Encryption Saves Man From Jail Time

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Encryption saved this dude’s ass from doing prison time. Knowing what happens to weak, nerdy types in prison, I think it may have literally saved his ass. :eek:

A MAN who established a sophisticated network of peepholes and cameras to spy on his flatmates has escaped a jail sentence after police were unable to crack an encryption code on his home computer.
Click to expand...
 
I think the fact he was a paranoid schizophrenic explains a lot (and probably would have kept him out of Pound-Me-In-The-Ass prison).
 
I thought in the UK the police could force you to un-encrypt any personal data and refusal was a serious offense. Brits, clue us in?
 
This is not good. While encrypting data to secure privacy is all well and good, using it for nefarious reasons will just give more reason for Governments to become big brother.
 
LMAO I think everyone wants to know what program he was using nobody cares about the rest of the story.
 
Monkey God said:
I thought in the UK the police could force you to un-encrypt any personal data and refusal was a serious offense. Brits, clue us in?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the UK, but wouldn't that effectively be a violation of the 5th here in the states?
 
phreakpiercer said:
I'm not sure about the UK, but wouldn't that effectively be a violation of the 5th here in the states?
Click to expand...

I dunno, this seems kind of iffy. We allow police into houses without an owner's permission - all you need is a warrant. I don't see how this is much different. Personally, I think he should have been forced to give them access or face more jail time, especially since he already admitted guilt. This is a pretty scummy use of encryption.
 
MacDad said:
I dunno, this seems kind of iffy. We allow police into houses without an owner's permission - all you need is a warrant. I don't see how this is much different. Personally, I think he should have been forced to give them access or face more jail time, especially since he already admitted guilt. This is a pretty scummy use of encryption.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. The reason the courts cant force you to provide the encryption key not unreasonable search and seziure, but rather self incrimination. They can not compel you to provide the key becasue doing so would require you to incriminate yourself as to ownership of the encrypted contents.
 
MacDad said:
I dunno, this seems kind of iffy. We allow police into houses without an owner's permission - all you need is a warrant. I don't see how this is much different. Personally, I think he should have been forced to give them access or face more jail time, especially since he already admitted guilt. This is a pretty scummy use of encryption.
Click to expand...

A warrant for house searches doesn't extend to electronics such as computers. You need a separate search warrant for that.
 
Azhar said:
A warrant for house searches doesn't extend to electronics such as computers. You need a separate search warrant for that.
Click to expand...

Even with a search warrant for the electronic files the courts typically wont compel someone to provide an encryption key due to the issue above. "I have no idea where that file came from / whats in it" doesnt work if you then have to give the key to open it. Plus what if the person really doesnt know it? The issue is one of self incrimination. Now the police are free to try to crack / brute force the key as much as they would like just as they would cut the lock off of a locked storage bin.

Again both of my comments deal with the US, and i know this did not happen in the US
 
MacDad said:
I dunno, this seems kind of iffy. We allow police into houses without an owner's permission - all you need is a warrant. I don't see how this is much different. Personally, I think he should have been forced to give them access or face more jail time, especially since he already admitted guilt. This is a pretty scummy use of encryption.
Click to expand...

Whos to say he didn't give up the key? He could have had a dual encryption, where you give one key you get the real decrypted partition, but with another "dummy" key you get a completely different decrypted partition with fake data on it. Trucrypt has this ability, as do others, for this exact purpose.
 
phreakpiercer said:
I'm not sure about the UK, but wouldn't that effectively be a violation of the 5th here in the states?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. There have been a couple cases where it has been ruled that you are not incriminating yourself if you give up the combination to a safe, and as such you are not "allowed" to with hold that information. Also has been a lot of linking of encrypted computer stuff with the safe, so it could very well not hold up for you.
 
There is a case in Vermont where a Canadian came in with a laptop, he opened it up, typed in his password and customs found some interesting files that were basically thought of as child pornography. Well, he gets arrested, and they want him to type in his password again and he refuses. The judge rules with the man saying that he would be incriminating himself based off the fifth. There is a lot of debate though since he did type in the password at the border the first time. Someone should just Google the case because I know I am missing a few things too. Yeah, it is pretty sick if it is true what he had on his computer, but the law is broad and I would not want to give my passcode out to anyone either.

Of course, there was a case in the UK where someone was compelled to give their password. Based on the Vermont case though, this is not the same in the US. TrueCrypt for the win.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Not necessarily. There have been a couple cases where it has been ruled that you are not incriminating yourself if you give up the combination to a safe, and as such you are not "allowed" to with hold that information. Also has been a lot of linking of encrypted computer stuff with the safe, so it could very well not hold up for you.
Click to expand...

No, Doe v United states ruled specifically contrary, a password or combo would be "testomony evidence" and protected where as a physical lock key could be compelled as physical evidence which would not be protected by the 5th ammendment.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Not necessarily. There have been a couple cases where it has been ruled that you are not incriminating yourself if you give up the combination to a safe, and as such you are not "allowed" to with hold that information. Also has been a lot of linking of encrypted computer stuff with the safe, so it could very well not hold up for you.
Click to expand...

I think the solution is obvious.

Your password should be an admission of guilt of an offense for which the statue of limitations has not yet expired! C-Y-A x 2! :D
 
"since he already admitted guilt" to making the camera network.

I'm trying to figure out how "Steve" knew that encryption saved this guys ass, since we don't know what the contents of the encrypted files are yet?
 
Basically, yeah it could be video in those files... or maybe he only watched live, and those encrypted files are his bills, videos of himself dancing around in drag or his MP3 collection.
 
quote from article-
"
Defence barrister Michael Byrne said Wyllie had been suffering from schizophrenia and was convinced his flatmates were conspiring against him.

"This was not to realise a sexual fantasy, but rather as a result of a persecution complex," he said. "He thought they (flatmates) were colluding with officials to construct a case against him."

so, a couple things. first, this wasnt a huge deal apparently. he is mentally ill, and this had no sexual motive. the files on his computer that were encrypted were likely of no substance, the guy was a schitzo.

being that way, since it wasnt potential evidence to solve a crime or anything... i bet any type of decent encryption would have worked in this case. now, make this a federal conspiracy case and i have a feeling your pc ends up at the NSA and you can forget about any type of consumer encryption holding up.
 
bh192012 said:
"since he already admitted guilt" to making the camera network.

I'm trying to figure out how "Steve" knew that encryption saved this guys ass, since we don't know what the contents of the encrypted files are yet?
Click to expand...
Just because the police couldn't decrypt the hard drive doesn't mean Steve can't. :p
 
FrostBite said:
There is a case in Vermont where a Canadian came in with a laptop, he opened it up, typed in his password and customs found some interesting files that were basically thought of as child pornography. Well, he gets arrested, and they want him to type in his password again and he refuses. The judge rules with the man saying that he would be incriminating himself based off the fifth. There is a lot of debate though since he did type in the password at the border the first time. Someone should just Google the case because I know I am missing a few things too. Yeah, it is pretty sick if it is true what he had on his computer, but the law is broad and I would not want to give my passcode out to anyone either.

Of course, there was a case in the UK where someone was compelled to give their password. Based on the Vermont case though, this is not the same in the US. TrueCrypt for the win.
Click to expand...

Loki008 said:
No, Doe v United states ruled specifically contrary, a password or combo would be "testomony evidence" and protected where as a physical lock key could be compelled as physical evidence which would not be protected by the 5th ammendment.
Click to expand...

The case for child pornography was United States v. Boucher and the ruling was overturned and he was forced to decrypt the drive on which they found the pictures. But the court also ruled that they could link him with the files even without the decryption, so they wont use it as evidence.

But even then, im surprised they made him decrypt it as to me its a violation of the 5th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher
 
speedy523 said:
The case for child pornography was United States v. Boucher and the ruling was overturned and he was forced to decrypt the drive on which they found the pictures. But the court also ruled that they could link him with the files even without the decryption, so they wont use it as evidence.

But even then, im surprised they made him decrypt it as to me its a violation of the 5th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher
Click to expand...

Ahh, thanks for providing the case name, I forgot it a long time ago and never got to read up on it. I do have to point out though that it states:
In its submission on appeal to the District Court, the Government stated that it does not seek the password for the encrypted hard drive, but only sought to force Boucher to produce the contents of his encrypted hard drive in an unencrypted format by opening the drive before the grand jury. A District Court judge agreed with the government, holding that, given Boucher's initial cooperation in showing some of the content of his computer to border agents, producing the complete contents would not constitute self-incrimination.
Click to expand...
And
"Boucher accessed the Z drive of his laptop at the ICE agent's request. The ICE agent viewed the contents of some of the Z drive's files, and ascertained that they may consist of images or videos of child pornography. The Government thus knows of the existence and location of the Z drive and its files. Again providing access to the unencrypted Z drive 'adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information' about the existence and location of files that may contain incriminating information. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 411.

Boucher's act of producing an unencrypted version of the Z drive likewise is not necessary to authenticate it. He has already admitted to possession of the computer, and provided the Government with access to the Z drive. The Government has submitted that it can link Boucher with the files on his computer without making use of his production of an unencrypted version of the Z drive, and that it will not use his act of production as evidence of authentication."
Click to expand...

The reason why it was overturned was because he had already showed the images or videos to ICE agents thus they already knew about it. Furthremore, he admitted that he had such material. So, in this case, the 5th amendment was bypassed simply because he already showed the material unencrypted and also admitted it. The 5th admendment still protects us, as long as we don't screw up first.

being that way, since it wasnt potential evidence to solve a crime or anything... i bet any type of decent encryption would have worked in this case. now, make this a federal conspiracy case and i have a feeling your pc ends up at the NSA and you can forget about any type of consumer encryption holding up.
Click to expand...

I don't know about this. One of the more popular encryption programs, the open source TrueCrypt allows you to use AES-Twofish-Serpent encryption and as a last ditch effort, a fake OS which could hold nothing. It could buy a ton of time, enough for the trail to be over, possibly.
 
siliconnerd said:
Just because the police couldn't decrypt the hard drive doesn't mean Steve can't. :p
Click to expand...

You better believe it: "...the rubber-hose technique of cryptanalysis. (in which a rubber hose is applied forcefully and frequently to the soles of the feet until the key to the cryptosystem is discovered, a process that can take a surprisingly short time and is quite computationally inexpensive)"
 
FrostBite said:
I don't know about this. One of the more popular encryption programs, the open source TrueCrypt allows you to use AES-Twofish-Serpent encryption and as a last ditch effort, a fake OS which could hold nothing. It could buy a ton of time, enough for the trail to be over, possibly.
Click to expand...

its something ive always wondered. i understand how the hidden volume can buy time (mine is setup to where if you type in one password, it opens up the drive with a few sensitive password documents and such, type different password and you get gigs of porn) but i still wonder, what can the government really do when they want to? i just cant imagine anything less then a single-photon encryption mechanism would hold up...
 
krupted said:
its something ive always wondered. i understand how the hidden volume can buy time (mine is setup to where if you type in one password, it opens up the drive with a few sensitive password documents and such, type different password and you get gigs of porn) but i still wonder, what can the government really do when they want to? i just cant imagine anything less then a single-photon encryption mechanism would hold up...
Click to expand...
You do realize that the US government uses AES for classified information right? :rolleyes:
 
How can someone be forced to hand over a password in this day and age? Is there another 'law" which you break by not giving it over which in turn they prosecute you on? Ridiculous really, because if you truly forgot your password you are F'd.
 
siliconnerd said:
You do realize that the US government uses AES for classified information right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You should say some parts of the US government. Obviously there are a few secret organizations within the government that most of the government itself is either unaware of or is incapable of finding out.
 
speedy523 said:
The case for child pornography was United States v. Boucher and the ruling was overturned and he was forced to decrypt the drive on which they found the pictures. But the court also ruled that they could link him with the files even without the decryption, so they wont use it as evidence.

But even then, im surprised they made him decrypt it as to me its a violation of the 5th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher
Click to expand...

Not really, the only reason the court rulled that way was that he had already incriminated himself to the goverment and exposed the contents that compeling him to unlock the drive would not violate his rights as he already willingly did so in the past.

If he said "gee officer, i have no idea what that password is" and refused to unlock the drive barring any other precident i am overlooking doe v united states would still be on point and the court would refuse to force a turn over of the key.
 
MarshMellow said:
How can someone be forced to hand over a password in this day and age? Is there another 'law" which you break by not giving it over which in turn they prosecute you on? Ridiculous really, because if you truly forgot your password you are F'd.
Click to expand...

Yeah, seriously.
 
yeah but the law never cares about human error. if you do a crime you will be punished and fined to the fullest extent. even if you forget to put your seatbelt on, bam $75 goodbye.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top