7 ms·

Police Claim Encryption Use Is Illegal

JimmaDaRustla 13y ago
Silly Police! Next lock boxes and safes!
- fexl 13y ago
  They do hire some ignorant yahoos from time to time.
justanother 13y ago
The website isn't exactly presented in a linear fashion, but I gather the issue is the subject's use of Truecrypt to contain his personal files, whereas on a company-owned computer, all data therein is company property. This certainly seems like it should be a civil matter, not something to involve the guys with guns and blue suits. But more to the point, $21.50 an hour for a 1099 job for a huge bag-of-dicks of a boss who pirates all his desktop software? Is that BSA hotline still around, or do they even care about small fries?
- tomp 13y ago
  > whereas on a company-owned computer, all data therein is company property. Are you sure? AFAIK, without signing any contracts, all work I produced is mine, regardless of where it resides. By inference, is all data in my computer mine as well?
  - jimktrains2 13y ago
    When you start with a company you sign over the rights to the work you do with their time, equipment, and resources (most of the time, and exact conditions vary, but that's a very common LCD)
    - tehwalrus 13y ago
      He says in the linked website[1] that he signed no such agreement. [1] http://www.innocentbeyondareasonabledoubt.com/ http://www.innocentbeyondareasonabledoubt.com/
      - jimktrains2 13y ago
        I was under the impression that GP was talking about the general case. Specifics are always, well, specific to that case:)
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Work created within the scope of your employment automatically belongs to the company: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=6488654&whence=item%3fid%3d6488407 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=6488654&whence=item%3f....
    - delinka 13y ago
      "Employment" yes. But how about as an outside contractor and not an employee. Unless you, the business hiring the contractor, specify that the contractor is performing a work for hire and that all intellectual property rights associated with said work shall be transferred to you, the copyright law says the creator of the work holds the copyright on the work. Under the law, and with an agreement to receive payment but without stipulations regarding ownership, I'd say it's fair to assume you (again, the one hiring the contractor) are obtaining a license to the work, but not to assume that you will own the work.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Right, if you're a contractor it doesn't automatically belong to your employer. I think the issue here is an evidentiary problem: we have nothing other than the author's word that nothing in the encrypted partition belongs to the business.
        Nimi 13y ago
        Why is that a problem? Wouldn't the burden of proof fall on the employer to give evidence that something in the encrypted partition belongs to the business?
        rayiner 13y ago
        First, burden of proof is not a concept that's relevant before criminal charges or a civil complaint have been filed. You don't need to prove that there is something in the encrypted partition to bring charges. Circumstantial evidence is enough. Second, in an actual trial the author would have to unlock the encrypted partition. There is no right of privacy against a court. If there is disagreement about what's in a box, people aren't going to sit around arguing about burdens of proof and burdens of production. The court is going to order the box be opened and the issue resolved definitively.
Spoom 13y ago
The police are allowed to lie. That's why you don't take legal advice from them.
- sokoloff 13y ago
  The police aren't attorneys that you are paying for. THAT is why you don't take legal advice from them.
  - LanceH 13y ago
    Yes, always hire your own professional liar first.
    - MayankGoyal 13y ago
      Right. Because "Lawyer" is synonymous to "Liar" and the justice system totally isn't based on provable facts, but how well you can lie.
furyg3 13y ago
His timeline and story are all here: http://www.innocentbeyondareasonabledoubt.com/ http://www.innocentbeyondareasonabledoubt.com/ Lesson: Do not ever cooperate with the police. Bo should have just let the original issue (I'm not even sure what that issue was) between he and his employer go to a civil court.
- Toenex 13y ago
  Lesson: Do not ever cooperate with the police. Seriously? So if I get mugged in the street or if I have my home burgled I should do what?
  - knowaveragejoe 13y ago
    I think it would be more appropriately phrased as "do not ever cooperate with the police if it is unsolicited interaction".
    - Udo 13y ago
      You shouldn't solicit interaction with the police either, unless it's an absolute emergency life-or-death situation. In all other cases, the best outcome of an interaction with the police is that nothing happens. There is a misconception that they're on your side as long as you've done nothing wrong, or as long as you have a reasonable complaint, but they are simply not. Their job is to get people in front of a judge, to make them pay fines, or to get them into prison. All things being equal, they'll be working with the closest target they can see and that's you if you solicit them. They basically behave like predators.
      - lotsofcows 13y ago
        Hmmm, how bizarre. When we had trouble with a contractor, the police knocked on her door and told her a complaint had been filed. Nothing more was required to stop the trouble. When my kid was ill in the car and I stopped (illegally) on the hard shoulder, the police car that investigated pulled back a bit with it's lights flashing until we could continue. My kids have set in police cars many times when they've been monitoring events. I've worked with the police a number of time when organising events. Where do you live? I want to make sure I never visit there.
rayiner 13y ago
EDIT: You have to read the complaint in the last link. It sounds like there were some laptops or something that were "lost" and the owner believed he stole them, and filed a police report. That's what the charges stem from. http://s3.amazonaws.com/InnocentBeyondAReasonableDoubt/PDF/Complaint.pdf http://s3.amazonaws.com/InnocentBeyondAReasonableDoubt/PDF/C... With regards to the allegations of theft, I'm not sure what the author's point is. He repeatedly says he offered to pay the owner back for the missing items. Should that mean that he can't be charged with theft? If I steal something and get caught, should I just be able to offer to pay and avoid prosecution? He repeatedly says that the missing items amount to at most a civil matter, but stealing stuff from work is not a civil matter. For the rest of it, the author doesn't have a leg to stand on. Say instead of an encrypted partition we were talking about a safe. I kept a safe in my office, and one day I was summarily fired and escorted out of the building. I promised that there was no business information or property of my employer in that safe, then refused to hand over the combination. Should the employer leave it at that, saying "gee, if he says he didn't put any business property in the safe, I guess I just have to believe him!" I can understand where the author is coming from (though his writing makes that difficult). The owner is clearly being a huge asshole. But the author is being naive to think that there must be something "fishy" going on. Unfortunately for him, he's on the wrong end of this story. It's so common for disgruntled employees to steal company property or damage company property that nobody is going to give him the benefit of the doubt except the jury, who is legally required to. The author repeatedly mentions the standard for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt). However, that's not the standard for prosecution, which is closer to "more likely than not."
- dpcx 13y ago
  He said several times that he would unlock the encryption. He also said that he didn't feel right giving the password to anyone.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Why should the owner trust him that he's actually doing what he says he's doing?
wslh 13y ago
We are moving back to square one.
stuaxo 13y ago
The letter of complaint is a lot easier to digest than going through the site http://s3.amazonaws.com/InnocentBeyondAReasonableDoubt/PDF/Complaint.pdf http://s3.amazonaws.com/InnocentBeyondAReasonableDoubt/PDF/C...
grannyg00se 13y ago
Putting personal files on an employer's computer is a bad idea. Why do such a thing?
brubaker 13y ago
There is a lot more to this story and this guy seems to be less than honest (while playing victim)
rmrfrmrf 13y ago
Something is not right about this story. I can't put my finger on it, but the holes in Bo's story make me suspicious. What items were lost originally? What were the circumstances surrounding the lost items? Why wasn't Bo fired immediately after these items were reported missing? Why is Bo offering to pay for any lost items, and why does he seem so eager to do so? Then, as it pertains to the laptop, what the FRICK is Bo doing installing single user pre-boot authentication on a work computer? That is totally out of line, and I wouldn't blame the employer for feeling like his computer was being held hostage by an ex-contractor. I could see the theft charge in that case. If someone installed password-protected full disk encryption on my computer and refused to give me the password, yes, nothing was physically "stolen", but the fact that I'm being denied access to my own data is more-or-less equivalent. The fact that Bo then cuts a check to a detective again makes no sense to me. Why are you paying off law enforcement instead of going through the judicial system? Don't forget, going to court is also there to protect you.
jlebrech 13y ago
Isn't an exchange of funds admission of guilt?
- R_Edward 13y ago
  No. In a civil case, often a defendant will compare the cost to defend themselves to the cost of settling, and will opt for the latter, including in the settlement documentation that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing.

Silly Police! Next lock boxes and safes!

fexl 13y ago
They do hire some ignorant yahoos from time to time.

The website isn't exactly presented in a linear fashion, but I gather the issue is the subject's use of Truecrypt to contain his personal files, whereas on a company-owned computer, all data therein is company property. This certainly seems like it should be a civil matter, not something to involve the guys with guns and blue suits. But more to the point, $21.50 an hour for a 1099 job for a huge bag-of-dicks of a boss who pirates all his desktop software? Is that BSA hotline still around, or do they even care about small fries?

tomp 13y ago
> whereas on a company-owned computer, all data therein is company property. Are you sure? AFAIK, without signing any contracts, all work I produced is mine, regardless of where it resides. By inference, is all data in my computer mine as well?
- jimktrains2 13y ago
  When you start with a company you sign over the rights to the work you do with their time, equipment, and resources (most of the time, and exact conditions vary, but that's a very common LCD)
  - tehwalrus 13y ago
    He says in the linked website[1] that he signed no such agreement. [1] http://www.innocentbeyondareasonabledoubt.com/ http://www.innocentbeyondareasonabledoubt.com/
    - jimktrains2 13y ago
      I was under the impression that GP was talking about the general case. Specifics are always, well, specific to that case:)
- rayiner 13y ago
  Work created within the scope of your employment automatically belongs to the company: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=6488654&whence=item%3fid%3d6488407 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=6488654&whence=item%3f....
  - delinka 13y ago
    "Employment" yes. But how about as an outside contractor and not an employee. Unless you, the business hiring the contractor, specify that the contractor is performing a work for hire and that all intellectual property rights associated with said work shall be transferred to you, the copyright law says the creator of the work holds the copyright on the work. Under the law, and with an agreement to receive payment but without stipulations regarding ownership, I'd say it's fair to assume you (again, the one hiring the contractor) are obtaining a license to the work, but not to assume that you will own the work.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Right, if you're a contractor it doesn't automatically belong to your employer. I think the issue here is an evidentiary problem: we have nothing other than the author's word that nothing in the encrypted partition belongs to the business.
      - Nimi 13y ago
        Why is that a problem? Wouldn't the burden of proof fall on the employer to give evidence that something in the encrypted partition belongs to the business?
        rayiner 13y ago
        First, burden of proof is not a concept that's relevant before criminal charges or a civil complaint have been filed. You don't need to prove that there is something in the encrypted partition to bring charges. Circumstantial evidence is enough. Second, in an actual trial the author would have to unlock the encrypted partition. There is no right of privacy against a court. If there is disagreement about what's in a box, people aren't going to sit around arguing about burdens of proof and burdens of production. The court is going to order the box be opened and the issue resolved definitively.

Spoom 13y ago

The police are allowed to lie. That's why you don't take legal advice from them.

sokoloff 13y ago
The police aren't attorneys that you are paying for. THAT is why you don't take legal advice from them.
- LanceH 13y ago
  Yes, always hire your own professional liar first.
  - MayankGoyal 13y ago
    Right. Because "Lawyer" is synonymous to "Liar" and the justice system totally isn't based on provable facts, but how well you can lie.

furyg3 13y ago

His timeline and story are all here: http://www.innocentbeyondareasonabledoubt.com/ http://www.innocentbeyondareasonabledoubt.com/ Lesson: Do not ever cooperate with the police. Bo should have just let the original issue (I'm not even sure what that issue was) between he and his employer go to a civil court.

Toenex 13y ago
Lesson: Do not ever cooperate with the police. Seriously? So if I get mugged in the street or if I have my home burgled I should do what?
- knowaveragejoe 13y ago
  I think it would be more appropriately phrased as "do not ever cooperate with the police if it is unsolicited interaction".
  - Udo 13y ago
    You shouldn't solicit interaction with the police either, unless it's an absolute emergency life-or-death situation. In all other cases, the best outcome of an interaction with the police is that nothing happens. There is a misconception that they're on your side as long as you've done nothing wrong, or as long as you have a reasonable complaint, but they are simply not. Their job is to get people in front of a judge, to make them pay fines, or to get them into prison. All things being equal, they'll be working with the closest target they can see and that's you if you solicit them. They basically behave like predators.
    - lotsofcows 13y ago
      Hmmm, how bizarre. When we had trouble with a contractor, the police knocked on her door and told her a complaint had been filed. Nothing more was required to stop the trouble. When my kid was ill in the car and I stopped (illegally) on the hard shoulder, the police car that investigated pulled back a bit with it's lights flashing until we could continue. My kids have set in police cars many times when they've been monitoring events. I've worked with the police a number of time when organising events. Where do you live? I want to make sure I never visit there.

rayiner 13y ago

EDIT: You have to read the complaint in the last link. It sounds like there were some laptops or something that were "lost" and the owner believed he stole them, and filed a police report. That's what the charges stem from. http://s3.amazonaws.com/InnocentBeyondAReasonableDoubt/PDF/Complaint.pdf http://s3.amazonaws.com/InnocentBeyondAReasonableDoubt/PDF/C... With regards to the allegations of theft, I'm not sure what the author's point is. He repeatedly says he offered to pay the owner back for the missing items. Should that mean that he can't be charged with theft? If I steal something and get caught, should I just be able to offer to pay and avoid prosecution? He repeatedly says that the missing items amount to at most a civil matter, but stealing stuff from work is not a civil matter. For the rest of it, the author doesn't have a leg to stand on. Say instead of an encrypted partition we were talking about a safe. I kept a safe in my office, and one day I was summarily fired and escorted out of the building. I promised that there was no business information or property of my employer in that safe, then refused to hand over the combination. Should the employer leave it at that, saying "gee, if he says he didn't put any business property in the safe, I guess I just have to believe him!" I can understand where the author is coming from (though his writing makes that difficult). The owner is clearly being a huge asshole. But the author is being naive to think that there must be something "fishy" going on. Unfortunately for him, he's on the wrong end of this story. It's so common for disgruntled employees to steal company property or damage company property that nobody is going to give him the benefit of the doubt except the jury, who is legally required to. The author repeatedly mentions the standard for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt). However, that's not the standard for prosecution, which is closer to "more likely than not."

dpcx 13y ago
He said several times that he would unlock the encryption. He also said that he didn't feel right giving the password to anyone.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Why should the owner trust him that he's actually doing what he says he's doing?

wslh 13y ago

We are moving back to square one.

stuaxo 13y ago

The letter of complaint is a lot easier to digest than going through the site http://s3.amazonaws.com/InnocentBeyondAReasonableDoubt/PDF/Complaint.pdf http://s3.amazonaws.com/InnocentBeyondAReasonableDoubt/PDF/C...

grannyg00se 13y ago

Putting personal files on an employer's computer is a bad idea. Why do such a thing?

brubaker 13y ago

There is a lot more to this story and this guy seems to be less than honest (while playing victim)

rmrfrmrf 13y ago

Something is not right about this story. I can't put my finger on it, but the holes in Bo's story make me suspicious. What items were lost originally? What were the circumstances surrounding the lost items? Why wasn't Bo fired immediately after these items were reported missing? Why is Bo offering to pay for any lost items, and why does he seem so eager to do so? Then, as it pertains to the laptop, what the FRICK is Bo doing installing single user pre-boot authentication on a work computer? That is totally out of line, and I wouldn't blame the employer for feeling like his computer was being held hostage by an ex-contractor. I could see the theft charge in that case. If someone installed password-protected full disk encryption on my computer and refused to give me the password, yes, nothing was physically "stolen", but the fact that I'm being denied access to my own data is more-or-less equivalent. The fact that Bo then cuts a check to a detective again makes no sense to me. Why are you paying off law enforcement instead of going through the judicial system? Don't forget, going to court is also there to protect you.

jlebrech 13y ago

Isn't an exchange of funds admission of guilt?

R_Edward 13y ago
No. In a civil case, often a defendant will compare the cost to defend themselves to the cost of settling, and will opt for the latter, including in the settlement documentation that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing.