[cryptography] US Appeals Court upholds right not to decrypt a drive
case at SDF.ORG
Sun Feb 26 00:35:46 EST 2012
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, James A. Donald wrote:
> On 2012-02-25 9:36 PM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
>> Ditto. One other thing that you need to add, the police
>> are very, very good at getting information out of people.
>> They've been doing it with hardened criminals for decades,
>> so your average random geek is no problem.
> Evidently in the case of
> http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201112268.pdf They
> were totally unable to get information out of John Doe
> For the entire case turned on the fact that John Doe never
> admitted the existence of the hidden drive, and forensics were
> entirely unable to prove the existence of the hidden drive.
> Customs may have the authority to search through your stuff,
> but if they cannot find what they are looking for, they have
> no authority to make you tell them that it exists and where
> it is.
> But if you *do* tell them that it exists, then they can make
> you tell them where it is.
Imagine biting your nails for the entire statute of limitation period.
You are one coding/implementation/vuln/exploit away from being brought
right back in again.
Of course they will keep the raw data, and won't uppity district
attorneys periodically check bugtraq for truecrypt related items ?
More information about the cryptography