5 ms·

So if I forget my password, I can be in jail forever?

by mgamache 10y ago

solipsism 10y ago
Assuming it's shown to be a foregone conclusion you have child porn on your machine, yes.
- grawlinson 10y ago
  Then why hasn't this person been prosecuted yet? Are they just wanting him to give up his credentials so that they can refer to this case as a precedent?
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    They clearly don't need to prosecute him now, since it looks like he can be jailed indefinitely and everyone's cool with it. Scary stuff.
  - cheez 10y ago
    Same. I can't understand why, if it's a foregone conclusion, the other stuff can't be used to convict him.
  - petee 10y ago
    A possibility is that if they prosecute based on what they have now, then he will _never_ decrypt it - they may be aiming to break up a porn-ring or the actual producers, and he may have very valuable data on the drive, that may potentially save lives
    - neltnerb 10y ago
      If this were the case, they would provide him immunity in exchange for cooperation in prosecuting up the "food chain" like they do with mobsters.
      - mjolk 10y ago
        I think this is just a thing that happens in the movies. Also, check out the source document and let me know if you think someone found guilty of the described acts deserves immunity.
        fjdlwlv 10y ago
        What? It happens all the time on regular cirminal cases. Movies didn't invent "informants". Immunity can mean being convicted for lesser offenses, or negotiating a less than maximal punishment.
        neltnerb 10y ago
        It's not really a matter of my opinion on the specific case. Even with the full documents, there is no way that I'd have enough information to judge fairly, so I wouldn't try to. I'm just saying that they have a way out, and it seems that they've made the judgment that the potential of finding other criminals (if that's even a motivation) for them is not worth it. And the courts are making the downside "indefinite prison", which isn't much of a downside for the prosecutor. I think you can expect this to be used far more broadly if this is allowed. If I were a prosecutor I'd probably abuse the power too as yet another lever to use to get my way.
  - mjolk 10y ago
    Subtle point: "they" don't want or care about his credentials -- they want the underlying evidence for which they know exists (check out "The foregone conclusion doctrine" in page 34 of the source document[0]) and they know that he is capable of providing said evidence. > > Here, based on Doe’s own statements, the testimony of his sister, and forensic analysis of the hard drives seized from Doe via a search warrant, the government already knows that Doe possessed and owned the hard drives, that he can decrypt them, and that they contain child pornography.[0] Based on computer logs (of checksummed files being transferred to drives (and, importantly, knowing those filepaths) he admits to owning), online activity, witnesses, his own admission, and his unlocking of his phone provided the evidence needed to reasonably detain him on suspicion of a serious crime. The defendant is known to collect child pornography, even provably sourcing his own from family members -- again, the source document provides far more detail. Further, my understanding is that the complication is his refusal is frustrating the process of deciding exactly which crimes for which to charge him and he is acting in defiance of a court order (to produce evidence). [0] https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/fedsrawls.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/fedsr... (warning: some parts are sickening)
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  Then charge him for it. This is such an insane precedent to set, I cannot believe anyone is OK with this like we don't have a long and proud history of railroading people we disagree with for any number of stupid reasons.
2_listerine_pls 10y ago
just Hardcode it into the dna of your gut flora using CRISPR. If they ask for you password, give them a sample.
salesguy222 10y ago
Reading this story actually makes me ill. When a technical defense protects you from the state, they jail you for contempt. When you say, "but we have a constitutional amendment that protects us from self-incrimination", they say "sure but that doesn't apply here." And of course it is child porn that is in question. It is a mere crime to "possess" it, that is to say, possess a hard drive on which images are found. It goes without saying that images, at any point in time before, after, or during an investigation, can appear against your will on your hard drive. But since it is so morally outrageous, it is the go to charge that prosecutors use to jail their personal and political enemies. Or just soft targets, I guess...
- kelnos 10y ago
  If that's all they had, I'd probably agree with you. But that's not. They have: * Backup logs that show hashes of files that match that of known child porn image files. * Testimony from the guy's sister that she has seen him decrypting the drives, and that he showed her child porn from the drives. So yes, what you're saying is true, but in this case, I'm (reluctantly) on the side of the authorities.
  - mickronome 10y ago
    Which should be plenty to convict on if the evidence and testimony is reliable, shouldn't it ?
  - salesguy222 10y ago
    I can see where you are coming from, and I really want to avoid commenting on if he is truly a pedo. I agree with the poster below you that they should charge him if they do have that evidence. But if they are holding him in contempt while waiting to force decrypt so that legal precedent can be set, or if they're holding him so that this way he is in jail without getting credit for time served on his potential cp charges, then this is all a pretty hefty abuse of due process and etc. We really need to defend even the worst people's right to a decent correctional experience. Why? Because if you are ever wrongfully imprisoned, you would want the same. And it really does happen!
  - 10y ago
praneshp 10y ago
Nit: He is pleading the fifth, not claiming he forgot his password, no? I agree with the sentiment that this possibly sets a bad precedent.
nabla9 10y ago
It would be interesting to know why he has not used this excuse. Imagine having encrypted disk format where fast delete happens by writing over the main key in the volume header with random data and not all zero or some other magic value. You could have lots of deleted disks and memory sticks and go to jail because you can't decrypt them when asked.
- danso 10y ago
  It's possible that the suspect wasn't thinking things through when he was hit with the search warrant. It says that he gave them his iPhone 5S password but not his Mac password, or the passwords for the hard drives. They apparently were able to get into the Mac (maybe the password was the same as his iPhone?) but not his hard drives. He is said to have "refused" to give those passwords. I suppose he gave up the ability to maintain a consistent defense when he said "No, I don't have/want to" instead of "I forgot". https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/rawlsopinion.pdf https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/rawlsopin... I'm confused by this statement in the above ruling: The Forensic examination also disclosed that Doe had downloaded thousands of files known by their “hash” values to be child pornography. The files, however, were not on the Mac Pro, but instead had been stored on the encrypted external hard drives. Accordingly, the files themselves could not be accessed. So forensic analysis of the Mac revealed that he downloaded known porn files (identifiable by the database of hashes that law enforcement uses)...but don't you need access to the actual file to be able to calculate its hash? If the files were moved to, or downloaded right to the encrypted drives, how could forensic analysis reveal the files' hash values?
  - skoob 10y ago
    I'm assuming the files were downloaded using Bittorrent or some other file sharing service, and the hashes of the downloaded files were logged on his Mac.
    - danso 10y ago
      Ah, that makes perfect sense. Since they could log into his Mac, looking at the Bittorrent metadata would be trivial (apparently he didn't clear history, or at least do so securely), and some clients would indicate not only the downloaded file, but where it was saved to locally.
danso 10y ago
That would be an interesting case but that's not what seems to be argued here. The state is arguing that they have enough evidence that "the presence of child porn on his drives was a 'foregone conclusion.'". It's likely the defendant didn't use forgetting-the-password as a defense because it was obvious via IP traffic and witness testimony that he had regularly and recently used his computer. The ruling here seems focused on the point of whether the knowledge/use of a password constitutes self-incrimination, which people have a Constitutional right not to engage in. IANAL, but it seems akin to arguing that you have a Fifth Amendment right not to give up a DNA sample. edit: Looks like I'm wrong, defendant did use forgetfulness as a defense at one point, though that was ultimately not his only reasoning for appeal. Look at page 7 of the document here: https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/rawlsopinion.pdf https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/rawlsopin... Approximately one week after the Quashal Denial, Doe and his counsel appeared at the Delaware County Police Department for the forensic examination of his devices. Doe produced the Apple iPhone 6 Plus, including the files on the secret application, in a fully unencrypted state by entering three separate passwords on the device. The phone contained adult pornography, a video of Doe’s four-year-old niece in which she was wearing only her underwear, and approximately twenty photographs which focused on the genitals of Doe’s six-year-old niece. Doe, however, stated that he could not remember the passwords necessary to decrypt the hard drives and entered several incorrect passwords during the forensic examination. The Government remains unable to view the decrypted content of the hard drives without his assistance. However, in the next paragraph, the document refers to a ruling in which the court found that there was enough evidence to show that the suspect "remembered the passwords needed to decrypt the hard drives but chose not to reveal them because of the devices' contents". I imagine the details of that evidence was in the Oct 5., 2015 hearing in which the suspect "neither testified nor called witnesses. He offered no physical or documentary evidence into the record and provided no explanation for his failure to comply with the Decryption order".
- smsm42 10y ago
  If it's a foregone conclusion, why don't they charge him under CP laws and be done with it? Looks like it's either not as foregone as they try to present it, or they try to use it to establish a precedent (or probably both) and latch on this case because of the defendant being so unsympathetic.
mirimir 10y ago
If they "know" that you have something illegal, yes.
b3lvedere 10y ago
Yes. But that's not all. Depending on the country, your origin, your job, your beliefs, your principles, your preferences or whatever, a government could jail you just for being you. Forever.

So if I forget my password, I can be in jail forever?

solipsism 10y ago

Assuming it's shown to be a foregone conclusion you have child porn on your machine, yes.

grawlinson 10y ago
Then why hasn't this person been prosecuted yet? Are they just wanting him to give up his credentials so that they can refer to this case as a precedent?
- ryandrake 10y ago
  They clearly don't need to prosecute him now, since it looks like he can be jailed indefinitely and everyone's cool with it. Scary stuff.
- cheez 10y ago
  Same. I can't understand why, if it's a foregone conclusion, the other stuff can't be used to convict him.
- petee 10y ago
  A possibility is that if they prosecute based on what they have now, then he will _never_ decrypt it - they may be aiming to break up a porn-ring or the actual producers, and he may have very valuable data on the drive, that may potentially save lives
  - neltnerb 10y ago
    If this were the case, they would provide him immunity in exchange for cooperation in prosecuting up the "food chain" like they do with mobsters.
    - mjolk 10y ago
      I think this is just a thing that happens in the movies. Also, check out the source document and let me know if you think someone found guilty of the described acts deserves immunity.
      - fjdlwlv 10y ago
        What? It happens all the time on regular cirminal cases. Movies didn't invent "informants". Immunity can mean being convicted for lesser offenses, or negotiating a less than maximal punishment.
      - neltnerb 10y ago
        It's not really a matter of my opinion on the specific case. Even with the full documents, there is no way that I'd have enough information to judge fairly, so I wouldn't try to. I'm just saying that they have a way out, and it seems that they've made the judgment that the potential of finding other criminals (if that's even a motivation) for them is not worth it. And the courts are making the downside "indefinite prison", which isn't much of a downside for the prosecutor. I think you can expect this to be used far more broadly if this is allowed. If I were a prosecutor I'd probably abuse the power too as yet another lever to use to get my way.
- mjolk 10y ago
  Subtle point: "they" don't want or care about his credentials -- they want the underlying evidence for which they know exists (check out "The foregone conclusion doctrine" in page 34 of the source document[0]) and they know that he is capable of providing said evidence. > > Here, based on Doe’s own statements, the testimony of his sister, and forensic analysis of the hard drives seized from Doe via a search warrant, the government already knows that Doe possessed and owned the hard drives, that he can decrypt them, and that they contain child pornography.[0] Based on computer logs (of checksummed files being transferred to drives (and, importantly, knowing those filepaths) he admits to owning), online activity, witnesses, his own admission, and his unlocking of his phone provided the evidence needed to reasonably detain him on suspicion of a serious crime. The defendant is known to collect child pornography, even provably sourcing his own from family members -- again, the source document provides far more detail. Further, my understanding is that the complication is his refusal is frustrating the process of deciding exactly which crimes for which to charge him and he is acting in defiance of a court order (to produce evidence). [0] https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/fedsrawls.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/fedsr... (warning: some parts are sickening)
FussyZeus 10y ago
Then charge him for it. This is such an insane precedent to set, I cannot believe anyone is OK with this like we don't have a long and proud history of railroading people we disagree with for any number of stupid reasons.

2_listerine_pls 10y ago

just Hardcode it into the dna of your gut flora using CRISPR. If they ask for you password, give them a sample.

salesguy222 10y ago

Reading this story actually makes me ill. When a technical defense protects you from the state, they jail you for contempt. When you say, "but we have a constitutional amendment that protects us from self-incrimination", they say "sure but that doesn't apply here." And of course it is child porn that is in question. It is a mere crime to "possess" it, that is to say, possess a hard drive on which images are found. It goes without saying that images, at any point in time before, after, or during an investigation, can appear against your will on your hard drive. But since it is so morally outrageous, it is the go to charge that prosecutors use to jail their personal and political enemies. Or just soft targets, I guess...

kelnos 10y ago
If that's all they had, I'd probably agree with you. But that's not. They have: * Backup logs that show hashes of files that match that of known child porn image files. * Testimony from the guy's sister that she has seen him decrypting the drives, and that he showed her child porn from the drives. So yes, what you're saying is true, but in this case, I'm (reluctantly) on the side of the authorities.
- mickronome 10y ago
  Which should be plenty to convict on if the evidence and testimony is reliable, shouldn't it ?
- salesguy222 10y ago
  I can see where you are coming from, and I really want to avoid commenting on if he is truly a pedo. I agree with the poster below you that they should charge him if they do have that evidence. But if they are holding him in contempt while waiting to force decrypt so that legal precedent can be set, or if they're holding him so that this way he is in jail without getting credit for time served on his potential cp charges, then this is all a pretty hefty abuse of due process and etc. We really need to defend even the worst people's right to a decent correctional experience. Why? Because if you are ever wrongfully imprisoned, you would want the same. And it really does happen!
- 10y ago

praneshp 10y ago

Nit: He is pleading the fifth, not claiming he forgot his password, no? I agree with the sentiment that this possibly sets a bad precedent.

nabla9 10y ago

It would be interesting to know why he has not used this excuse. Imagine having encrypted disk format where fast delete happens by writing over the main key in the volume header with random data and not all zero or some other magic value. You could have lots of deleted disks and memory sticks and go to jail because you can't decrypt them when asked.

danso 10y ago
It's possible that the suspect wasn't thinking things through when he was hit with the search warrant. It says that he gave them his iPhone 5S password but not his Mac password, or the passwords for the hard drives. They apparently were able to get into the Mac (maybe the password was the same as his iPhone?) but not his hard drives. He is said to have "refused" to give those passwords. I suppose he gave up the ability to maintain a consistent defense when he said "No, I don't have/want to" instead of "I forgot". https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/rawlsopinion.pdf https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/rawlsopin... I'm confused by this statement in the above ruling: The Forensic examination also disclosed that Doe had downloaded thousands of files known by their “hash” values to be child pornography. The files, however, were not on the Mac Pro, but instead had been stored on the encrypted external hard drives. Accordingly, the files themselves could not be accessed. So forensic analysis of the Mac revealed that he downloaded known porn files (identifiable by the database of hashes that law enforcement uses)...but don't you need access to the actual file to be able to calculate its hash? If the files were moved to, or downloaded right to the encrypted drives, how could forensic analysis reveal the files' hash values?
- skoob 10y ago
  I'm assuming the files were downloaded using Bittorrent or some other file sharing service, and the hashes of the downloaded files were logged on his Mac.
  - danso 10y ago
    Ah, that makes perfect sense. Since they could log into his Mac, looking at the Bittorrent metadata would be trivial (apparently he didn't clear history, or at least do so securely), and some clients would indicate not only the downloaded file, but where it was saved to locally.

danso 10y ago

That would be an interesting case but that's not what seems to be argued here. The state is arguing that they have enough evidence that "the presence of child porn on his drives was a 'foregone conclusion.'". It's likely the defendant didn't use forgetting-the-password as a defense because it was obvious via IP traffic and witness testimony that he had regularly and recently used his computer. The ruling here seems focused on the point of whether the knowledge/use of a password constitutes self-incrimination, which people have a Constitutional right not to engage in. IANAL, but it seems akin to arguing that you have a Fifth Amendment right not to give up a DNA sample. edit: Looks like I'm wrong, defendant did use forgetfulness as a defense at one point, though that was ultimately not his only reasoning for appeal. Look at page 7 of the document here: https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/rawlsopinion.pdf https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/rawlsopin... Approximately one week after the Quashal Denial, Doe and his counsel appeared at the Delaware County Police Department for the forensic examination of his devices. Doe produced the Apple iPhone 6 Plus, including the files on the secret application, in a fully unencrypted state by entering three separate passwords on the device. The phone contained adult pornography, a video of Doe’s four-year-old niece in which she was wearing only her underwear, and approximately twenty photographs which focused on the genitals of Doe’s six-year-old niece. Doe, however, stated that he could not remember the passwords necessary to decrypt the hard drives and entered several incorrect passwords during the forensic examination. The Government remains unable to view the decrypted content of the hard drives without his assistance. However, in the next paragraph, the document refers to a ruling in which the court found that there was enough evidence to show that the suspect "remembered the passwords needed to decrypt the hard drives but chose not to reveal them because of the devices' contents". I imagine the details of that evidence was in the Oct 5., 2015 hearing in which the suspect "neither testified nor called witnesses. He offered no physical or documentary evidence into the record and provided no explanation for his failure to comply with the Decryption order".

smsm42 10y ago
If it's a foregone conclusion, why don't they charge him under CP laws and be done with it? Looks like it's either not as foregone as they try to present it, or they try to use it to establish a precedent (or probably both) and latch on this case because of the defendant being so unsympathetic.

mirimir 10y ago

If they "know" that you have something illegal, yes.

b3lvedere 10y ago

Yes. But that's not all. Depending on the country, your origin, your job, your beliefs, your principles, your preferences or whatever, a government could jail you just for being you. Forever.