Student Jailed For Refusing To Decrypt Data For Investigators

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Apparently giving investigators 50 incorrect passwords will land you in jail for six months. :eek:

As part of the investigation, police wanted to look at encrypted data stored on Wilson's computer. But the password he gave them didn't work. In fact, he provided investigators with 50 passwords, none of which turned out to be correct. So police turned to the courts, which compelled him to provide the correct key to decrypt the data in the interest of national security. Since Wilson refused to comply, he was sentenced to six months in prison under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, or RIPA, the UK's wiretapping law.
Click to expand...
 
Why didn't the just call the NSA and get his password, and/or the tools to one-click unencrypt his files? If it really was "national security", you can bet bank there's a flaw in the encryption software that NSA knows about and/or built themselves.
 
You should not be forced to testify against yourself, which in my opinion covers this. He also could have genuinely forgotten the password.
 
Pretty darn sure this is one of the reasons hdd encryption was made. To keep other people out of your stuff.
 
Steve said:
Apparently giving investigators 50 incorrect passwords will land you in jail for six months. :eek:
Click to expand...

I think it was emailing threats to the vice chancellor of Newcastle University, calling Northumbria police and warning of an impending cyber attack, attempting to break into the Serious Organised Crime Agency's website and of encouraging people to deface a Facebook memorial page set up for a pair of officers shot in Manchester that got him in trouble.

I bet the 50 passwords just annoyed the guy typing them in. :D
 
I sorry, I do not remember my password. I usually write my passwords down, but I lost my paper. If you can decrypt it can you give me a copy of the info? k, thx, bu bye.
 
I'm not familiar with the specifics of UK law; it may not have protections against self-incrimination such as the 5th Amendment in the US. UK does not have a strong record on personal privacy in the last couple decades. They at least seem to be more up front about their surveillance, rather than putting on a public charade while doing whatever they want behind the scenes, a la the US.
 
jfreund said:
I'm not familiar with the specifics of UK law; it may not have protections against self-incrimination such as the 5th Amendment in the US. UK does not have a strong record on personal privacy in the last couple decades. They at least seem to be more up front about their surveillance, rather than putting on a public charade while doing whatever they want behind the scenes, a la the US.
Click to expand...

I believe in the US, a judge can order you to hand over the password. Not complying could be a contempt of court. It's one of those gray areas where laws and tech are not on the same level, so it'd need a higher courts decision to set a precedent.

The not supply evidence against yourself is generally your right to remain silent and not take the stand. It likely does not apply to computers, phones, and other devices you may have stored your master plan on.
 
Spidey329 said:
I believe in the US, a judge can order you to hand over the password. Not complying could be a contempt of court. It's one of those gray areas where laws and tech are not on the same level, so it'd need a higher courts decision to set a precedent.

The not supply evidence against yourself is generally your right to remain silent and not take the stand. It likely does not apply to computers, phones, and other devices you may have stored your master plan on.
Click to expand...

The 5th amendment applies to all things in the U.S.. You are told directly when taken into custody that you have the right to remain silent. It's in the Miranda Rights. If you are ordered by a judge to give the passwords for things then anything that is obtained can not be used against you as it is a clear violation of the 5th amendment.

You are right though. With the way these judges nowadays blatantly ignore the law, it would take a higher court to take care of it.
 
Alternate solution:
Pay techs yo crack it, and if evidence is found relative to the case the kid gets fined the amount the techs charged in addition to any fines or jail time from the initial charges.
Giving your passwords is no different than giving a combination to your safe or producing keys to a file cabinet or desk drawer.
 
Liger88 said:
6 months is nothing if the crime could be worse.
Click to expand...
Jail time for something like this is usually for as long as it would be if the data in the subpoena was what they thought it was.
MNKyDeth said:
Pretty darn sure this is one of the reasons hdd encryption was made. To keep other people out of your stuff.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure safes were made for the same reason, a court cannot just open a safe for no reason. But if they have enough evidence that points in an investigation that further proof would be found in the safe and a judge agrees they can subpoena the contents of that safe and what the specifically subpedia in that search can be used against you in the court of law.

They cannot force you to testify against yourself but they can force you to open your safe, what's in your safe is not part of yourself and does not count as testifying against yourself. So if you hid the safe there is no way a court can order you to hand over the location of the safe. Generally they can get info from you if they know what it is and where it is but are unable to access due to extraneous circumstances that you control.
bucketlist said:
I sorry, I do not remember my password. I usually write my passwords down, but I lost my paper. If you can decrypt it can you give me a copy of the info? k, thx, bu bye.
Click to expand...
Not remembering it can be turned into obstruction of justice and or destruction of evidence charges along with being in contempt of court if one just doesn't provide the info that reasonably you should know.
 
jfreund said:
I'm not familiar with the specifics of UK law; it may not have protections against self-incrimination such as the 5th Amendment in the US. UK does not have a strong record on personal privacy in the last couple decades. They at least seem to be more up front about their surveillance, rather than putting on a public charade while doing whatever they want behind the scenes, a la the US.
Click to expand...

The last time I read up on this law it seemed to work much like NSLs do in the US. Failing to comply or even disclosing the fact they asked for it (eg to a solicitor) carries a jail sentence. The 'War on Terror' tends to trump common sense and human rights.
 
Tak Ne said:
I think it was emailing threats to the vice chancellor of Newcastle University, calling Northumbria police and warning of an impending cyber attack, attempting to break into the Serious Organised Crime Agency's website and of encouraging people to deface a Facebook memorial page set up for a pair of officers shot in Manchester that got him in trouble.

I bet the 50 passwords just annoyed the guy typing them in. :D
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that it was him who made the threats though.
 
tikiman2012 said:
The 5th amendment applies to all things in the U.S.. You are told directly when taken into custody that you have the right to remain silent. It's in the Miranda Rights. If you are ordered by a judge to give the passwords for things then anything that is obtained can not be used against you as it is a clear violation of the 5th amendment.

You are right though. With the way these judges nowadays blatantly ignore the law, it would take a higher court to take care of it.
Click to expand...

You're making shit up. You can certainly be compelled to give passwords to computers for evidence.
 
He's technically right. The password thing should be protected by the 5th amendment and miranda laws, since what you said can be used against you, and basically be self incriminate.

Not that the courts aren't trying to force you anyway. Laws, are all good and all, by when the "interpreters" interpret them in the way that suits them, laws are useless.
 
Its reasonable to say that someone may not remember a password for a random harddrive encrypted ages ago with a password not frequently used. Take PST passwords for example, its extremely common issue. If they don't have a case of the person being guilty of anything without the password, then there surely can't be a good excuse to not give the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise the logic is:

"We think you're guilty of XYZ based on something we can't access. Since we can't access it and we assume its because of malicious intent, you're guilty."

Sounds like guilty until proven innocent.
 
Sounds about right if he made threats and won't provide the password to clear himself.
 
Aluisious said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Computer_passwords

Cherry picking is pathetic. The fact is you can find yourself in court, and have a judge compel you to release your password.
Click to expand...

Did you just point to a wikipedia page as a rebuttal to hard evidence from the eff page?
From your link:
However, in February 2012 the Eleventh Circuit ruled otherwise - finding that requiring a defendant to produce an encrypted drive's password would violate the Constitution, becoming the first federal circuit court to rule on the issue.[69][70] In April 2013, a District Court magistrate judge in Wisconsin refused to compel a suspect to provide the encryption password to his hard drive after FBI agents had unsuccessfully spent months trying to decrypt the data.
Click to expand...

The same precedent that he linked from eff.
So you just proved his point. The Feb 2012 case set the precedent. It is unconstitutional.
 
Aluisious said:
You're making shit up. You can certainly be compelled to give passwords to computers for evidence.
Click to expand...
They certainly can but it does require them to have more than just an intuition about it. IE we will find X in Y because of evidence Z.

phreakpiercer said:
Are ya sure about that?

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/...onstitutional-right-against-forced-decryption
Click to expand...
That's just how the courts work... some decide one things others decide another as cases are not carbon copies of each other. It's by no means set in stone when dealing with digital media but the track record has shown for the most part digital media is treated similar to physical media when it comes to evidence subpoena. Hell it wasn't too long ago when they weren't treated at all by physical media and police did whatever. Anyways for the most part juries agree as the cases are often dealing with fraud or child pronography that case i believe it was a corruption case? They got the subpoenas on flimsy evidence ie next to none which is why it was ruled that way.
 
If I am reading this correctly, he is from the UK. I do not think the United States Bill of Rights reaches that far. Typically it doesn't even cover the US.
 
Yes, but someone brought up the US's 5th amendment and compared to the UK's lack of privacy rights in recent times, which is why we're talking about it.
 
Note to self. Never write anything down that could be used agasint you.

Oh crap I just wrote that. Delete delete!!!!

Joking aside its a terrible situation to be in since courts don't always seem to treat this fairly. Kind if like having your car seaized as evidence then being told you have to tell them what they are looking for because they can't find it.

The way I look at it is encrypted data should be the same as not being able to find say an object to encrinminate. But hey I think that's logical.
 
Spidey329 said:
I believe in the US, a judge can order you to hand over the password. Not complying could be a contempt of court. It's one of those gray areas where laws and tech are not on the same level, so it'd need a higher courts decision to set a precedent.

The not supply evidence against yourself is generally your right to remain silent and not take the stand. It likely does not apply to computers, phones, and other devices you may have stored your master plan on.
Click to expand...

This seems very unlikely. I have the right to remain silent and not incriminate myself. If police believe there's evidence on my HD that I committed a crime, then by definition, they're asking me to incriminate myself by handing over the password.

Bottom line is, giving them 50 bad passwords is fucking hilarious. I'd like to see a video of that exchange.
 
where he was working towards a master's degree, in which he promised to shoot members of the school's staff.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm sorry, but fuck this guy,and I hope he enjoys jail time.
 
LeviathanZERO said:
Did you just point to a wikipedia page as a rebuttal to hard evidence from the eff page?
From your link:


The same precedent that he linked from eff.
So you just proved his point. The Feb 2012 case set the precedent. It is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

You guys suck pretty hard at understanding simple sentences. Why do you think it was a matter in an APPEALS court in the first place?
 
Aluisious said:
You guys suck pretty hard at understanding simple sentences. Why do you think it was a matter in an APPEALS court in the first place?
Click to expand...

Precisely because of those previous cases, there is less of a chance now that any judge would force you to reveal the password.

But 5th aside, how would they get around the "I genuinely forgot the 20 random character password"?
 
security.png
 
Whats on your computer BOY? Porn?

First they attack the individual then they attack the computer the only freedom they have.
 
LeviathanZERO said:
Did you just point to a wikipedia page as a rebuttal to hard evidence from the eff page?

The same precedent that he linked from eff.
So you just proved his point. The Feb 2012 case set the precedent. It is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

IAALBIANYL

We should probably clarify the information that the eff presents re this issue. The eff page notes that this is the first appellate court to recognize that requiring the disclosure of a password could be a violation of the 5th amendment. There are essentially 12 appeals courts for the various circuits and the ruling identified by the EFF is only binding on the 11th. The others don't have to follow that precedent and in fact may have precedent to the contrary - the fact that the eff is pushing this makes me assume there is actually negative precedent for this position in other circuits.

In short, the eff article doesn't fully support much of what people here are claiming it supports and any statement that it is clear or obvious that demands for a password is a violation of the 5th amendment are opinions not well supported by existing case law.
 
hmmmm maybe you should use the password "Ipleadthefifth"?

mess their head up a bit.
 
Sorry guys but the password was on a post it note stuck on my tower when you confiscated it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top