What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
85 Comments
- cyberwired, on 10/20/2009, -2/+92"WTF is a dot RAR file??? Damn it how does this open!? It seems to be encrypted and we can't get into it!"
- Navicerts, on 10/20/2009, -0/+78You mean the files are IN the computer?!
- cawfee, on 10/20/2009, -1/+78Ah, Truecrypt. When in the right hands, you're such a blessing; when in the wrong hands, you're such a curse.
- MacHarborGuy, on 10/20/2009, -3/+79just waiting for the eventual outcry to ban encryption technologies
- inactive, on 10/20/2009, -1/+4909 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
- rubixcubez, on 10/20/2009, -1/+43Encryption FTW!
- joelito, on 10/20/2009, -5/+37If they outlaw encryption, only criminals will have encryption.
Besides, encryption used to be illegal in the US - restlessmouse, on 10/20/2009, -1/+32"He thought they (flatmates) were colluding with officials to construct a case against him." - Ironic - That's exactly what they did.
- trashbox, on 10/20/2009, -1/+27But luckily it isn't. And thanks to the fifth amendment ("nor shall any person...be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"), it's legally impossible to force a person to divulge their password, as well.
So just for the record, I plead the fifth. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/20/2009, -0/+25In the States, no. You are protected under the fifth amendment. You cannot be held in contempt for refusing to incriminate yourself. That's the same reason you can't be held in contempt for refusing to tell the police where you head the person you murdered.
The very nature of the inquiry presume wrongdoing, so it is your legal right not to answer it without such a non-answer be construed as an admission of guilt.
That said, it seems rather shocking that the physical network of peepholes wasn't in and of itself enough for a conviction. Certainly the computer evidence would be valuable, but it hardly seems imperative if authorities can show for a fact that such a network was constructed. Sounds like the coppers had a ***** case going in and were counting on the computer evidence. They were caught with their pants down when it didn't come through. Chalk it up to a teachable experience. - dhess, on 10/20/2009, -0/+22"Damnit! I wish that we knew how to Google this!"
- Shadic, on 10/20/2009, -0/+21Ooh, ooh!
http://xkcd.com/538/ - 8300dvo, on 10/20/2009, -0/+20Did they try "password"?
- rocknog, on 10/20/2009, -2/+21What amazes me is how often people have illegal videos like this and don't bother even trying to hide them. You're always hearing stories about some guy who brought his computer into the repair shop with kiddie porn on the friggin' desktop or something. In a sick, twisted way, it's good to know someone had some common sense out there.
- n3rrd, on 10/20/2009, -1/+20It's SO simple!
- worldnick, on 10/20/2009, -1/+17This is exactly how it should be. What if he forgot the password? Do we put him in jail for life with the computer trying letters and numbers until he gets it? What if the password was written down or saved in a file and lost? What if the file was corrupted and is not decrypt-able? What he did may be wrong, but I don't want to live in a world where we legally eliminate any possibility of privacy even inside your own mind which a computer is basically an extension of. I guess I suffer from a little paranoia myself.
- ThatWebGeek, on 10/20/2009, -0/+16oh I'm sorry, did you need my password? No. But I can tell you I plead the fizifth
- spook69, on 10/20/2009, -7/+22Good to know that the little guy still has a chance!
- neomatrix724, on 10/20/2009, -1/+15From what I've seen of this case, the guy was a paranoid schizophrenic. His flatmates should have noticed this and expected it. He doesn't need to be imprisoned...he needs help and treatment for his own safety and others around him.
- whytey, on 10/20/2009, -2/+15TrueCrypt FTW
- Nephersir7, on 10/20/2009, -2/+15Why encrypt publicly shared voicemails?
- xk3t, on 10/20/2009, -0/+11Dugg for "sophisticated network of peepholes"
- TrellSaracen, on 10/20/2009, -0/+11Yeah...here in Australia (where the story takes place), we don't have silly little frivolities like "bills of rights." Outlawing encryption could conceivably happen after they bring in the Internet filter.
How else are they going to stop people circumventing it through SSL? - Kronos6948, on 10/20/2009, -0/+111 2 3 4 Fiiiiiifffff!
- pw378, on 10/20/2009, -0/+9hey, how did you know my password?
- cawfee, on 10/20/2009, -3/+12The little schizophrenic guy with a hint of paranoia?
- Mujokan, on 10/20/2009, -0/+9I often think the same thing, given how long PGP has been around for.
- IIECONII, on 10/20/2009, -0/+8PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!*
...now a legally-upheld statement. - acknotSW, on 10/20/2009, -1/+9Zoolander FTW!
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/20/2009, -0/+7"Is the warrant only "valid" for what can be accessed unaided - including breaking locks (if possible)?"
Yes. If it were possible to build an impenetrable cabinet, you would not be required by the law to provide the location of the key so far as I know. Granted, I am not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that the interpretation of the 5th is pretty straightforward. Like the Miranda says, you have the right to remain silent. No warrant can deny you that right. The court cannot force you incriminate yourself.
This is the same thing as if you were pulled over and an officer told you to open the trunk of your car. You do no have to comply. If he wishes to get a warrant to search your car and can prove probable cause to believe their may be something illegal in it, then he is free to take your keys and open it or simply break in, but at no point could you be made to open the trunk for him. - nyxerebos, on 10/20/2009, -4/+11yeah, good to know things turn out OK for them. must be hard work being that crazy.
- rpguy, on 10/20/2009, -1/+8personally, i'd rather not see the 'hard' evidence
- captinherb, on 10/20/2009, -0/+7>>"That said, it seems rather shocking that the physical network of peepholes wasn't in and of itself enough for a conviction."
I'm assuming that's why he was convicted of "attempted" and not the actual deed since they couldn't prove he actually pulled it off. - Kronos6948, on 10/20/2009, -0/+6That's something an idiot would have on his luggage.
- denizen42, on 10/20/2009, -0/+6Without quantum computers, does this not take forever to crack?
- richlw, on 10/20/2009, -0/+6What about "god"?
- JustLoren, on 10/20/2009, -0/+5You killed the funny.
- swollentiki, on 10/20/2009, -0/+5"If the police have a search warrant, they can come in and ask you to open something. You can refuse, but this can lead to 2 things. 1) They can hit you with an obstruction of justice charge (which isn't that terrible)."
I don't think this is correct. The fifth amendment like has been already discussed protects you from incriminating yourself. That's not to say if you lie to the police about not being able to get into the container and later they can prove you could, then obstruction could be used. But in the end it's up to the police to open it themselves. And they can't take your keys by force unless they put you under arrest (which could cause a whole lot of trouble for them later and possibly render the evidence they find unusable in court).
@masgaster, the 5th is not just for testimony in a court. If the police come to ask you questions, or they want to access some cabinet that you know could give them cause to arrest you, you have your rights to refuse to answer and/or provide access to your property. Because that would make you "a witness against yourself". Now the police could obtain a search warrant, but the police have to have probable cause to search.
. - skadeet, on 10/20/2009, -0/+5didn't this guy learn anything. you sound insulate your 'equipment' and you use infrared cameras. jesus, he had lights shinning into their room, what an idiot.
- everywhereasign, on 10/20/2009, -0/+5"password1" he figures it's safer with both letters AND numbers
- jakobrowning, on 10/20/2009, -0/+5Why are they capitalizing MAN?
- Pyros7, on 10/20/2009, -0/+5"...ordered that two years' probation was sufficient punishment, given that there was no hard evidence proving he had secretly recorded his flatmates."
Ummm...punishment for what? Without evidence that he did anything illegal why exactly is he even on probation? - ThirdWizard, on 10/20/2009, -0/+5http://xkcd.com/525/
- Culyt, on 10/20/2009, -1/+5They wouldn't outlaw encryption, they would just make crimes committed using it have harsher penalties and force people to give up their encryption keys. Although it would be hard to tell what's actually encrypted and what's a 10gb file filled with random data, or the true crypts hidden volume within a volume encryption. Although it is possible to detect now depending on the system and it will be obvious to detect if you entire OS is encrypted since it would be asking for a password or have some /etc/fstab entries.
They can also introduce enforced key escrow to ensure that the government has the keys from anyone using encryption. - jackalsclaw, on 10/20/2009, -0/+4"US export regulations regarding cryptography remain in force, but were liberalized substantially throughout the late 1990s. Since 2000, compliance with the regulations is also much easier. PGP encryption no longer meets the definition of a non-exportable weapon, and can be exported internationally except to 7 specific countries and a named list of groups and individuals (with whom substantially all US trade is prohibited under various US export controls)."
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#C ... - Opiate, on 10/20/2009, -0/+4This is pretty much why the 5th exists, you could be accused for any random crime and if you don't incriminate yourself for something that didn't exist you are in contempt. It's a twist on guilty until proven innocent.
- nuceria, on 10/20/2009, -0/+4wait, really? a combo spaceballs-chappelle reference? that just made my day
- bubbadigg, on 10/20/2009, -0/+4wireless and portable drives... the only way to go
Got any dirty pictures of your wife?
no?
want some! - cigawoot, on 10/20/2009, -1/+5Give the files to /b/, they'll be happy to crack them.
- popstation, on 10/20/2009, -0/+4sex?
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is