5 ms·
"How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it?" In my opinion, the 4th amendment says
by andrewljohnson 13y ago
"How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it?"
In my opinion, the 4th amendment says the government needs a good reason and a warrant, and then we all agree they can read my gmail. We don't have to agree they can store, search, and use everyone's gmail for fighting crime, terrorism, or gaining economic advantage over other nations.
Forget international committees. Smash the hard drives with my phone data in them that spooks can read at will.
- sp332 13y agoEven if they have a warrant, they can't read a well-encrypted email. What do they do then?
- DanBC 13y agoThey put you in prison until you hand over the keys. In the UK this is under RIPA. In the US there's probably some law they can kludge to fit - contempt of court or some-such.
- kamjam 13y agoWhat happens in situations like this if you use a hidden volume within an encrypted file using something like Truecrypt, which allows plausible deniability? You've supplied the "password" but the real meaty stuff is still hidden away... http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/hidden-volume#Y0 http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/hidden-volume#Y0
- DanBC 13y agoHidden volumes are often done wrong and trivially easy for 'them' to find. Under UK law the rule isn't to hand over the keys so they can decrypt the ciphertext, but to make the plaintext available.
- kamjam 13y agoYes, I understand that, but if you have 2 passwords, each of which unlocks different plaintext within your encrypted conatainer, then theoretically you could never be found out... (but as you saying, assuming the implementation is correct)
- darrylb42 13y agoThe get a warrant to put a key logger on your machine and get it that way.