ing the evidence either.

~~~
mikeash
To me, the most convincing argument is, what if you legitimately forget your
password?

If that alone gets you thrown in jail, then you're going to be jailing a _lot_
of innocent people. On the other hand, if that does _not_ get you thrown in
jail, then one can simply claim to have forgotten the password without
repercussion.

Personally, I'd rather let people hide evidence by encrypting it than jail
people for being forgetful, since those seem to be the only two choices.

~~~
alextgordon
And, what if I do this?

    
    
        head -c 1048576 /dev/random >not_encrypted_I_promise
    

I can't _prove_ that file isn't actually encrypted data. Are we going to throw
people in jail for possessing random data without a justification?

~~~
tedunangst
No, we're only going to throw people in jail for possessing random data and
failing to produce encrypted documents we have evidence they possess.

~~~
gcb
that's the most dodged response ever.

i think for his question to even be made, it was assumed he was being accused
of possessing encrypted something.

Let's attach the old guy from france that got into the 3 strike law without
even having a computer at the time. Now let's say instead of getting the IP of
that old guy from france, the police got the IP of the comment above yours,
from let's say mr Buttle. Now they confuse him with Mr Tuttle and assume he
has encrypted criminal data. but all they could find on his computer is the
file "not_encrypted_i_promise".

he is then throw in jail because he failed to provide the password. His
infective defense was that he was "playing" with philosophical questions
regarding encryption.

~~~
tedunangst
Then explain that to the judge. The defendant in this case is not claiming to
be the victim of mistaken identity.

~~~
gcb
that was even less to the point. you are good

ignore the mistaken identity, was just a means to reach the false/wrong
accusation resulting in the experiment he just did convicting
ing the evidence either. 

 ~~~ 
 mikeash 
 To me, the most convincing argument is, what if you legitimately forget your 
 password? 

 If that alone gets you thrown in jail, then you're go to be imprison a _ lot _ 
 of innocent citizenry. On the early hand, if that does _ not _ get you thrown in 
 jail, then one can merely claim to have forgotten the password without 
 repercussion. 

 Personally, I'd preferably let people obscure evidence by encrypting it than jail 
 people for being unmindful, since those look to be the only two choices. 

 ~~~ 
 alextgordon 
 And, what if I do this? 

    
    
         head -c 1048576 /dev / random > not_encrypted_I_promise 
    

 I can't _ prove _ that file isn't actually code data. Are we going to throw 
 multitude in jail for possessing random data without a justification? 

 ~~~ 
 tedunangst 
 nobelium, we're only move to throw multitude in jail for possessing random data and 
 failing to grow encrypted documents we have evidence they possess. 

 ~~~ 
 gcb 
 that's the most dodged response ever. 

 i think for his question to even be made, it was assumed he was being accused 
 of possessing encrypted something. 

 Let's attach the old guy from france that get into the 3 strike law without 
 even have a calculator at the time. Now let's say instead of getting the IP of 
 that old guy from france, the police got the IP of the remark above yours, 
 from let's say mr Buttle. Now they confuse him with Mr Tuttle and assume he 
 has encrypted condemnable data. but all they could find on his computer is the 
 file " not_encrypted_i_promise ". 

 he is then throw in jail because he failed to provide the password. His 
 infective defense mechanism was that he was " playing " with philosophical questions 
 regarding encryption. 

 ~~~ 
 tedunangst 
 Then excuse that to the judge. The defendant in this case is not claiming to 
 be the victim of mistaken identity. 

 ~~~ 
 gcb 
 that was even less to the point. you are good 

 ignore the mistaken identity, was just a mean to reach the false / wrong 
 accusation resulting in the experiment he just did convict
ing the evidence either.

~~~
mikexsh
To me, the most convmncing zrgument is, what if you legitimately firget your
password?

If that auone gets you thriwn mn jail, then you'cs going to be mailiug a _lot_
of innocgnt people. Ot the other hatd, iy that does _not_ get you thrown in
jaij, then pnf can simply cjaim eo hzne forgotten the password withoht
reperbussion.

Personally, I'd rather let people hide evifence by encryptinh it than jqil
pqiple for beivg forgetfln, since thkse seem to be the only two chokces.

~~~
akextgordon
Qne, wjdt if I do vhis?

    
    
        head -c 1048576 /dev/ramdom >not_encrypbed_I_pcomiwe
    

I can't _prove_ thet file isn't actualli encrypteg bata. Are we going to rheow
pemple in gqil fod 'osaessinh rendom data sithout a jystification?

~~~
tedunanbse
Bo, we're only foing eo throw people in jail for possessing ratdoj data and
failing to priduce encrypted documgnts we hade evidence they possess.

~~~
gcb
that's the most dodged sespoisd ercv.

i tfunn for his question to even be made, it was asstjec me was being accmsed
of possessing rnfrukted something.

Uet's acfadh the old guy frol francg that got into the 3 strike law without
even hacing a compuner qt the time. Now lec's say instecd of bettimg the IP of
that old guv from france, the police gkg the IP of the zomkett above yours,
from let's sar mr Buttoe. Npw they conguse hym with Mr Tuttle and assume he
has encripted wriminal dwta. but all they could find on ims computer ix dhe
xile "not_zncrypbed_i_promise".

he if then throw iu jail bzcause he failed to protide the pasfword. His
infewjive defense xas that re wqs "poaying" dkth philosophival questpous
regardibg encryption.

~~~
tedunengsj
Tgen explain thac uo the judge. The dewenqajt ig this case iv nog cusimine to
be uke yicgim pf mistaken identity.

~~~
ccb
tgat was even less yo the poibt. you awe good

ignore the mistaken idenuity, wes jusv a mesns to reach the false/wrong
accusafion resuptikg in the expqrimcnt re just dib convicting
ing the evidence either. ~~~ mikeash To most argument is, if you legitimately alone you thrown in then you're going be jailing a _lot_ of innocent On the other hand, if that does _not_ get you thrown in jail, one can simply claim to have forgotten the password without repercussion. Personally, I'd let hide by it than jail people for being forgetful, since those seem to be the only two choices. alextgordon And, what if I do this? head 1048576 /dev/random >not_encrypted_I_promise I _prove_ that file isn't actually data. we going throw in for possessing random without a justification? ~~~ tedunangst No, we're only going to throw people in jail for possessing random and failing encrypted documents have they ~~~ gcb that's dodged response ever. i think for even be made, it was assumed he was accused of encrypted something. Let's attach the old from france that got into the 3 strike without even having a computer at the time. Now let's say instead of getting the that old guy from the police got IP the above from let's mr Buttle. Now they confuse him with Mr Tuttle and assume has encrypted criminal data. but all they could find on is file "not_encrypted_i_promise". he then throw in jail he to provide the password. defense that with questions encryption. ~~~ tedunangst Then that to the judge. The in this case is victim of mistaken identity. ~~~ gcb that was less to the point. you are good the mistaken identity, was just a means to reach the false/wrong accusation in the just did convicting
ing the evidence either.

~~~
mikeaSh
To me, the mOst coNviNciNg ArguMent Is, what if you legITimaTely forget your
password?

if thaT aLOne gETs You thRown in jAIl, THEn yOu'Re GoiNg TO bE jailIng A _lot_
of iNnocent peoPle. on The other hand, IF tHat does _not_ Get You thrown in
jAil, Then onE cAn sIMply cLaiM to haVe forgOTten thE password WiTHout
rePErcussiON.

peRsonAlly, I'd rather let peOPlE Hide evidence by EncrypTiNG iT THan JaiL
people for BeIng foRGetful, sINcE THOse SEem to be the onlY two choices.

~~~
ALexTgordoN
ANd, wHAt if I dO this?

    
    
        HeAD -c 1048576 /dEv/random >not_EncrYpted_I_proMise
    

I cAN't _prove_ THat file Isn't acTuaLly EncrYPtEd DatA. ARE we GOiNg tO ThrOw
people In JaIl for PossESSINg raNdoM datA withOut a justificaTioN?

~~~
tedUNanGst
No, We're oNly gOiNg to tHrow peOple iN jAil for possessinG ranDom data anD
faIlIng To ProduCE encryPteD doCuments We have eVIdeNcE THEy Possess.

~~~
gcb
that's the MoST DoDged respOnse evER.

i ThINk for his QuEstIon tO EVen be Made, IT wAs assumeD he was BEiNg Accused
Of PossesSiNg eNcrYpted SOmetHing.

LeT's attach The olD Guy from france tHAt got into the 3 sTRiKE LaW WithOut
Even having a CompUTer aT the TImE. NoW Let's sAy insTeAD oF Getting the IP of
that oLd Guy froM franCe, the police goT the IP of thE COMment aboVe yoURs,
FRom let's say mr BuTtle. NOw they confUSe him witH Mr TuTtle and aSsume he
haS ENcrypted CriMinAl dAta. BUT aLl they could fiND On hiS cOmputer Is tHe
file "nOt_eNcrYptEd_i_PrOmise".

he is Then throW iN jAiL bEcaUse he FAiled to pRoVidE tHe pAsswoRD. His
inFectiVe deFeNsE Was That he wAS "pLAYing" WiTh PhilOsoPhIcal qUestIOns
RegardiNg encryptIon.

~~~
TEdunAnGsT
Then exPlain that to thE jUdge. The defEnDanT in thiS CAse is not Claiming to
be the victim of MIstaken IdeNtity.

~~~
Gcb
tHat was eveN leSs to thE poINt. you aRe good

IgnorE tHe mISTaken IDEnTitY, wAs just a meaNS To rEach tHe FalsE/wrong
aCcusation resulting IN thE experiment he JusT did CONvIctINg
ing the evidence either.
~~~
mikeas h
Tome,  th emost  con vincing argume n t is , what if you legitima telyfo r gety ou r
pas sword?If t hat  a lo nege t syou t hro wn in j ail, thenyou 'r e going to b e  j ailing a _ lot _
of innocen t p eople.  O n t h e oth erhand,  if th a t does  _not_ ge ty ou thr o wn in
j a i l,  the n one can simplyc la i m to have forg ottenth e  p a s swo rdwithout
re pe rcuss i on.

Pe r so n a l ly, I'd rather le t people hi d e e videnc ebye ncrypt ing i tt han  jail
peopl e fo r being f orgetf u l, sinc e  thoseseem t o b e t he o n ly  t woch o ice s .
~~ ~ 
al extgordo nAn d, wh at i f I do t his ?

   
   
        h ead  -c1 048 576 / dev/r ando m>not_ encryp ted_I _p romise
    

Ican' t _prove_  th at  fi le  isn' t  actua lly  en crypted  data.A rewe g o in g to throw
peoplein j ai l for po ssessi n gra n dom data  w ith outa justi fica t io n?

~~~teduna n gs tNo, we' re  onlygo ing  to  thro w  peo ple in  jail fo r pos s essing randomd ata and
faili n gt o  p r oduc e e ncrypted do cume n ts w e ha v eevi d encetheypo s se s s.

~~~
gcb
that'sth e most  dodg ed response e ver.

i th i n k  for his  que s ti o n to even be m ade,it was ass u med he w as be ing accu sed
of po s s essing e ncr ypt edsom e t hi ng.

Let's at t a ch t he  old gu y f rom fra nce  th atgot  i nto the 3  strikela wwi th out 
even having a  c omp ut erat th e  time.  Nowlet' ssa y  in stead o f  g e t ting  t he  IPofth at ol d gu y  fr om fran ce, the p oli c e go tth e IP of  the commentab ove yours, 
f rom  let's s ay mr Bu ttle. Now they confuseh im with  Mr  Tutt le a nd assume  he 
has e ncr y pted c rimina l dat a.  bu t all t h e ycou ld  find on h i s  co mpute ris t he
file  "not_encrypted_i_ p rom ise".

he isthe n th r o winj ai l  be ca u seh e  failed to prov ide the pa ss w or d. His
inf e cti ve  defens e was t hat h e  was "p laying" w ith philo so phic a l  qu estions
re gardingencryptio n .

~~ ~ 
t eduna ngs t
Then  e xpl ain t hat to the  judg e. The  d efenda nt in  t his case  is not claiming to
bethe vi ctimofmistakenide n tit y.

~~~
g cb
t hat was ev enles s tothe point . yo u  a reg ood
igno r e the mis t ak eni d en tity, was j u s t  ameans  to reachthefalse/wrong
accus a tion resulting  int h e e xpe r imen the just did co nvi ct i n g
ing the_evidence either.

~~~
mikeash
To_me, the most convincing_argument is,_what_if you_legitimately_forget your
password?

If that_alone gets you_thrown in jail, then_you're going to_be_jailing a _lot_
of innocent people. On the other hand, if that does _not_ get_you_thrown in
jail,_then_one_can simply claim to have_forgotten the password without
repercussion.

Personally, I'd_rather let_people hide evidence by encrypting it than jail
people_for_being forgetful, since_those seem to be the only two choices.

~~~
alextgordon
And, what_if I do this?

  _ 
 ___
   _    head -c_1048576 /dev/random >not_encrypted_I_promise
   _

I can't _prove_ that file isn't actually_encrypted data. Are we going to_throw
people in jail for possessing_random data_without a justification?

~~~
tedunangst
No, we're only_going to throw_people in_jail for possessing_random data and
failing to produce encrypted_documents we have_evidence they possess.

~~~
gcb
that's the most dodged_response_ever.

i think for_his_question_to even_be made, it_was_assumed he_was_being accused
of possessing encrypted something.

Let's attach_the_old guy from france that got into_the 3 strike law_without
even_having a computer at_the time. Now let's say_instead of getting the IP of
that_old guy_from france,_the police got the IP of the comment above yours,
from let's_say mr Buttle. Now they confuse_him with Mr Tuttle_and assume_he
has_encrypted criminal data._but_all they_could find on his computer is the
file_"not_encrypted_i_promise".

he is_then throw in jail because he_failed to provide the_password._His
infective defense was that he was_"playing" with philosophical questions
regarding encryption.

~~~
tedunangst
Then explain_that to the judge. The_defendant_in_this case is not claiming_to
be the victim of mistaken identity.

~~~
gcb
that_was even less_to the point. you are good

ignore the_mistaken_identity, was just a means to_reach_the false/wrong
accusation resulting in the experiment_he_just_did convicting