6 ms·
Another possibility - the author was required by a court order to provide a backdoor for unfettered access to truecrypt disk, and to not disclose the existence
by gregatragenet2 12y ago
Another possibility - the author was required by a court order to provide a backdoor for unfettered access to truecrypt disk, and to not disclose the existence of the order. The solution was to modify the code so that everyone has unfettered access (i.e. disable encryption entirely) and make the recommendation that everyone switch to something else.
- XorNot 12y agoQuestion: has any such court order, ever, in the history of the United States, actually been given? Can it be given? Because that would be news to me. Because while specific orders can't be disclosed if they'd give away information to the actual target, the general nature of such orders is well known - information can be demanded if held. You can't be compelled to engage in subterfuge though, and since such an order would be illegal, you could freely disclose it and let the civilian courts strike it down. As one might note from the Lavabit fiasco, things only got weird because Lavabit decided to screw around being non-compliant, while also always having the technical capacity to decrypt everyone's email (and thus opening up the legal doorway to just seize the keys and all the data, rather then the tiny chunk that was wanted).