Cryptographers use DMCA to construct a scenario where RIAA has to violate 
DMCA to prove someone is violating their copyrights. :-)

http://sysnet.ucsd.edu/projects/staple/

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://sysnet.ucsd.edu/projects/staple/

  "Of course, if Alice got a warrant, then she could probably force Bob
to reveal the contents of the archive."

  I have always wondered about this. To what extent can authorities,
legally, pressure a suspect to reveal information that only he knows,
when this information would prove his guilt?

  For example, if authorities ask the suspect what is the decryption
password for a file, and the suspect says he can't remember it, can there
be any consequences? How do authorities prove that he is lying, that he
does remember perfectly, and is simply refusing to tell?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>   For example, if authorities ask the suspect what is the decryption
> password for a file, and the suspect says he can't remember it, can there
> be any consequences? How do authorities prove that he is lying, that he
> does remember perfectly, and is simply refusing to tell?
>

That does make for a great spy novel.  The password is written in umpteen
characters on a sheet of paper in the guy's wallet. In response to a demand to
unlock the device, the guy EATS the paper!

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   For example, if authorities ask the suspect what is the decryption
> password for a file, and the suspect says he can't remember it, can there
> be any consequences? How do authorities prove that he is lying, that he
> does remember perfectly, and is simply refusing to tell?

I bumped "post" too soon...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/court-self-incrimination-privilege-stops-with-passwords.ars

If you care enough to track through it, you see that the problem is the 
encrypted partition was unlocked, he admitted it might have child porn, the 
border guards saw something that looked like child porn, and then the drive 
got locked.

The trial judge tried to make the case that they already knew there was 
child porn there and he already admitted there was child porn there, so he's 
not incriminating himself by revealing the password. Other judges in the 
chain of command have said passwords are testimonial.

But since he already admitted he knew the password, that's a different 
situation than saying "I don't know the password, that's not my computer, 
someone else put that there," etc. In *this* case, I'd think it would be 
testimonial and hence protected, because by revealing the password you're 
revealing you know what's protected by the password. It seems pretty clear 
that if you don't admit you know the password, they can't force you to enter 
it.  (And in this particular case, he'd probably be in jail much less time 
for refusing to reveal the password than for getting caught with child porn 
on his laptop.)

There's other stuff out there about the case. For example, he says the 
reason he might have child porn is he downloads bunches of porn, then 
deletes anything that looks suspicious, and he hadn't gotten around to 
cleaning up this latest batch.

But, to answer the question, "the judges are figuring this out right now." 
The link does a decent job of summarizing the arguments back and forth.

IANAL.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   "Of course, if Alice got a warrant, then she could probably force Bob
> to reveal the contents of the archive."

Hmmm. Apparently the premature post failed for some reason. :-)

I think the author of that sentence doesn't know what they're talking about.

>   I have always wondered about this. To what extent can authorities,
> legally, pressure a suspect to reveal information that only he knows,
> when this information would prove his guilt?

That's the "Fifth Amendment."  They can't. They can make you turn over 
*things*, but not information.

Or, alternately, they can ask you to reveal it if they promise not to 
prosecute you for it. So they can ask the accountant to disclose the 
password to the accounting files and promise not to prosecute the 
accountant, but then use the information to prosecute the boss, for example.

>   For example, if authorities ask the suspect what is the decryption
> password for a file, and the suspect says he can't remember it, can there
> be any consequences? How do authorities prove that he is lying, that he
> does remember perfectly, and is simply refusing to tell?

Well, in this particular case, the defendant already told them he had the 
password.  They're really arguing "I don't want your password, I want your 
locked files."  Since he told them he knows the password, they're arguing 
that they're not getting anything new from him.

Generally, the government doesn't get to do anything about that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   For example, if authorities ask the suspect what is the decryption
> > password for a file, and the suspect says he can't remember it, can there
> > be any consequences? How do authorities prove that he is lying, that he
> > does remember perfectly, and is simply refusing to tell?
>
> I bumped "post" too soon...
>
>
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/court-self-incrimination-privilege-stops-with-passwords.ars
>
> If you care enough to track through it, you see that the problem is the
> encrypted partition was unlocked, he admitted it might have child porn, the
> border guards saw something that looked like child porn, and then the drive
> got locked.

huhuhu
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0318091dog1.html

This one got backfired. :P

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> This one got backfired. :P

Yeah. In general, the right answer is STFU, at least in America. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

http://xkcd.com/538/

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 3/22/2009 9:43 AM, Darren New wrote:
> There's other stuff out there about the case. For example, he says the
> reason he might have child porn is he downloads bunches of porn, then
> deletes anything that looks suspicious, and he hadn't gotten around to
> cleaning up this latest batch.

Although I've pretty much come to hate humanity for the things they 
do[1], this actually sounds like a believable scenario.

[1] The difference between cardboard cutout characters and real people 
is that real people can have opposing ideas or emotions at the same 
time.  Yes, I hate people.  Yes, I think they're dicks.  At the same 
time, I have great hopes for our future and I'm consistently (one might 
say naively) optimistic about new people I meet.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

> Or, alternately, they can ask you to reveal it if they promise not to 
> prosecute you for it. So they can ask the accountant to disclose the 
> password to the accounting files and promise not to prosecute the 
> accountant, but then use the information to prosecute the boss, for 
> example.

Even in this case they are cutting a deal. Under no circumstances are you 
compelled to provide information that could incriminate yourself. They may 
promise not to prosecute but your ultimate dicision to waive your fifth 
amendment rights depends on whether or not you believe they have evidence to 
convict you.

However, if you give a statement under oath and they can prove that 
statement is false they can get you for purjury. Also, any statement you 
give can be used in court to prosecute you even if you are guilty of 
nothing. That is why if they ask you for the password and you say nothing 
they will have no evidence to prosecute. If they ask for the password and 
you say you don't know what it is and they can prove you knew what it is, 
they can use that in court as evidence of guilt.

I think this guy does a great job of explaining the fifth amenment

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

Post a reply to this message