8 ms·

This exists in Australia as law, you are considered just as guilty as not providing it. Max penalty is 10 years jail from memory. No other crime needs to be com

This exists in Australia as law, you are considered just as guilty as not providing it. Max penalty is 10 years jail from memory. No other crime needs to be committed. We are the electoral proving grounds for US/UK/CA laws. It's totally coming for you if you think this is some silly Australian thing. I deleted a bunch a of old veracrypt drives that I've lost the passwords for and clung onto hoping I'd work it out one day after the laws came in, they've done incredibly well to make encryption seem criminal, it's terrifying and China-esque.

6c696e7578 7y ago
So if I wanted a relative in jail, just ensure they use a password manager then do something from their wifi, or plant a keypass database on their computer.
- lugg 7y ago
  Going to have to raise the bar a bit. This is Australia, we all do things on wifi.
  - fragmede 7y ago
    From their wifi. eg go to your enemy's house, connect to their WiFi, frame them with an encrypted file that they don't have the password to.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago
      If only reasonable doubt still got bad cases tossed.
syshum 7y ago
The problem for that is in the US, such laws would be unconstitutional under the 4th, 5th and 1st amendments Just like Australia's Gun Ban is unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  First, the 5th amendment protection against revealing a password seems completely wrong to me, i.e. I'd expect it to get overturned at some point. The point of the 5th amendment was to prevent forced confessions, not to somehow block access to evidence (which the justice system is otherwise entitled to). Second, the protection doesn't apply if you're given immunity (because, again, it's not about blocking access to evidence). So if the court provides immunity and then orders you to reveal the password and you claim you can't because you don't know... the 5th amendment will not help you.
  - LegitShady 7y ago
    >First, the 5th amendment protection against revealing a password seems completely wrong to me, i.e. I'd expect it to get overturned at some point. The point of the 5th amendment was to prevent forced confessions, not to somehow block access to evidence (which the justice system is otherwise entitled to). This slope is arbitrary and slippery. There's a reason to stand on the extreme principle here. There are very few violations into a person's right to remain silent that cannot be weaponized. I'd rather not empower the next arbitrary group of political appointees to wield that kind of power just because you think "the justice system is entitled to" evidence. That sort of short term thinking without long term consequences does massive damage. Think harder.
    - pas 7y ago
      Otherwise entitled in this context means that there's a warrant, court order, reasonable suspicion, etc. that establishes the existence of evidence and that the defendant is completely able even if not willing to produce it. Of course, where the line is blurry, is as you rightfully note, beyond a point no justice system can be certain that the defendant really still has access to whatever evidence, be it some part of their mind's contents (so a memory, the location of a body, a password, a face), and even if somehow we know they had access but now they don't it'll be impossible to determine intent. (So destruction of evidence cannot really stand when it comes to forgetting things. Unless, maybe if the defendant caused brain damage to themselves intentionally.)
spzb 7y ago
We have that in the UK already. Technically on the statute book before Australia's although not activated til 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_King...
- dan-robertson 7y ago
  In the U.K. you can be convicted for not being able to decrypt data in your possession which the prosecutors think is encrypted. Ie if I filled a hard drive with random bits and sent it to you, you could be found guilty of not knowing the decryption keys for that disk.
  - galangalalgol 7y ago
    Everyone start sending your representatives encrypted thumbdrives and sd cards. Contents? A document asking for reform of this law.
  - SEMW 7y ago
    > if I filled a hard drive with random bits and sent it to you, you could be found guilty of not knowing the decryption keys for that disk. Technically true but misleading. It's true in the same sense as "if I plant evidence to frame you for murder, you could be found guilty of murder". I mean, sure, but that skips over the bit where the prosecution has to prove to a jury, beyond reasonable doubt, that you did actually commit the murder. Or in this case, that the hard drive is filled with encrypted data and that you have the key to it. In particular, the implication that if the police find some random data that they think is encrypted, you can be convicted just on the assumption that it's encrypted and that you have the key to it (unless you can prove otherwise) is false. If there's enough evidence to raise a question about whether you have the key to something that could be encrypted data, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove you do have the key to it (and therefore that it is encrypted data) beyond reasonable doubt: s.53(3) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53 (to be clear I definitely do agree it's a bad law, just not for burden-of-proof-reversal reasons)
genidoi 7y ago
VeraCrypt has a hidden volume mode where an inner encrypted volume is stored within the contents of an outer hidden volume, and the inner volume is indistinguishable from random data when the outer volume is decrypted for plausible deniability.
- sterlind 7y ago
  IIRC the configuration that allows hidden volumes is distinguishable from the basic configuration, so they could tell if there's the potential for a hidden drive to exist. If so, they could assume the hidden container exists and throw you in jail if you don't produce a password that unlocks one. If the format schemes are indistinguishable that's good news.
  - faeyanpiraat 7y ago
    If it is distinguishable, then it has no point. If it is indistinguishable then you run the risk of losing data in the nested container if you copy enough data (accidentally) on the outer container. Not sure which is the case with veracrypt though.
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      It's indistinguishable but there's a way to put in both passwords while using the outer container so it prevents overwriting the inner one.
    - aasasd 7y ago
      IIRC free space on the outer volume has to be continuous―normally at the end of the fs. I.e. the volume will look like it's not used too extensively. Which I guess may or may not look suspicious depending on your claimed use-case.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    The recommended practice is multiple hidden volumes. "Oh no, you made me decrypt this volume that contains inappropriate photos!"
merpnderp 7y ago
The US is still a mostly constitutional republic where mob rule can’t just do as it pleases. There’s been a recent uptick in efforts to delegitimize the courts, but historically that goes nowhere. IE the first amendment is still solid protection against this kind of insanity.
rsync 7y ago
"We are the electoral proving grounds for US/UK/CA laws." ... and I would say you're falling down on the job ...

6c696e7578 7y ago

So if I wanted a relative in jail, just ensure they use a password manager then do something from their wifi, or plant a keypass database on their computer.

lugg 7y ago
Going to have to raise the bar a bit. This is Australia, we all do things on wifi.
- fragmede 7y ago
  From their wifi. eg go to your enemy's house, connect to their WiFi, frame them with an encrypted file that they don't have the password to.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago
    If only reasonable doubt still got bad cases tossed.

syshum 7y ago

The problem for that is in the US, such laws would be unconstitutional under the 4th, 5th and 1st amendments Just like Australia's Gun Ban is unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment

mehrdadn 7y ago
First, the 5th amendment protection against revealing a password seems completely wrong to me, i.e. I'd expect it to get overturned at some point. The point of the 5th amendment was to prevent forced confessions, not to somehow block access to evidence (which the justice system is otherwise entitled to). Second, the protection doesn't apply if you're given immunity (because, again, it's not about blocking access to evidence). So if the court provides immunity and then orders you to reveal the password and you claim you can't because you don't know... the 5th amendment will not help you.
- LegitShady 7y ago
  >First, the 5th amendment protection against revealing a password seems completely wrong to me, i.e. I'd expect it to get overturned at some point. The point of the 5th amendment was to prevent forced confessions, not to somehow block access to evidence (which the justice system is otherwise entitled to). This slope is arbitrary and slippery. There's a reason to stand on the extreme principle here. There are very few violations into a person's right to remain silent that cannot be weaponized. I'd rather not empower the next arbitrary group of political appointees to wield that kind of power just because you think "the justice system is entitled to" evidence. That sort of short term thinking without long term consequences does massive damage. Think harder.
  - pas 7y ago
    Otherwise entitled in this context means that there's a warrant, court order, reasonable suspicion, etc. that establishes the existence of evidence and that the defendant is completely able even if not willing to produce it. Of course, where the line is blurry, is as you rightfully note, beyond a point no justice system can be certain that the defendant really still has access to whatever evidence, be it some part of their mind's contents (so a memory, the location of a body, a password, a face), and even if somehow we know they had access but now they don't it'll be impossible to determine intent. (So destruction of evidence cannot really stand when it comes to forgetting things. Unless, maybe if the defendant caused brain damage to themselves intentionally.)

spzb 7y ago

We have that in the UK already. Technically on the statute book before Australia's although not activated til 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_King...

dan-robertson 7y ago
In the U.K. you can be convicted for not being able to decrypt data in your possession which the prosecutors think is encrypted. Ie if I filled a hard drive with random bits and sent it to you, you could be found guilty of not knowing the decryption keys for that disk.
- galangalalgol 7y ago
  Everyone start sending your representatives encrypted thumbdrives and sd cards. Contents? A document asking for reform of this law.
- SEMW 7y ago
  > if I filled a hard drive with random bits and sent it to you, you could be found guilty of not knowing the decryption keys for that disk. Technically true but misleading. It's true in the same sense as "if I plant evidence to frame you for murder, you could be found guilty of murder". I mean, sure, but that skips over the bit where the prosecution has to prove to a jury, beyond reasonable doubt, that you did actually commit the murder. Or in this case, that the hard drive is filled with encrypted data and that you have the key to it. In particular, the implication that if the police find some random data that they think is encrypted, you can be convicted just on the assumption that it's encrypted and that you have the key to it (unless you can prove otherwise) is false. If there's enough evidence to raise a question about whether you have the key to something that could be encrypted data, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove you do have the key to it (and therefore that it is encrypted data) beyond reasonable doubt: s.53(3) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53 (to be clear I definitely do agree it's a bad law, just not for burden-of-proof-reversal reasons)

genidoi 7y ago

VeraCrypt has a hidden volume mode where an inner encrypted volume is stored within the contents of an outer hidden volume, and the inner volume is indistinguishable from random data when the outer volume is decrypted for plausible deniability.

sterlind 7y ago
IIRC the configuration that allows hidden volumes is distinguishable from the basic configuration, so they could tell if there's the potential for a hidden drive to exist. If so, they could assume the hidden container exists and throw you in jail if you don't produce a password that unlocks one. If the format schemes are indistinguishable that's good news.
- faeyanpiraat 7y ago
  If it is distinguishable, then it has no point. If it is indistinguishable then you run the risk of losing data in the nested container if you copy enough data (accidentally) on the outer container. Not sure which is the case with veracrypt though.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    It's indistinguishable but there's a way to put in both passwords while using the outer container so it prevents overwriting the inner one.
  - aasasd 7y ago
    IIRC free space on the outer volume has to be continuous―normally at the end of the fs. I.e. the volume will look like it's not used too extensively. Which I guess may or may not look suspicious depending on your claimed use-case.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  The recommended practice is multiple hidden volumes. "Oh no, you made me decrypt this volume that contains inappropriate photos!"

merpnderp 7y ago

The US is still a mostly constitutional republic where mob rule can’t just do as it pleases. There’s been a recent uptick in efforts to delegitimize the courts, but historically that goes nowhere. IE the first amendment is still solid protection against this kind of insanity.

rsync 7y ago

"We are the electoral proving grounds for US/UK/CA laws." ... and I would say you're falling down on the job ...