[cryptography] US Appeals Court upholds right not to decrypt a drive

Peter Gutmann pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz
Sun Feb 26 22:08:59 EST 2012


Marsh Ray <marsh at extendedsubset.com> writes:

>Except that as it is stipulated that the captors are "not stupid", we must 
>assume they are perfectly rational actors who will have worked out this 
>strategy too.

It's not an exercise in game theory, it's standard police work. If they've 
watched you downloading child porn for six months, with enough evidence to get 
a warrant, and all they find is an encrypted partition and no trace of the 
pr0n anywhere else, then it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out where 
it most likely went.

(Talking to e-crime investigators is always illuminating. When they say 
they're "not stupid" they don't mean they have PhDs in game theory, they mean 
that they're (usually) going to come in with enough evidence and expertise to 
have a good chance of a successful prosecution. Being able to hide something 
with FDE is a very, very rare exception, generally one where evidence was very 
flimsy anyway).

Peter.




More information about the cryptography mailing list