3 ms·

Is there a charitable interpretation of this that I'm not seeing? Or is this truly as terrifying as it appears?

by finkin1 10y ago

mirimir 10y ago
Nope. If this becomes widespread precedent, encryption is no longer viable in the US.
- Pitarou 10y ago
  I think we’re about to see an increase in interest in deniable encryption. A simple solution is to have your encryption software automatically add a large garbage file inside every encrypted volume. When you have something to hide, replace the garbage file with your new encrypted data. This lets you nest your encryption to arbitrary depth, allowing plenty of room for plausible deniability. E.g. you could put your financial records at the first level, pictures from an erotic crossdressing forum at the second level, and the stuff you’re ACTUALLY hiding at the third level.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    That's an interesting idea. But it arguably wouldn't have helped Mr. Rawls. Investigators claimed to know what they sought, so they'd still argue that he was holding out. Maybe it's safer to keep encrypted stuff anonymously in cloud storage. Mr. Rawls could have run his Freenet node on an anonymously-leased VPS, used Tor onion services for the various WebGUIs, and accessed it all via Tails. There would have been nothing local to go after.
    - Pitarou 10y ago
      Rawls’ is an odd case. If the reports are accurate, he seems to have believed that a strong password on his hard drive gave him legal immunity, and didn’t really try to conceal what he was doing. Nonetheless, a line has been crossed, and cyber-libertarians have been predicting this breach for as long as I can remember. There’s nothing cyber-libertarians love more than a technical solution to state oppression.
      - mirimir 10y ago
        Well, he was using Freenet without obscuring his IP address. That's pretty much not "really try[ing] to conceal what he was doing". But that's what Freenet devs have recommended, crooning of "plausible deniability".
mjolk 10y ago
Head's up that the source goes into some detail and is a miserable, sickening read. Per the source (https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/fedsrawls.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/fedsr...), the prosecutors already have a case based on checksums of the media that the defendant had downloaded, and per the logs, stored on his external hard drive. I imagine that the prosecution wants the media so they can perform harm reduction services for the identified, affected children and/or improve their data for going after other/future child abusers.
- mickronome 10y ago
  But harm reduction and improving data for other cases is not the intended use of warrants and contempt of court, or is it?
  - mjolk 10y ago
    No, and thanks for catching that. My understanding is that the prosecution doesn't need the decrypted data to secure a guilty verdict, but as they're entitled to it, they likely want it for secondary benefit.

Is there a charitable interpretation of this that I'm not seeing? Or is this truly as terrifying as it appears?

by finkin1 10y ago

Is there a charitable interpretation of this that I'm not seeing? Or is this truly as terrifying as it appears?

mirimir 10y ago

Nope. If this becomes widespread precedent, encryption is no longer viable in the US.

Pitarou 10y ago
I think we’re about to see an increase in interest in deniable encryption. A simple solution is to have your encryption software automatically add a large garbage file inside every encrypted volume. When you have something to hide, replace the garbage file with your new encrypted data. This lets you nest your encryption to arbitrary depth, allowing plenty of room for plausible deniability. E.g. you could put your financial records at the first level, pictures from an erotic crossdressing forum at the second level, and the stuff you’re ACTUALLY hiding at the third level.
- mirimir 10y ago
  That's an interesting idea. But it arguably wouldn't have helped Mr. Rawls. Investigators claimed to know what they sought, so they'd still argue that he was holding out. Maybe it's safer to keep encrypted stuff anonymously in cloud storage. Mr. Rawls could have run his Freenet node on an anonymously-leased VPS, used Tor onion services for the various WebGUIs, and accessed it all via Tails. There would have been nothing local to go after.
  - Pitarou 10y ago
    Rawls’ is an odd case. If the reports are accurate, he seems to have believed that a strong password on his hard drive gave him legal immunity, and didn’t really try to conceal what he was doing. Nonetheless, a line has been crossed, and cyber-libertarians have been predicting this breach for as long as I can remember. There’s nothing cyber-libertarians love more than a technical solution to state oppression.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      Well, he was using Freenet without obscuring his IP address. That's pretty much not "really try[ing] to conceal what he was doing". But that's what Freenet devs have recommended, crooning of "plausible deniability".

mjolk 10y ago

Head's up that the source goes into some detail and is a miserable, sickening read. Per the source (https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/fedsrawls.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/fedsr...), the prosecutors already have a case based on checksums of the media that the defendant had downloaded, and per the logs, stored on his external hard drive. I imagine that the prosecution wants the media so they can perform harm reduction services for the identified, affected children and/or improve their data for going after other/future child abusers.

mickronome 10y ago
But harm reduction and improving data for other cases is not the intended use of warrants and contempt of court, or is it?
- mjolk 10y ago
  No, and thanks for catching that. My understanding is that the prosecution doesn't need the decrypted data to secure a guilty verdict, but as they're entitled to it, they likely want it for secondary benefit.