Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The idea of being locked up for not handing over a password terrifies me.

I was deployed a few years ago and living in the conexes. I was bored and decided to go all out on encrypting everything. I picked a completely random 16 character password (I piped the output from /Dev/urandom through some tr command that only allowed typeable characters through) and committed it to muscle memory. I used this laptop every day for about a month before I went home. I took about a one week vacation midway home.

With the break and change in surroundings I completely forgot the password. No idea what it was. I tried for about a week before I have up and reformated it. I don't encrypt my computer any more.

That's a crime they can lock you up for life for? Crazy talk.




It's enough that I fill unused drives with /dev/random. Good luck to me proving that it is not encrypted data (and vice versa). Headers are irrelevant, they are no different than a paper label on the hdd saying "encrypted".


Usually they establish the presence of encrypted stuff via witnesses and via thumbnails left in cache and logs, symlinks, etc. referring to it.


My understanding is that if there is evidence that you were committing crimes with connection to this encrypted data, there is a problem for you. Otherwise, this is not a problem.


That sounds like a very dangerous assumption. You don't get to decide that you have nothing to hide. They do.


Evidence which could be spurious, arising of actions of an unrelated third party.


It is not a crime if, as a matter of fact, you forgot the password. As always, it’s up to the court to decide that fact after looking at the evidence.


How could a court possibly correctly deduce whether someone has forgotten a password?

They can't. That's why we have to say that you cannot be compelled to produce a password, because the alternative is that you go to jail for forgetting.


Read the judgment linked in the article:

> Following the forensic examination, the Government moved to show cause why Rawls should not be held in contempt for his failure to comply with the Decryption Order. Two hearings were held on the issue in which, “Rawls offered no on-the-record explanation for his present failure to comply.” Based on the evidence presented, the District Court found that Rawls remembered the passwords needed to decrypt the hard drives but chose not to reveal them because of the devices’ contents.

The legal process may not satisfy your epistemological requirements, but it allows courts to make these findings. The Fifth Amendment has nothing to do with “going to jail for forgetting.”




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: