Guy locked-up forever for forgetting his password.

[Aoi Magi]

Yes someone can easily set someone up like this, but what I want to know is should the feds really need to depend on the suspect to reveal the password, or can they, due to circumstantial evidence, legally crack open and check the data themselves? Cause it is pointless to hold him indefinitely and is definitely a violation of his rights... so either they have to let him go, or find some way of checking the evidence without his cooperation. If they can't do the later, then why bother holding on to him?

As someone who has worked in IT for 25 years, I suspect that the federal government could crack the guy's password if they wanted to; however, they would probably need to involve the NSA, and we're talking about, perhaps, tens of thousands of hours of supercomputer time, and it is simply cheaper for the US government to keep the guy in jail then it is to devote a large segment of NSA resources to cracking the guy's password.  But, then again, if it is a spoof container, then it would take more energy than has existed in the entire Universe, both visible and beyond our cosmic horizon, to crack the passphrase using brute-force methods.

So in other words, it is pointless to hold him, and is a waste of time and resources... and a drain on our tax money...

I wonder why the feds couldn't just monitor him and gather some evidence before moving in...

[Tiberius]

My view on this is that it's analogous to disclosing a safe combination to satisfy a warrant. Search the safe all you want, but you can't compel me to help you.

I disagree. The safe is physical; encrypted data has both a physical aspect (the 0's and 1's written to the hard drive) and a non-physical aspect (the decryption key in your head). The 0's and 1's the police already have access to; that's the data, the evidence they need. The decryption key is how you read the data, and if that is stored in someone's head, then trying to coerce them into revealing should violates the 5th.

I understand the law might not work that way, but it most definitely should. Digital safes and physical safes are not even remotely similar.

[Jehanne]

I would lend them my quantum computer but I'd probably never get it back.
It's one of a kind and you can only get them from the future.

LOL!!!  You're so funny!  The last I heard about QCs is that IBM was able to multiply 3 * 5 to get 15.

[Jehanne]

As someone who has worked in IT for 25 years, I suspect that the federal government could crack the guy's password if they wanted to; however, they would probably need to involve the NSA, and we're talking about, perhaps, tens of thousands of hours of supercomputer time, and it is simply cheaper for the US government to keep the guy in jail then it is to devote a large segment of NSA resources to cracking the guy's password.  But, then again, if it is a spoof container, then it would take more energy than has existed in the entire Universe, both visible and beyond our cosmic horizon, to crack the passphrase using brute-force methods.

So in other words, it is pointless to hold him, and is a waste of time and resources... and a drain on our tax money...

I wonder why the feds couldn't just monitor him and gather some evidence before moving in...

I think that the real motive is just totalitarianism.  Basically, "fuck with the US government and this is what is going to happen to you!"  Civil rights are "rights" when it is convenient for the US government to grant those rights.  If you're a young, good-looking upper-class white girl whose just shoplifted from Target, the cops can show-up and give all sorts of reasons to not do their jobs, basing their arguments entirely on your "civil rights".  On the other hand, if you're a poor, unemployed black woman, then they're going to walk you out in handcuffs in front of everyone.

I witnessed this, by the way, at a local Halmark store, where some thieves stole some items so quickly that I did not even see it happen and left the store just as quickly.  The cop who showed-up minutes later, a police sergeant, gave the store owner a mini-public lecture on people's civil rights.

[Jackalope]

My view on this is that it's analogous to disclosing a safe combination to satisfy a warrant.   Search the safe all you want, but you can't compel me to help you.

I disagree. The safe is physical; encrypted data has both a physical aspect (the 0's and 1's written to the hard drive) and a non-physical aspect (the decryption key in your head). The 0's and 1's the police already have access to; that's the data, the evidence they need. The decryption key is how you read the data, and if that is stored in someone's head, then trying to coerce them into revealing should violates the 5th.

I understand the law might not work that way, but it most definitely should. Digital safes and physical safes are not even remotely similar.

I don't think we are actually in disagreement. I don't think that they should be able to coerce giving up a passphrase. The parallel I was drawing was to a combination lock - with a warrant, they can cut the lock if I can't / won't disclose the combination, likewise they're welcome to attempt to decrypt my data without the password all they want.

[Minimalist]

Actually C/D I think your analogy was good but in the other direction.  Yes, with any sort of physical lock there are brute force methods to overcome it.  They may not want to be bothered but they can get in there without the suspect's help.  Here, so they claim, they are stymied by the encryption and cannot break it without compelling the assistance of the suspect.

[Minimalist]

On a remotely similar note:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.2688644

U.S. Customs wants to start collecting social media accounts for foreign travelers

Suppose you don't have one?  ( I don't. )  Are you supposed to stand there arguing with a GS-7 Customs Inspector about why that line on the form is blank?

[account_inactive]

Well, that's fucked up.

[Tiberius]

On a remotely similar note:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.2688644

U.S. Customs wants to start collecting social media accounts for foreign travelers

Suppose you don't have one?  ( I don't. )  Are you supposed to stand there arguing with a GS-7 Customs Inspector about why that line on the form is blank?

I read somewhere it was optional not mandatory?

[Minimalist]

Sadly that is a common method to how these things begin. 

If an insignificant* number of people "voluntarily" fill in the form how long before they are back whining to make it a requirement?


* Less than 75%.