Silk Road forums
Discussion => Silk Road discussion => Topic started by: NorthernStar on October 08, 2013, 11:06 pm
-
How harsh is that, in Britain you can be forced to give your encryption key, if you don't it's off to the slammer. Americans on the contrary, can refuse. On the grounds it might incriminate themselves.
This must be consequential for DPR?? how come it hasn't been picked up on??
-
I'd say I forgot.
-
I'd say I forgot.
"shit officer I had a great key it was really long and based on all my ex GFs with all kinds of details only I would know but with all this stress I can't fuckin remember it! for real bro!"
LOL in other words YES CORRECT STRATEGY.
-
I'd say I forgot.
Well you could try saying I forgot.
But they will simply find encrypted files or messages on your machine with recent timestamps on and use that to 'prove' that you must still know the key. You can modify the timestamp on files after you have received/created them but that requires a lot of discipline.
You can use Truecrypt hidden volumes as these have two passwords - a dummy 'duress' password which decrypts one set of data (data that you don't mind giving to the police) and the real password which encrypts you actual shit that you don't want people to see.
When under duress give them the dummy key - that way they are happy - you are happy - everyone is a winner.
Truecrypt hidden volumes....check them out and build a USB drive with one on if you need to store encrypted stuff. Be aware though, the law CAN detect the presence of Truecrypt hidden volumes in some cases and may then press you for the second password. In this instance play dumb - don't budge - no matter what crap they feed you. 99% of the time they either don't look or can't see the hidden volume and are happy as Larry with the dummy password.
-
How harsh is that, in Britain you can be forced to give your encryption key, if you don't it's off to the slammer. Americans on the contrary, can refuse. On the grounds it might incriminate themselves.
This must be consequential for DPR?? how come it hasn't been picked up on??
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to rant and to dispel some commonly held myths! ;D
First, I don't know that he gave up any encryption keys; he was logged in as SR admin when he was arrested in the library (D'oh!).
And second, that's up for debate at the moment anyway. It falls in a gray area. It's like being outside of your house while getting raided, but refusing to unlock the door for the police when they have a search warrant because there's incriminating information inside (i.e. unlocking door=self-incrimination). The information is there, they're not asking you to testify about it. Sure, you could say you lost the key, but that doesn't mean they won't lock you up for obstruction of justice or contempt of court.
Americans have a false sense of security when it comes to encryption. Eventually, a case will reach SCOTUS, but none have yet. So yeah, the standard is to say "I forgot," but that's not enough to keep you out of jail. Seriously if you think any of the rights afforded to Americans are etched in stone or interpreted as they are plainly written, you are mistaken. There are no guarantees.
You're talking about a country that waterboarded/tortured foreign suspects in violation of a and kills its own citizens without judicial oversight. Why do you think the US hasn't ratified the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court? The US government is no better than China or Russia.
All they really have to do is threaten to charge you with terrorism and your rights evaporate. Eric Holder, our Attorney General, believes that "due process" does not guarantee a "judicial process," it's instead just a "process." Oh OK. Direct quote:
"'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security." From same article in which he was directly quoted:
"But that’s about it. Holder didn’t explain how the administration arrived at the conclusion that due process within the executive branch is enough. He has refused to release the legal memo from the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice that must lay out how the administration got to here from there"
clearnet: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/eric_holder_s_speech_on_targeted_killings_was_incredibly_unsatisfying_.html
When your rights are determined by judicial interpretation, you really haven't got any rights. The US Supreme Court has significantly weakened the 5th amendment.
Now, if you don't specifically invoke your 5th amendment/Miranda rights, as of 6/2013 the SCOTUS ruled that your silence can be used to convict you.
So you're kind of fucked either way. The Constitution/Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments are pieces of shit; it's kind of embarrasing that we're clinging to an 18th century document (aka Bill of Rights) to define our rights. That your government hasn't changed in 200 years shouldn't be a source of pride.
Anywho, based on this doctrine, they get him either way.
See here:
"On November 29, 2007, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jerome Niedermeier of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont stated "Compelling Boucher to enter the password forces him to produce evidence that could be used to incriminate him." Accordingly, Niedermeier quashed the subpoena.
On January 2, 2008, the United States appealed the magistrate's opinion to the District Court in a sealed motion (court docket, case #: 2:06-mJ-00091-wks-jjn-1). The appeal was heard by U.S. District Judge William K. Sessions.[6] Oral arguments were scheduled for April 30, 2008.
On February 19, 2009, Judge Sessions reversed the magistrate's ruling and directed Boucher "to provide an unencrypted version of the Z drive viewed by the ICE agent."
clearnet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Boucher
And here:
"In early January, we brought you the story of Ramona Fricosu, the Colorado woman who was fighting prosecutors who were trying to get a judge to force her to decrypt her hard drive. Prosecutors who wanted to find and retrieve evidence against her. And now the judge’s decision — which some have have called “precedent-setting” — is in: he’s forcing Fricosu to decrypt.
“I conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer,” Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn said Monday in his ruling.
Fricosu had been arguing that being forced to do so infringed on her right against self-incrimination in a case revolving around mortgage fraud.
But what makes this case concerning to civil rights monitors is that prosecutors are not sure if there is, for sure, evidence on the computer — they simply suspect it."
clearnet:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/01/24/update-judge-rules-woman-must-decrypt-her-laptop-for-prosecutors/
<sigh> And here about how we come to get fucked by precedence (same case as above):
"judge Robert Blackburn, citing an earlier ruling against one Sebastien Boucher. In that case, the courts decided that, while Boucher's encryption password was certainly protected, the information on his drive could be considered evidence in the case and was therefore not subject to the same liberties.
"I find and conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer," Blackburn wrote in his opinion today. He also cited the All Writs Act, a 1789 statute, could be invoked as well to force Fricosu's compliance.
Friscosu has until February 21 to comply or face contempt of court charges."
1789? Seriously? clearnet:http://gizmodo.com/5878709/encrypting-your-hard-drive-no-longer-works-against-federal-prosecution
"U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Blow to Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent During Police Questioning, Leaves Citizens With Burden of Knowing Rights
June 17, 2013
WASHINGTON, DC —In a blow to the fundamental right of citizens to remain silent, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that persons who are not under arrest must specifically invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid having their refusal to answer police questions used against them in a subsequent criminal trial. In a 5-4 decision in Salinas v. Texas, the Court upheld the conviction of Genovevo Salinas, who was found guilty of homicide after prosecutors argued that Salinas’ silence during a police interview prior to his arrest was a “very important piece of evidence” and that only a guilty person would have remained silent when questioned about his connection to a crime. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion that Salinas “was required to assert the privilege in order to benefit from it,” even though a person questioned while under arrest could not have his silence used against him. The Rutherford Institute filed an amicus curiae brief in the case, arguing that a person’s refusal to answer police questions, even before arrest and before Miranda warnings are given, does not indicate guilt in light of the well-known “right to remain silent,” and exclusion of evidence of silence is in keeping with the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that “[n]o person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
“What today’s ruling by the Supreme Court says, essentially, is that citizens had better know what their rights are and understand when those rights are being violated, because the government is no longer going to be held responsible for informing you of those rights before violating them,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “Mind you, this is the same court that agreed that cops who tasered a pregnant woman couldn’t be held accountable because they were not aware that repeated electro-shocks qualified as constitutionally excessive and unreasonable force.”
In 1992, Juan and Hector Garza were found murdered in their apartment. Genovevo Salinas, an acquaintance of the men, was suspected by police as being responsible for the murders. The police approached Salinas at his home and asked him to accompany them to the police station so they could question him and clear his name. Salinas was never handcuffed and was not given Miranda warnings. At the police station, Salinas was taken to an interview room where, during the course of the interview, police questioning became more accusatory, and Salinas was asked whether his father’s shotgun “would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder.” Salinas remained silent and did not answer the question. The interview proceeded. At the conclusion of the interview, police arrested Salinas for outstanding traffic fines. The district attorney charged Salinas with the murders, but Salinas wasn’t arrested on the murder charge until 2007. During the trial, the prosecutor suggested that Salinas’ silence during the police interview prior to his arrest was a “very important piece of evidence” and that only a guilty person would have remained silent when questioned about his connection to a crime. The jury found Salinas guilty of murder and sentenced him to twenty years in prison. On appeal, Salinas argued that the prosecution’s emphasis on his pre-arrest silence as evidence of his guilt was a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against self-incrimination. Two Texas appeals courts ruled that Salinas was not under government compulsion during the time of the police interview, thus he had no Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. In upholding the lower courts’ rulings, the Supreme Court majority asserted that a person claiming the benefit of the Fifth Amendment’s privilege “must claim it” and a person does not normally claim the privilege by remaining silent. In Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissenting opinion, he argued that the fact that Salinas was a suspect in a criminal investigation gave rise to a reasonable conclusion that his silence derived from an exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege."
Clearnet link: https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/us_supreme_court_delivers_blow_to_fifth_amendment_right_to_remain_silent_du
-
+1
Great post!