3 ms·

I think the best / most secure computer you can use today is a libreboot GM45 thinkpad with FDE, including /boot. The implications of this are big, both in secu

I think the best / most secure computer you can use today is a libreboot GM45 thinkpad with FDE, including /boot. The implications of this are big, both in security and in plausable deniability. Look at the case of Jeff Feldman [1], and how having a detectable OS made him liable for the hard disk. If they can't show that the drive contains some kind of OS or that it's not gibberish, you cannot be forced to unencrypt them (don't quote me on this, I'm not entirely sure if I'm speaking the truth.) But if I'm right, having a visible /boot partition is enough to show that there is some kind of OS. With Grub2 written to the board itself, you can get around that. [2] [1]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/28/in-reversal-judge-orders-child-porn-suspect-to-decrypt-hard-drives/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/28/in-reversal-ju... [2]: http://libreboot.org/docs/gnulinux/encrypted_trisquel.html http://libreboot.org/docs/gnulinux/encrypted_trisquel.html

raesene9 12y ago
unfortunately that kind of solution isn't always suitable for mass consumption and the kind of target audience for this article. There is always a trade-off in this kind of case between security and usuability
greggyb 12y ago
I don't see how the article you linked to [0] indicates a detectable OS in any way shape or form. Rather, the issue is that if it cannot be shown that you do know the password, then ownership of the drive cannot be determined. Entering the password is equivalent to admitting ownership, and therefore would be self-incriminating. The article indicates that the FBI decrypted one drive and found evidence that it belonged to Feldman: >According to the order (PDF), after devoting “substantial resources” in the case, FBI agents apparently have been able to decrypt one of the drives. The government argued that because it had found “numerous files which constitute child pornography,” “detailed personal financial records and documents belonging to Feldman,” and “dozens of personal photographs of Feldman," Feldman therefore has “access to and control over” the set of drives. Edit: Forgot link. [0]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/28/in-reversal-judge-orders-child-porn-suspect-to-decrypt-hard-drives/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/28/in-reversal-ju...
- pooper 12y ago
  In an adversarial judicial system, can a judge trust the prosecution to not tamper with digital evidence? What can the defense do in a situation where the prosecution plants an identical storage device (hard disk drive, ssd, flash drive) that contains cp specimen? Does the judge simply take prosecution's word? If so, why can't they just take the defense's word that they don't know the password?
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    During cross examination, the defense attorney can ask "Did you plant this evidence?" Alternatively, the defendant can take the stand and declare that they don't know the password and the porn isn't theirs. Then the jury decides who to believe.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > In an adversarial judicial system, can a judge trust the prosecution to not tamper with digital evidence? The judge doesn't have to trust the evidence, the judge just allows the prosecution to present it, and allows the defense to present whatever they have to rebut it, including challenges to its provenance, counterevidence, etc.

raesene9 12y ago

unfortunately that kind of solution isn't always suitable for mass consumption and the kind of target audience for this article. There is always a trade-off in this kind of case between security and usuability

greggyb 12y ago

I don't see how the article you linked to [0] indicates a detectable OS in any way shape or form. Rather, the issue is that if it cannot be shown that you do know the password, then ownership of the drive cannot be determined. Entering the password is equivalent to admitting ownership, and therefore would be self-incriminating. The article indicates that the FBI decrypted one drive and found evidence that it belonged to Feldman: >According to the order (PDF), after devoting “substantial resources” in the case, FBI agents apparently have been able to decrypt one of the drives. The government argued that because it had found “numerous files which constitute child pornography,” “detailed personal financial records and documents belonging to Feldman,” and “dozens of personal photographs of Feldman," Feldman therefore has “access to and control over” the set of drives. Edit: Forgot link. [0]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/28/in-reversal-judge-orders-child-porn-suspect-to-decrypt-hard-drives/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/28/in-reversal-ju...

pooper 12y ago
In an adversarial judicial system, can a judge trust the prosecution to not tamper with digital evidence? What can the defense do in a situation where the prosecution plants an identical storage device (hard disk drive, ssd, flash drive) that contains cp specimen? Does the judge simply take prosecution's word? If so, why can't they just take the defense's word that they don't know the password?
- tedunangst 12y ago
  During cross examination, the defense attorney can ask "Did you plant this evidence?" Alternatively, the defendant can take the stand and declare that they don't know the password and the porn isn't theirs. Then the jury decides who to believe.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > In an adversarial judicial system, can a judge trust the prosecution to not tamper with digital evidence? The judge doesn't have to trust the evidence, the judge just allows the prosecution to present it, and allows the defense to present whatever they have to rebut it, including challenges to its provenance, counterevidence, etc.