>  Sure, sometimes the right to privacy may be abused to hide illegal 
> material
> (eg. child porn or terrorist plans), but I still don't think that privacy
> should be lifted from everybody simply because a few individuals abuse it
> to hide illegal material.

Privacy is not being lifted from everyone, just people like Tim where the 
police had a reasonable reason for wanting to check what was on his PC. 
Imagine the public outcry if (sorry Tim!) the police couldn't check Tim's PC 
because of privacy laws, but then Tim went on to do worse things, and it 
came out later on during a trial that the police suspected Tim was involved 
but couldn't do anything about it.

A bit like the outcry here when it was revealed that Fritzl had already been 
in prison for raping a young woman, and yet he was allowed to adopt children 
with no extra checks, purely because his records had been deleted due to 
"privacy" laws.

It's not always the case that more privacy is better for society as a whole.

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>
> It's not always the case that more privacy is better for society as a whole.

True, but it is getting the balance right that seems to be difficult.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Privacy is not being lifted from everyone, just people like Tim where the 
> police had a reasonable reason for wanting to check what was on his PC. 

  If the police can invade the privacy of anyone they want, that's a sure
way of getting a police state.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Privacy is not being lifted from everyone, just people like Tim where the
>> police had a reasonable reason for wanting to check what was on his PC.
>
>  If the police can invade the privacy of anyone they want,

They can't, they need to demonstrate to a judge that they have reasonable 
reason to believe that a PC *might* contain illegal material.  If they have 
proof that someone living in a house has downloaded CP, then I think it's 
reasonable to confiscate every PC in that house.

Don't worry Warp, they're not just going to choose you at random because you 
"look funny" then come in and take your PC!

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Don't worry Warp, they're not just going to choose you at random because you 
> "look funny" then come in and take your PC!

  Yet.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   If the police can invade the privacy of anyone they want, that's a sure
> way of getting a police state.

Yep. And I'll note that it's almost never the case that lack-of-privacy 
applies to famous powerful people. I mean, in the US right now, people 
are getting beat to crap by the cops for taking pictures of cops, and we 
can't even get the president to obey a subpoena from the congress.

I wouldn't mind cameras everywhere public if everyone could look at the 
pictures. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	The 10 GB used by the hidden container, if contiguous (which I suspect
> it is), will always appear as a 10 GB contiguous block of free space
> when you decrypt the outer container.

There have been file systems designed for this purpose where the sectors 
are allocated randomly and chained together. I don't know if TrueCrypt 
does this, since I'm not especially trying to hide the existence of 
encrypted stuff from law enforcement as much as I am from thieves who 
might break in.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:06:34 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> 	Yeah. Frankly, I don't yet have anything to warrant the 
inconvenience
> of hiding TC (or any similar system) usage. But good to know the options
> are there...

Same here, though I've been thinking of playing with it.  encfs is enough 
for me just at the moment.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:30:01 +0200, scott wrote:

> Privacy is not being lifted from everyone, just people like Tim where
> the police had a reasonable reason for wanting to check what was on his
> PC. Imagine the public outcry if (sorry Tim!) the police couldn't check
> Tim's PC because of privacy laws, but then Tim went on to do worse
> things, and it came out later on during a trial that the police
> suspected Tim was involved but couldn't do anything about it.

Here in the US we have a phrase for that - "Probable Cause" (I sometimes 
hear it as "Reasonable Probable Cause").  If the police suspect Tim is 
involved in something illegal and that suspicion is reasonable (not just 
"Hey, he looks evil, I'd better have a look"), then they are entitled.

Checking random laptops at the border is not reasonable probable cause, 
it's hoping they get lucky.  Big difference.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:06:34 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 
>> 	Yeah. Frankly, I don't yet have anything to warrant the 
> inconvenience
>> of hiding TC (or any similar system) usage. But good to know the options
>> are there...
> 
> Same here, though I've been thinking of playing with it.  encfs is enough 
> for me just at the moment.

	To counteract what I just said, I always believe that one (or at least
I) should always continually play with this stuff. If I wait till I have
something to hide, then my usage of it will be a dead giveaway.

-- 
It is kisstomary to cuss the bride.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message