3 ms·

Yeah, so I'm convinced that the FBI would not have done the tampering. Now show that no other person has had access to the drives' contents prior to their coll

by yebyen 13y ago

Yeah, so I'm convinced that the FBI would not have done the tampering. Now show that no other person has had access to the drives' contents prior to their collection as evidence. He would certainly strengthen the case for that (his ownership and control of the data) if he was able to decrypt the drives himself.

gamblor956 13y ago
They don't need to do that. The drives went from the defendant's house straight to the FBI evidence bag when they were picked up by the FBI evidence tech while searching his home. If the defendant wants to argue that someone hacked his computers and put the CP on his drive before the FBI took them, that is for him to argue. If he can't provide any proof of such (note that he is not required to provide proof), it is unlikely that the jury will believe such a defense.
- yebyen 13y ago
  Yeah, you're right. I would like to know how they decrypted the drive though. "Substantial resources" does not say much. It could mean a lot of computing power, or just a lot of brute-force sleuthing to find the backdoor. What exactly should a third-party frame-up look like? In my mind, at least, how they came to be able to decrypt the drive could possibly lend some credibility to their claim that he owned it and was in control of it, and the remaining drives as well.
  - rosser 13y ago
    Totally guessing, but the password is probably the weak point.
    - yebyen 13y ago
      I would have guessed otherwise, if this guy is an IT pro, he probably knows to use a long and secure passphrase. I'll be surprised if someone who knows can say the password was the weak point. Maybe you're right, but... I'd think the most likely way to get in would be to find the passphrase had been cached somewhere, or the unencrypted key was accidentally copied somewhere onto a swap file from some shoddily built backup process that used up most of the RAM compressing files, resulting in that or some similar leak. Same as you though, I don't really have the slightest idea.

by yebyen 13y ago

gamblor956 13y ago

They don't need to do that. The drives went from the defendant's house straight to the FBI evidence bag when they were picked up by the FBI evidence tech while searching his home. If the defendant wants to argue that someone hacked his computers and put the CP on his drive before the FBI took them, that is for him to argue. If he can't provide any proof of such (note that he is not required to provide proof), it is unlikely that the jury will believe such a defense.

yebyen 13y ago
Yeah, you're right. I would like to know how they decrypted the drive though. "Substantial resources" does not say much. It could mean a lot of computing power, or just a lot of brute-force sleuthing to find the backdoor. What exactly should a third-party frame-up look like? In my mind, at least, how they came to be able to decrypt the drive could possibly lend some credibility to their claim that he owned it and was in control of it, and the remaining drives as well.
- rosser 13y ago
  Totally guessing, but the password is probably the weak point.
  - yebyen 13y ago
    I would have guessed otherwise, if this guy is an IT pro, he probably knows to use a long and secure passphrase. I'll be surprised if someone who knows can say the password was the weak point. Maybe you're right, but... I'd think the most likely way to get in would be to find the passphrase had been cached somewhere, or the unencrypted key was accidentally copied somewhere onto a swap file from some shoddily built backup process that used up most of the RAM compressing files, resulting in that or some similar leak. Same as you though, I don't really have the slightest idea.