is ginormous, and the process to create the keys takes large amounts of computational power). Due to how encryption works, the geek in the movies that is "so smart" he can decrypt files on the fly - is not realistic.

Compound that with current "dual container" methods of encryption, and you can nest encrypted information in a container that holds "less sensitive" data in another container.

IE: Someone hides truly sensitive file in a nested container with password "bacon". In the same file, they hide a few adult images in the less sensitive nest with password "hereyougo". Guess which password is given to decrypt the file? How do you prove that they did not hand over the password? You cannot.. you do not know what is encrypted, and that is why you want the password in the first place...

While nested encryption is not employed by most encryption programs, a precedence of this nature will just encourage more widespread development.

This is as silly as outlawing strong encryption algorithms, classifying them as "weapons grade encryption" - because shadowy figure X does not have the capability to decrypt it to plain-text.

This technology exists, and prosecuting people for not turning over possible information is a direct infringement upon the 5th amendment. If you cannot search it yourself, you cannot expect people to hand over incriminating evidence.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

if you have nothing to hide, you should give them the password and be done with it. why make their job harder?

Following that line of thought - the fifth amendment should not exist, right?

So, why not repeal the fifth amendment - instead of attempting to circumvent it?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

well it would make everyones lives easier if people were honest and talked to the police. theyre just doing their jobs and trying to keep everyone safe.

I disagree... and I believe the authority that we as a people grant to our justice system comes with great burden - responsible arrests, prosecution, and respect for citizen's rights. People are not criminals because they get arrested, or because police ask them questions - they become criminals once convicted - once we prove without a reasonable doubt that they committed a crime.

It is one thing to talk to the police if you choose to, and everyone has the ability to do so... nothing is wrong with helping the police. However, choosing to speak to the police (or investigators/prosecutors, which is more likely the case in this story), and being forced to are two totally different things. In a perfect world, telling the truth would never get you in trouble... however we do not live in a perfect world, and with a justice system with as many flaws as ours - even telling the truth can lead to a situation where your words are held against you. The burden of proof lies on the side that claims a crime happened - and the defendant is not responsible for proving himself/herself not guilty.

If we are to be a society that respects laws, then the constitution should be considered an important document. Fearing the abuse of government authority in legal procedures, the fifth amendment was added to protect citizens god given rights - and while it exists:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

 

[Prometheus]

well it would make everyones lives easier if people were honest and talked to the police. theyre just doing their jobs and trying to keep everyone safe.

This joker can't be serious.

 

[jgreiner]

Am I missing something here. If they have a warrant to search your house they can force you to open it and search it (or they can open it themselves to get access). If they have a warrant to search your computer how is it different that they force you to "open" it as well? I'm not trying to stir the pot but I don't see the difference.

They can decrypt it themselves. They CAN'T force you to incriminate yourself, which is what would happen if you gave up the code. The 5th guarantees that.