4 ms·

I can't imagine they would let a password get in the way of this. Even with an encrypted wallet, the balances of the content addresses are available for viewing

by nwh 13y ago

I can't imagine they would let a password get in the way of this. Even with an encrypted wallet, the balances of the content addresses are available for viewing for convenience sake. The reference client (I's not mentioned which wallet software) uses hundreds of thousands of rounds of key stretching, enough that on a GPU you're only getting a few attempts at the key. Might irritate them enough to crack out a good sized farm.

chiph 13y ago
Passwords are protected under his 5th amendment rights. The government would have to come up with a much stronger reason to force the password from him other than "we want it" The interesting part is if he does have a backup, and if he does access the funds in there for his legal defense. Would his attorney consider that money to be tainted, and thus refuse to accept it?
- Nate75Sanders 13y ago
  Problems in finance, like computer science, can often be solved through a layer of indirection.
- rayiner 13y ago
  It's not settled that passwords are protected under the 5th amendment. The 11th circuit has so ruled (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/identity/landmark-decision-allows-child-porn-suspect-to-plead-fifth-in-password-case/291 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/identity/landmark-decision-allows-...) but it's still up in the air everywhere else.
- njharman 13y ago
  The 5th Amendment is mostly moot since we've allowed prosecutors to extort plea-bargains via ridiculously over-charging.
- IgorPartola 13y ago
  Passwords are controversial under the 5th, but from the cases I followed, they are typically interpreted as a key to a safe, not as admission of guilt. As in, if your password is"YesITotallyDidIt", that is not an admission and is there fore not protected. The only things the 5th protects seem to be things you can say that can be directly used to convict you. Not giving the authorities with a warrant in hand your password seem to land you in jail indefinitely for contempt of court, which is likely as bad as what you will get if convicted. Edit: I am not a lawyer.
  - AnIrishDuck 13y ago
    My understanding (also not a lawyer) is that passwords are protected under the 5th amendment when the very act of giving them is testimonial. Two cases where this appears true: 1) Your password is "ITotallyKilledThoseTwentyPeople", e.g. the password contains testimonial evidence. This can probably be circumvented by allowing the defendant to enter their password privately. 2) Your lawyer successfully argues that the very admission of knowing the password to a thing is testimonial. In other words, let's say the feds find an encrypted hard drive labelled "child pornography" under the couch at your apartment. If your argument is that a friend left it there, and the feds can't prove otherwise, then the very act of decrypting that drive would be an admission that it's yours, and hence a violation of the fifth. It'll be interesting to see where law settles in this area. One thing that seems certain: if the gov't can prove you know a password, they can force you to use it (assuming use is possible without disclosure).
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Your understanding jives with my understanding. But in this case the government would likely argue that giving up the password which prove Ulbricht controls the BTC wallets would not be testimonial, as the government already knows he's responsible from the other evidence they have (both already mentioned in the indictment, and yet to be revealed publically).
    - IgorPartola 13y ago
      I think your second example makes sense, but I have seen a lot of discussion of the first and the conclusion is mostly that your passwords is not protected then. Basically, you could either enter the password, or you could even give it to the court and the password itself would not be able to be used as evidence.
      - AnIrishDuck 13y ago
        Right, that's what I meant when I said "This can probably be circumvented by allowing the defendant to enter their password privately."
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rainforest 13y ago
What might be more interesting is if a conspirator is waiting to move the coins to another wallet at some point soon before LEOs can start bruteforcing/wrenching the password.

by nwh 13y ago

chiph 13y ago

Passwords are protected under his 5th amendment rights. The government would have to come up with a much stronger reason to force the password from him other than "we want it" The interesting part is if he does have a backup, and if he does access the funds in there for his legal defense. Would his attorney consider that money to be tainted, and thus refuse to accept it?

Nate75Sanders 13y ago
Problems in finance, like computer science, can often be solved through a layer of indirection.
rayiner 13y ago
It's not settled that passwords are protected under the 5th amendment. The 11th circuit has so ruled (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/identity/landmark-decision-allows-child-porn-suspect-to-plead-fifth-in-password-case/291 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/identity/landmark-decision-allows-...) but it's still up in the air everywhere else.
njharman 13y ago
The 5th Amendment is mostly moot since we've allowed prosecutors to extort plea-bargains via ridiculously over-charging.
IgorPartola 13y ago
Passwords are controversial under the 5th, but from the cases I followed, they are typically interpreted as a key to a safe, not as admission of guilt. As in, if your password is"YesITotallyDidIt", that is not an admission and is there fore not protected. The only things the 5th protects seem to be things you can say that can be directly used to convict you. Not giving the authorities with a warrant in hand your password seem to land you in jail indefinitely for contempt of court, which is likely as bad as what you will get if convicted. Edit: I am not a lawyer.
- AnIrishDuck 13y ago
  My understanding (also not a lawyer) is that passwords are protected under the 5th amendment when the very act of giving them is testimonial. Two cases where this appears true: 1) Your password is "ITotallyKilledThoseTwentyPeople", e.g. the password contains testimonial evidence. This can probably be circumvented by allowing the defendant to enter their password privately. 2) Your lawyer successfully argues that the very admission of knowing the password to a thing is testimonial. In other words, let's say the feds find an encrypted hard drive labelled "child pornography" under the couch at your apartment. If your argument is that a friend left it there, and the feds can't prove otherwise, then the very act of decrypting that drive would be an admission that it's yours, and hence a violation of the fifth. It'll be interesting to see where law settles in this area. One thing that seems certain: if the gov't can prove you know a password, they can force you to use it (assuming use is possible without disclosure).
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Your understanding jives with my understanding. But in this case the government would likely argue that giving up the password which prove Ulbricht controls the BTC wallets would not be testimonial, as the government already knows he's responsible from the other evidence they have (both already mentioned in the indictment, and yet to be revealed publically).
  - IgorPartola 13y ago
    I think your second example makes sense, but I have seen a lot of discussion of the first and the conclusion is mostly that your passwords is not protected then. Basically, you could either enter the password, or you could even give it to the court and the password itself would not be able to be used as evidence.
    - AnIrishDuck 13y ago
      Right, that's what I meant when I said "This can probably be circumvented by allowing the defendant to enter their password privately."

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rainforest 13y ago

What might be more interesting is if a conspirator is waiting to move the coins to another wallet at some point soon before LEOs can start bruteforcing/wrenching the password.