3 ms·

I have encrypted files/volumes that I don't remember the password for (it has been far too long). Surely not remembering is a valid defense.

gnosis 15y ago
If you really don't remember the passwords for your encrypted files, you might want to take the prudent action and delete them. It's not like they're of any use to you now.
Devilboy 15y ago
Just ask Alberto 'do not recall' Gonzales.
steve-howard 15y ago
Only if you're the Attorney General.
kgtm 15y ago
Interesting point. I was thinking of the exact same thing. I cringe to the idea that such a defense might lead to some creative rubber-hose cryptanalysis though. The way I see it, this guy is half-way there. I wish I could help him.
saulrh 15y ago
The more interesting point is that he may not be using a password in the first place; TrueCrypt can do arbitrary keyfiles. Someone found[1] a post elsewhere on the forum citing a subpoena that required someone to "type the passwords or pass phrases necessary to produce the encrypted contents of drives". If that quote is from the same case, he may be physically incapable of carrying out the subpoena as ordered. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2693754 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2693754
rdl 15y ago
I'd also be much more likely to forget passwords (for real) after being locked up in jail (stressful and away from computer, so not logging in periodically). I think at the point of forgetting, the contempt charge would go away.
fmx 15y ago
It's definitely not in Australia - and I'd be surprised if that defence worked anywhere else, either. The law here says that you must assist the police to access data if ordered by a magistrate. The magistrate must be satisfied that you can provide that assistance, but he doesn't ask you before issuing the order - he makes the decision based on what the police tell him. Once that order is issued you commit an offence if you don't comply with it. Your reasons for not complying are irrelevant. (I'm not a laywer, etc...)

gnosis 15y ago

If you really don't remember the passwords for your encrypted files, you might want to take the prudent action and delete them. It's not like they're of any use to you now.

Devilboy 15y ago

Just ask Alberto 'do not recall' Gonzales.

steve-howard 15y ago

Only if you're the Attorney General.

kgtm 15y ago

Interesting point. I was thinking of the exact same thing. I cringe to the idea that such a defense might lead to some creative rubber-hose cryptanalysis though. The way I see it, this guy is half-way there. I wish I could help him.

saulrh 15y ago

The more interesting point is that he may not be using a password in the first place; TrueCrypt can do arbitrary keyfiles. Someone found[1] a post elsewhere on the forum citing a subpoena that required someone to "type the passwords or pass phrases necessary to produce the encrypted contents of drives". If that quote is from the same case, he may be physically incapable of carrying out the subpoena as ordered. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2693754 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2693754

rdl 15y ago

I'd also be much more likely to forget passwords (for real) after being locked up in jail (stressful and away from computer, so not logging in periodically). I think at the point of forgetting, the contempt charge would go away.

fmx 15y ago

It's definitely not in Australia - and I'd be surprised if that defence worked anywhere else, either. The law here says that you must assist the police to access data if ordered by a magistrate. The magistrate must be satisfied that you can provide that assistance, but he doesn't ask you before issuing the order - he makes the decision based on what the police tell him. Once that order is issued you commit an offence if you don't comply with it. Your reasons for not complying are irrelevant. (I'm not a laywer, etc...)