DOJ: We can force you to decrypt that laptop

CNET News ^ | JULY 11, 2011 12:07 AM PDT | Declan McCullagh

[JOAT]

5th amendment ping

[Lmo56]

If I was gonna be running a scam or other criminal enterprise - I would invest in an NSA-approved degausser for about $6K [1 minute cycle time].

I would only use external USB-powered hard drives for my laptop [for ease of getting it into the degausser FAST].

When the feds come knocking on the door, I would pop it into the degausser, turn it on, and take a minute or 2 to answer the door. They could then serve the warrant - but hard drive already degauused, no violation ... AND NO DATA for the feds!

[hiredhand]

...sort of what I was thinking. :-)

[Rockingham]

The Feds or police can not only break the door down, but they can also charge you with obstructing the search warrant. Similarly, when someone has unique information and refuses to divulge it to a proper authority like a judge or grand jury, they can be jailed for obstruction or contempt.

The potency of these sanctions ought not to be scoffed at. For example, NY Times reporter Judith Miller was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison for contempt refusing to disclose that Scooter Libby was the source for her identification of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. Miller eventually complied and was released after serving about two and a half months.

Similarly, a disgruntled tech employee changed administrative passwords and locked out the City of San Francisco from full control of its computer system. He was jailed and soon gave up the passwords -- but was still convicted and sentenced to fours years.

[Rockingham]

The police often ask witnesses to appear at the police station and bring evidence along. When they are in a more forceful or less trusting mood, they show up with a search warrant and look for themselves.

[Smogger]

In those cases neither was the target of the investigation. So it’s really apples and oranges.

[hiredhand]

Already done. But you'll have to ditch MS-Windows like the bad habit that it is in order to have what you're asking for. Take any mainstream Linux system (Debian and CentOS work well) and read up on LUKS (Linux Unified Key System). There is a lot of available information about how to create a totally encrypted system. The HOWTOs are even available for doing this in a way where the encryption keys are NOT stored on the system, but rather on removable media (for example, a USB stick). An encrypted system using ANY asymetric encryption technique is just a non-recoverable bunch of junk if the keys aren't available, and a USB stick is a whole lot easier to destroy, or "lose" than an entire system, or even a single hard disk.

Encryption isn't the only issue though. Encryption doesn't solve the entire problem. You could fully encrypt your system and somebody like me merely needs to access it when you aren't around and they'll get your passphrases anyway just by knowing the boot process well. This in itself is a good reason to keep the keys on separate media because having the passphrase at that point is only half the equation. The other areas to pay special attention to are physical access and integrity. Physical access is a little easier to contend with IF it's a laptop, or you remove the hard disk and keep it with you all the time. Integrity "can" be solved by tuning SELinux (Security Enhanced Linux).

Microsoft has made the above out of reach via any of their products. Debian and Ubuntu Linux actually give you the option of building a "mostly" encrypted system when you install them. But there's still a lot to it and it's beyond most "normal" computer users. :-)

...and there's the issue of secure communications... lets not even go there. :-)

[GeronL]

cool.

If I have a reason I will definitely look into that.

[B4Ranch]

But who is to say if it is the PC’s owner doing the encrypting or a trojan virus?

[B4Ranch]

>>The police often ask witnesses to appear at the police station and bring evidence along.<<

That’s a visit my attorney can make by himself.

[jmcenanly]

I don't know if any actual Nazi had ever said it, but it sounds an awful lot like the old movie line, "Ve haff vays to make you TALK!!!"

[CA Conservative]

But who is to say if it is the PC’s owner doing the encrypting or a trojan virus?

Depending upon the operating system, it is not that hard to determine what user account was logged in at the time, and to determine if the application was lauched by a process (trojan) or by a user (interactive).

[Rockingham]

Not so. The computer tech was the target and did time because he disabled control by the system’s administrators and caused the city to incur substantial expenses.

[Rockingham]

Not so. The computer tech was the target and did time because he disabled control by the system’s administrators and caused the city to incur substantial expenses.

[Smogger]

Presumably he could have NOT given up the passwords and still be convicted of tampering with system.

[Rockingham]

That can move one from the category of witness to target.

[Cboldt]

-- In addition to a password that decrypts the computer, there should be one that zeroizes it. --

Won't do any good. The government has copied the contents to separate media.

This is a simple battle of wills, government against the defendant. And, the government has the power of forced incarceration, etc.

[Rockingham]

Yes. Eventually giving up the passwords was probably raised as mitigation at sentencing.

[B4Ranch]

Always assume that you are the true target when dealing with today’s police forces.

[Gondring]

Thus, the false-data ideas.