3 ms·
Be careful in countries like UK which have laws requiring the decryption of any data they find. There are people sitting in jail because they couldn't decrypt
by fhdkweig 3mo ago
Be careful in countries like UK which have laws requiring the decryption of any data they find. There are people sitting in jail because they couldn't decrypt the "random noise" on their computers.
- ErroneousBosh 3mo ago> There are people sitting in jail because they couldn't decrypt the "random noise" on their computers. No, there isn't.
- NikolaNovak 3mo agoFair warning; any links to specific cases (not the law itself)?
- fhdkweig 3mo agoThis lists two unnamed individuals. https://edri.org/our-work/edri-gramnumber7-16decrypt-data-cases-ripa/ https://edri.org/our-work/edri-gramnumber7-16decrypt-data-ca...
- marysol5 3mo agoNone of which are what OP is claiming
- prmoustache 3mo agoThey don't mention anything about data being claimed as random noise nor the sentences.
- monster_truck 3mo agoThere literally are not. Anyone competent enough to be an expert witness will be able to plainly explain to everyone else how statistical analysis obviously delinates the difference between truly random noise and an encrypted volume.
- pixl97 3mo agoLoll, you have a lot of faith in the legal system that I do not. Expert witnesses are commonly full of shit.
- giancarlostoro 3mo agoI heard one argue that "zooming" on an image by adding pixels with an algorithm is normal, and he's had such "evidence" used in court before. I was a little horrified as someone who has worked on digital forensic software at a former employer. Adding pixels to an image is not evidence, you're fabricating something out of thin air, especially if its drastically smaller, its even more likely to be BS.
- jbxntuehineoh 3mo agobut... how _else_ would you Enhance the image?
- dataflow 3mo agoAre you saying any photos I take with phone that had digital zoom is automatically I admissible? Or if not, isn't that consistent with what they said?
- monster_truck 3mo agoI didn't say all expert witnesses are good nor did I claim they are all used in good faith. Merely that, unlike in the invented scenario above, statistical differences in the random garbage that gets written to a disk across different tool or OS versions has been successfully used to place a time window on when exactly someone destroyed evidence.
- marysol5 3mo agoYou know that defence can bring in an expert witness too right?
- monocasa 3mo agoIf there's a difference visible, that's a weakness in the encryption algorithm. Encrypted data should be statistically indistinct from random noise. It's an information theory thing. Everything in the ciphertext should be sitting at maximum entropy.
- amelius 3mo agoThis is exactly the point. If storing random data was the norm (formatting utilities would offer it) then it would be hard to make a case against it. And it actually _does_ make sense for formatting utilities to offer it, as this is a good way to ensure that data is really gone after formatting (writing all 0s or all 1s could leave information at the physical layer; and any intermediate layer could not compress random data much so the data must be overwritten).
- marysol5 3mo agoWhy do people just invent this absolute bullshit. No there isn't. even people who have been prosecuted for refusing to decrypt data, it takes a lot of working by the prosecution to PROVE it's encrypted and not just "random data". I'm from the UK and have been in court with encrypted data myself.....
- prmoustache 3mo ago> There are people sitting in jail because they couldn't decrypt the "random noise" on their computers. Sources or names?