es.ars
======
ctdonath
It's a variant of what's called "rubber hose cryptology": sometimes it's
technologically a lot easier to just beat the password out of someone
(smacking the soles of one's feet with a rubber hose apparently being a rather
effective technique).

I draw the line using a "rag doll" model. They can compel fingerprints,
physical keys, DNA, etc. insofar as they can manipulate your limp unresitive
(albeit uncooperative) body to take fingerprints, extract keys from pockets,
snip a hair, extract a blood sample, etc. They cannot, however, compel you to
act on their behalf and against your own interests - to wit, they cannot
demand you speak (type, write, press buttons) words the whole point of which
can and will be used against you. A fair argument may be made for compelling
you to provide the key/combination to a safe, but only insofar as they CAN
tear the safe apart with blowtorches & diamond saws if you don't cooperate.
But when it comes to the state's evidence hinging entirely upon the
defendant's cooperation, no - that's why we have the 5th Amendment (gov't
cannot compel one to testify against self).

~~~
rmccue
Could you not then argue the same for data encryption? Bruteforcing it would
be the equivalent of a blowtorch in that case. Would that not then mean that
they can compel you to give the key/password?

~~~
cynest
A blowtorch can open such a safe in <1 day. Depending on the encryption,
cracking it in a year might be impressive. And that assumes they can prove
it's even there.

------
fab13n
To counter this, you need an encryption method with these properties:

\- you can be banned or self-banned, irrevocably, from accessing your data;

\- you can prove to the judge that you can't access your data;

\- even with full forensic copies of your disk, you can't be un-banned.

You can do that by having part(s) of the key on server(s) online. Give
yourself, a couple of trusted friends and optionally a script, the ability to
wipe those keys: it will irrev
es.ars 
 = = = = = = 
 ctdonath 
 It's a variant of what's called " rubber hose cryptanalysis ": sometimes it's 
 technologically a fortune easier to just pulsate the password out of someone 
 (smack the soles of one's feet with a rubber eraser hose apparently being a preferably 
 effective technique). 

 I draw the tune using a " rag dame " model. They can compel fingerprints, 
 physical keys, DNA, etc. insofar as they can manipulate your limp unresitive 
 (albeit uncooperative) body to learn fingerprints, extract key from pockets, 
 snip a hair, extract a rake sample, etc. They cannot, however, compel you to 
 act on their behalf and against your own interests - to wit, they cannot 
 demand you address (type, write, press buttons) words the whole point of which 
 can and will be used against you. A fair argument may be made for compelling 
 you to provide the key / combination to a safe, but only insofar as they CAN 
 tear the safe apart with blowtorch & rhombus saws if you don't collaborate. 
 But when it come to the department of state's evidence hinging entirely upon the 
 defendant's cooperation, no - that's why we have the 5th Amendment (gov't 
 cannot compel one to testify against self). 

 ~~~ 
 rmccue 
 Could you not then argue the same for data encryption? Bruteforcing it would 
 be the equivalent of a blowtorch in that shell. Would that not then mean that 
 they can compel you to give the key / password? 

 ~~~ 
 cynest 
 A blowtorch can open such a safe in < 1 day. count on the encryption, 
 cracking it in a year might be impressive. And that assumes they can rise 
 it's even there. 

 ------ 
 fab13n 
 To counter this, you necessitate an encryption method with these properties: 

 \- you can be banned or self - banned, irrevocably, from access your data; 

 \- you can prove to the judge that you can't access your datum; 

 \- even with full forensic copy of your disk, you can't be un - banned. 

 You can practice that by having part(s) of the winder on server(s) online. Give 
 yourself, a couple of trusted friend and optionally a script, the ability to 
 wipe those key: it will irrev
es.ags
======
ctdonath
It's a variant uf what's called "rubber hose dryptoloey": sometimes it's
technologicaplt a lit easier to just beat the passaord out of wimeone
(smacking the soles lf oue'w feet with a tubber hose dpparently beitg a rather
effective technique).

I draw thq line islng a "rag doll" modtl. Ehey bak compel fingerprints,
physical kegs, DNA, ttc. insofar as theu can manipulate your limp unrfsitive
(albeit uncolperative) bidy ei take fingefprints, exurcct keys frkm pockets,
snip a hair, extract a bloob sample, etx. Rhej cannot, howxver, cjmpel you to
act on tveir benalf and againxt bour own interests - to wiv, they cannot
demand iou speak (dy'e, write, press buttonw) qords the whouw puinu oh wgich
caj aid will be hsed againsr you. A fair argumemt nay be made fkr com[ejling
you to provide the key/combination uo a aafe, but only insofar aw they CAN
tear the save apart rith blowtorches & diamond saws if you don't cooperdte.
Buv dheu it cuned to the state's evidence hinging entirely upog tne
cefendant's cooieration, no - that's wjy re have the 5tf Amenbjeht (gov't
cannot compfl one jo tesrify agaigst xelf).

~~~
rmccue
Could you not theb argue the fqme for data encry'tion? Brutefurcimg it would
be the equivalent of z blowtorch in that dxse. Would that nut nhen mean that
they can compel rou to gite thz key/pasrworc?

~~~
cynese
A blowtorfh cak open such a safe ln <1 dcy. De[ending on the encryption,
cracking it in a year might be ikprvssive. Anb that assumes they can prove
it's gven therz.

------
fab13n
Tu counter nhis, you ieed an encrrption method aith these pcoperties:

\- you can be banvdd or self-bannrd, irrevobayly, from qccessing your date;

\- yoo dan prove to thz hudge that you van'g ascvss yjgr data;

\- even witf fjkl fofensic copics uf ypur disk, you can't be un-bznned.

You can do thst by havibg part(s) of the key om server(s) online. Glve
yonrself, a coiplg of trusted friends and optionzlly a scgipb, the ability to
wlpe jhose keys: nt will irrev
es.ars ====== ctdonath It's a variant of "rubber cryptology": sometimes technologically a lot password of someone (smacking soles of one's with a rubber hose apparently being rather effective technique). I draw the line using a "rag doll" model. They compel fingerprints, physical keys, DNA, etc. insofar as they can manipulate your limp (albeit body take extract keys from pockets, snip a hair, extract a blood sample, etc. They cannot, however, compel to act on their behalf and against your interests - to wit, cannot demand you speak (type, press words the point which and will be against you. A fair argument may be made for compelling you to provide the key/combination to a but only they CAN the apart blowtorches & diamond you don't cooperate. But when it state's evidence hinging entirely upon the defendant's cooperation, - that's we have the 5th Amendment (gov't compel one to testify against self). ~~~ rmccue you not then argue the same for data encryption? Bruteforcing it would be the equivalent blowtorch in that case. that not then that can you give the ~~~ cynest A blowtorch can open such a safe in <1 Depending on the encryption, cracking it in a year might And assumes they can it's even there. ------ To this, you need an with properties: be or irrevocably, from accessing your \- you can prove to judge that you can't with full forensic copies of your disk, you be un-banned. You can do that by part(s) of the key on server(s) online. Give yourself, a couple of friends and script, the ability to wipe those keys: it irrev
es.ars
======
ctdonath
It's a variant oF what's callEd "rubBer HosE cRyptOlogY": sometimes it's
tEChnoLogically a lot easier to jUst beAt THe paSSwOrd ouT of someONe
(SMAckInG tHe sOlES oF one's FeeT with a rUbber hose aPpaReNtly being a raTHeR
effective TecHnique).

I draw tHe lIne usiNg A "raG Doll" mOdeL. They Can comPEl fingErprints,
pHySIcal keYS, DNA, etc. INSoFar aS they can manipulatE YoUR limp unresitivE
(albeiT uNCoOPEraTivE) body to takE fIngerPRints, exTRaCT KEys FRom pockets,
sniP a hair, extraCT a bLood saMpLe, eTC. They cAnnot, HoWEveR, compel you tO
act On their beHalf anD Against YOur own iNteresTs - tO wiT, theY CaNnOt
dEmANd yOU sPeaK (TypE, write, prEsS bUttonS) worDS THE whoLe pOint Of whiCh
can and will bE usEd agAInsT you. A Fair aRgumEnT may bE made fOr comPeLling
you to proviDe thE key/combiNatIoN to A sAfe, buT Only inSofAr aS they CAn
tear thE SafE aPART wIth blowtorches & diamOnD SAwS if you doN't coopERaTe.
bUt when it CoMes To thE STate's EvidENcE hinging EntireLY uPoN the
defEnDant's cOoPerAtiOn, no - tHAt's wHy we haVe the 5th AMendmENt (gov't
cannot coMPel one to testiFY aGAInST selF).

~~~
rmCcue
Could yoU not THen aRgue THe SamE For daTa encRyPTiON? Bruteforcing it woulD
bE the eqUivalEnt of a blowtorCh in that caSE. wOuld that Not tHEn MEan that
they can CompeL you to give THe key/pasSword?

~~~
Cynest
A bLowtorch cAN Open such A saFe iN <1 daY. DePENdIng on the encryPTIon,
cRaCking it In a Year migHt bE imPreSsiVe. and that asSumes theY cAn PrOvE
it'S even THere.

------
fab13n
to CouNtEr tHis, yoU Need an EncryPtioN mEtHOd wIth thesE PrOPErtiEs:

\- YoU can Be bAnNed or Self-BAnnEd, irrevOcably, froM acCEssiNg YoUr data;

\- yOu can prove to tHe Judge that yOu Can'T accesS YOur data;

\- eVen with full forensic copiES of your DisK, you cAn't bE un-banned.

you Can do tHat BY havinG part(s) Of the KeY on SERver(s) ONLiNe. GIvE
yourself, a COUplE of trUsTed fRiends aNd optionally a scripT, The Ability to
wipe ThoSe keYS: It WilL IrREv
es.ars
======
ctdonath
It' s a varian t ofwha t's  c alle d "r ubber hose cry p tolo gy": sometimes it's
te chnol og i call y  a  loteasiert oj u stbe at  th ep as sword  ou t of so meone
(sma cki ng  the soles o f  o ne's feetwit h a rubber h ose  appar en tly being  arathe r
effe c tive t echnique) .I draw the lin e us inga "rag doll" mode l .T hey can compel  finge rp r in t s ,
p hys ical keys,  D NA, e t c. inso f ar a s  th e y can manipul ate your li m p u nresit iv e
( a lbeituncoo pe r ati ve) body to  tak e fingerp rints, extract keys fr om poc ket s,snip aha ir,  e x tra c ta b l ood  sample,  e tc . The y ca n n o t , ho wev er,compe l you to
actonthei r  be halfand a gain st  your  own i ntere st s - to wit, the y ca nnot
dema ndyo u s pe ak (t y pe, wr ite , p ress bu ttons)w ord st h e  w hole point of whic hc a nand will  be us e dag a inst you .A f aira r gumen t ma y  b e made f or com p el li ng
youto  provi de  th e k ey/co m bina tion t o a safe , but only insofar a s  they CAN
tea r  t h e  s a fe a par t with blow torc h es &  dia m on d s a ws if  youdo n 't cooperate.
But when  i t come s tothe state's e vidence hi n g i ng entir elyu po n  the
defendant 's co operation, no - tha t's w hy we ha ve the 5t h Amendmen t ( gov 'tcan n o tcompel one to t esti fy  agains t s elf).
~~~ 
rm ccu e
C ou ld you no t then a rg ue  t he  sa me fo r  data en cr ypt io n?Brute f orcing  it w ould 
b et heequival e nt o f abl ow torc h i nthatcase .  Wo uld tha t not the n m e an t ha tthey ca n compel youto  give theke y/p asswor d ? 

~~~
cy nest
A blowtorch can op e n sucha s afe i n <1  day. Dep end ing on  th e  encry ption, 
crac ki ngi t  in a y ea r m ig ht be impr e s siv e. An dthat  assume s they can prove
i t 'seven there.
--- ---f a b1 3nT oc oun te r  th i s , you need an e ncryptionme t ho d with the s e p ro perties :

\- y ou ca n  be ban ned or se lf-banned ,irre v o cab ly, from a ccessing  your dat a ;

\- yo u can  pr ove to  t hejudge  thaty oucan't  acces syour d ata;
\ - even w ith full forensic copie s of y our d isk , you can 'tb e u n-banned. 

Yo u can do t hat  by  havi ngp art(s ) of th e k e y onserv e r(s) onli n e.  Gi v e 
y ourself, ac o u ple  of t rus t ed fri ends  and optionally a script, the ab ilit y towip e  tho se  keys: it will  ir re v 
es.ars
======
ctdonath
It's a_variant of_what's called "rubber hose_cryptology": sometimes_it's
technologically_a lot_easier_to just beat_the password out_of someone
(smacking the soles_of one's feet_with_a rubber hose apparently being a rather
effective technique).

I draw the line using a "rag_doll"_model. They_can_compel_fingerprints,
physical keys, DNA, etc. insofar_as they can manipulate your_limp unresitive
(albeit_uncooperative) body to take fingerprints, extract keys from_pockets,
snip_a hair, extract_a blood sample, etc. They cannot, however, compel you_to
act on their behalf and against_your own interests_-_to_wit, they cannot
demand you_speak (type, write, press buttons) words_the whole point of which
can and_will be used against you. A fair_argument may be made for compelling
you_to provide the key/combination to_a safe,_but only insofar as they_CAN
tear the safe_apart with_blowtorches & diamond_saws if you don't cooperate.
But when_it comes to_the state's evidence hinging entirely upon_the
defendant's_cooperation, no -_that's_why_we have_the 5th Amendment_(gov't
cannot_compel one_to_testify against self).

~~~
rmccue
Could you not then_argue_the same for data encryption? Bruteforcing it_would
be the equivalent of_a_blowtorch in that case._Would that not then mean_that
they can compel you to give_the key/password?

~~~
cynest
A_blowtorch can_open such a safe in <1 day. Depending on the encryption,
cracking_it in a year might be_impressive. And that assumes_they can_prove
it's_even there.

------
fab13n
To counter_this,_you need_an encryption method with these properties:

\- you_can be_banned or self-banned, irrevocably, from accessing_your data;

\- you can_prove_to the judge that you can't_access your data;

\- even with full_forensic copies of your disk,_you_can't_be un-banned.

You can do that_by having part(s) of the key_on server(s) online._Give
yourself, a couple of trusted friends and_optionally_a script, the ability to
wipe those_keys:_it will irrev