I do not advocate the use of disk encryption software for illegal ventures. However, it cannot be denied that it's one way of keeping your activities secret. Like in the case of the Australian man who constructed an elaborate set of peepholes to spy on his roommates but couldn't get convicted for the lack of evidence. Because the evidence was encrypted. (It was nice of the guy to plead guilty, though, that he attempted to record a female roommate without her consent. Yes, I'm being sarcastic).
I do not advocate the use of disk encryption software for illegal ventures. However, it cannot be denied that it's one way of keeping your activities secret. Like in the case of the Australian man who constructed an elaborate set of peepholes to spy on his roommates but couldn't get convicted for the lack of evidence.
Because the evidence was encrypted. (It was nice of the guy to plead guilty, though, that he attempted to record a female roommate without her consent. Yes, I'm being sarcastic).
According to couriermail.com.au, a man set up a network of cameras to spy on his three roommates, two women and one man. All the wires led back to the accused man's room. It's believed that the wires would ultimately have been plugged into a computer (they weren't when the police busted in, I gather). A search of the computer found nothing. There were encrypted files, but since the passwords to these couldn't be found, evidence could not be procured. The defense testified that the accused was a paranoid schizophrenic, and that the peepholes were set up because of a "persecution complex," and not for fulfilling any sexual fantasies. To quote: "He thought they (flatmates) were colluding with officials to construct a case against him." Of course, this doesn't make sense, since it was the presence of peepholes that prompted the roommates to contact the authorities, and brought the officials to the house, in the first place.
According to couriermail.com.au, a man set up a network of cameras to spy on his three roommates, two women and one man. All the wires led back to the accused man's room. It's believed that the wires would ultimately have been plugged into a computer (they weren't when the police busted in, I gather).
A search of the computer found nothing. There were encrypted files, but since the passwords to these couldn't be found, evidence could not be procured.
The defense testified that the accused was a paranoid schizophrenic, and that the peepholes were set up because of a "persecution complex," and not for fulfilling any sexual fantasies. To quote: "He thought they (flatmates) were colluding with officials to construct a case against him."
Of course, this doesn't make sense, since it was the presence of peepholes that prompted the roommates to contact the authorities, and brought the officials to the house, in the first place.
Did the law have no options? After all, it's just a matter of accessing the contents of the encrypted files, right? The issue is not as simple as it appears. Yes, the password for accessing the files could have been guessed at; however, chances are there is a limit on how many times the wrong password can be entered before gaining access to the encrypted file is permanently discontinued (i.e., after the Nth wrong attempt, even the correct password doesn't work). This means that the authorities would have to turn to breaking the encryption itself, and that would require years, most probably decades, possibly centuries. I'm pretty sure Australia calls for a speedy and expedient trial...and decades is anything but, and centuries even less. A final possibility would be to have the accused spit out the password. However, this move is quite controversial. The UK already has a law that incarcerates people who hold back passwords for accessing encrypted information--even if such information is to be used against the password holder. You can see easily why it's controversial: the right not to self-incriminate is a big part of many countries' laws. Ironically enough, the concept originated from England. The US is still debating the issue. The case was brought forward when a Canadian citizen got arrested while crossing the US border. He had child pornography on his computer, which border officers chanced to see; however, the evidence cannot be produced because it's currently encrypted, while it wasn't before. Efforts were laid to convince a US court to force out a password from the accused. So far, courts have sided with the accused, citing the right not to self-incriminate. If you find anyone that claims that encryption software like AlertBoot does not work and is easily breakable, I've got a couple of countries that would like to talk to this super security guru guy.
Did the law have no options? After all, it's just a matter of accessing the contents of the encrypted files, right?
The issue is not as simple as it appears.
Yes, the password for accessing the files could have been guessed at; however, chances are there is a limit on how many times the wrong password can be entered before gaining access to the encrypted file is permanently discontinued (i.e., after the Nth wrong attempt, even the correct password doesn't work).
This means that the authorities would have to turn to breaking the encryption itself, and that would require years, most probably decades, possibly centuries. I'm pretty sure Australia calls for a speedy and expedient trial...and decades is anything but, and centuries even less.
A final possibility would be to have the accused spit out the password. However, this move is quite controversial.
The UK already has a law that incarcerates people who hold back passwords for accessing encrypted information--even if such information is to be used against the password holder. You can see easily why it's controversial: the right not to self-incriminate is a big part of many countries' laws. Ironically enough, the concept originated from England.
The US is still debating the issue. The case was brought forward when a Canadian citizen got arrested while crossing the US border. He had child pornography on his computer, which border officers chanced to see; however, the evidence cannot be produced because it's currently encrypted, while it wasn't before. Efforts were laid to convince a US court to force out a password from the accused. So far, courts have sided with the accused, citing the right not to self-incriminate.
If you find anyone that claims that encryption software like AlertBoot does not work and is easily breakable, I've got a couple of countries that would like to talk to this super security guru guy.
Related Articles and Sites:http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26232570-952,00.html