* Posts by rtli-

45 posts • joined 17 Feb 2012

Larry Page has painful day on stand in Oracle Java case


Ah, but remember -- you don't need transactions if your data is just worthless facebook posts or tweets.

Google answers less than half of watchdog's privacy tweak questions


So what _is_ he wasting taxpayers' money on, then?

Yahoo! countersued! by! Facebook! in patent! spat!


Re: Please! Can! You! Drop! The! Exclamations! Now!

Eventually! you! get! used! to! it!

You! even! come! to! like! it!

Like! Stockholm! Syndrome!


Lucy in 3.4 million-year-old cross-species cave tryst


Re: I'll bet we'll find plenty of other species too.

"With a geometric progression in human reproduction giving us more humans than there have ever been before, where are the useful mutations happening in the human race today?"

You know this already of course, but there are in no way "more humans than there have ever been before". Not by a long shot.

Angry Birds Space

Thumb Up

"fowl-flinging phenomenon"

Ah, that's the good stuff. Thumbs up to Andrew Bailey :)

"swine-squashing destruction"

Surely swine-squashing *sadism* sounds sibilantly superior?

Climate change linked to extreme weather surge


Cue a response article by the black hats of El Reg pointing out that any level of uncertainty means we should ignore the issue entirely.

Horny VIKING MICE raped and pillaged Euro pipsqueaks


Of course, the real question is...

...why did the mice bring the Vikings along?

SOPA poked an angry bear and set it loose on the net


Re: Stop acting like ogres

"In pre-digital modes...there was an inherent tolerance of sharing."

I think you're misremembering history there. The publishers were loudly proclaiming the imminent death of music to reel-to-reel copying. Products even came with a tax paid straight to the publishers to cover their losses due to the copying they enabled -- and I'm pretty certain that violates the common law of "innocent until proven guilty".

Two Brits in court over Michael Jackson back catalogue hack


Re: Can some one explian this..

"This sound like they were arrested prior to being convicted of anything."

Usually one goes through a trial before convicting someone. Maybe just a formality, but we like it.


"There was a degree of sophistication."

So...they were able to use a computer, then?

Child abuse suspect won't be forced to decrypt hard drive


Re: Re: Re: @ rtli- about contradiction.

"In the hypothetical case of a legal system in which you only have to reveal _if you know it_, that could work. However, the law as it stands requires you to reveal the password."

True and true. What I was originally responding to was the line:

"Remember than in Britain it's now a criminal offence *not* to give up your password if the Authorities demand it."

Now I interpret "if the Authorities demand it" as meaning by way of contrast to the ruling in America, viz that it would be against the Fifth to _ever_ have to give up your password. The legal checks and balances behind "the Authorities demand[ing] it" don't enter into the discussion. So explain to me why I'm suddenly accused of supporting every part of RIPA? All I'm after is middle ground: due process _and_ the authority to search for evidence.


Re: Re: Re: Re: @ rtli- about contradiction. (@ me)

"I won't withdraw my post though."

Fair enough. I don't see why you would want to, to be honest.

Thumb Up

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the floorumdrick?

"And now you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. I would have trouble getting them past your foot."

Nice, by the way :)


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the floorumdrick?

"Your assumption seems to be...your position has been consistently..."

No, that's just how you misinterpreted it. And when I explained that wasn't true (repeatedly), you didn't bother to go back and reevaluate what I had written before; you simply assumed I had changed my position, or was lying, and continued to claim that's what I said. Hence, "putting words in my mouth".

"The judge said that the police couldn't get a warrant for the man's encryption keys because they had no reasonable suspicion; as a result, they would be forcing a breach of the fifth amendment in the same way that they would by forcing him to speak to them."

And I think that's ridiculous. The upshot of the ruling makes sense, the ruling itself does not. Suppose you had strong evidence that the guy _was_ a paedo. Would it now no longer be against the Fifth to get him to testify? No! He has the right to remain silent no matter how much evidence you have against him, and it would be forcing a breach of the fifth whether or not they had a warrant.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the floorumdrick?

"The police could already get your encryption password with a warrant you blithering idiot."

Interesting. Did you even read my previous comments? The issue is whether not providing your encryption password even when the police have a warrant should be a criminal offense. In America, the judge is saying, no, because the Fifth. In Britain, it is in fact illegal. Which you admit. In fact, you admit it's always been that way since before RIPA. Yet arguing that that's a good thing is, somehow, arguing for the suspension of civil liberties.

Did you learn your superb disputation skills off a soap opera by any chance?

"What you keep defending, however much you claim otherwise, is warrantless seizure of private property without anything other than vague belief that it might provide evidence."

Maybe if I'm claiming otherwise, it's because I'm not defending it. But then that would undermine your argument, so I guess that can't be true, can it? No, go on, keep putting words in my mouth.


Re: Re: Re: Re: The British way of thinking

"You're assuming what? That I share your sexual preferences perhaps? (See, two can play that smarmy insinuation game)."

Are you suggesting S/M is a bad thing? Worse than hostile takeovers? I think there's a number of people who might disagree with you there.

Hmmm...electrician...power play...there's a pun in there somewhere, I'm sure.


Re: Re: Re: What the floorumdrick?

"The "principle" you support leads inevitably to travesties like RIPA *by its nature*, as it overrides a fundamental aspect of the common law."

I disagree. I believe it should be and could be a natural extension of the powers of a warrant, combining powers over a new domain (digital versus physical) with the tried and tested checks and balances of the old (review by a judge, no fishing expeditions, etc.). You can try and change what I'm saying so it fits in your neat little black-and-white world of RIPA versus total immunity from law all you like, but that just makes your arguments childish.


Re: @ rtli- about contradiction.

"You _have_, as in _are required to_ provide the password."

I wasn't defending the entirety of RIPA as written, just the notion that withholding a password be a criminal offence. Theory, not implementation.

"Either you have to reveal it, or you don't."

Having to reveal it if you know it is not inconsistent with not having to reveal it in every situation. You're trying to create a dichotomy where none exists.


Re: What the floorumdrick?

"Yes you are. Every single post of yours in this thread -caveat: that I can remember of- is. You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that we cannot read."

You appear incapable of disentangling support for a principle (illegal to withhold a password) from an implementation (RIPA). If a law came out making it an offence to kill fluffy pet bunnies, and suspicion of the crime was under that law enough for conviction, would you start assuming anyone with a love of fluffy pet bunnies hated liberty?

TL/DR: it's not your reading skills I question, just your comprehension.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh deary, deary me, rtli-

"As for your "rebuttal"."

All I've done is use the same logical fallacy as you (reductio ad absurdam), on your own argument. I also pointed out that appeal to authority, which is also a fallacy by the way, works better if you (a) understand the context of the quote, and (b) actually get the quote right.

"I've wasted enough time here."

Ah, the time-honoured act of storming out. Ta ta.


"I said that the law requiring we hand over encryption keys on their say-so is a power grab... They have no right to look through my drawers to find evidence to convict me with unless they have prior evidence and a warrant."

Nobody said it should be "on their say-so". It should be with a warrant. Which they would have needed to get at the computer in the first place.

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that I'm defending every last in and out of the RIPA act. I'm not.

"Second: Yes there's a need to rationalise the law regarding such things. You know what rationalising means? It means streamlining, removing cruft, scaling back. Pruning."



Re: Re: Re: Re: The British way of thinking

"Not in the US. Unless you arrest some right then and there you need a warrant to go through my stuff. Even then the validity of the warrant. You don't like the 5th amendment."

I'm pretty certain you misunderstood me. If they are able to get a warrant, they are able to go through your private things. All they need for a warrant is probable cause, not evidence. And I'm arguing that warrant naturally extends to digitally-protected media, just as it does locked doors protected with keys.


Re: Re: Re: Oh deary, deary me, rtli-

"Better a hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent man suffer." - William Blackstone.

That would be Benjamin Franklin. William Blackstone said "ten". But don't bother researching this stuff before spouting it, or anything. Regardless, you're applying it wrong.

If I follow your argument to its conclusion, the police should never be allowed to perform _any_ action, since it would be presuming guilt. No arrests. No searches. After all, there's almost certainly a 1% chance they'll get it wrong.


Re: Re: Re: The British way of thinking

"If the majority decide not to vote against laws."

That's not how that works. People vote for parties (theoretically politicians but no in practise), and may do so even if they disagree with some of the laws that they may have passed. Treating a vote for a party as a vote for a law is highly flawed.


Re: Re: The British way of thinking

"No, there is NOT a need. There is a desire by the state for more power."

Saying it doesn't make it so. There IS a need to rationalise our legal system with modern technology in a consistent way. Not doing so leads to a morass of loopholes and ill-informed precedent.

Arguing all new laws are just power grabs is rather paranoid and may suggest more about the speaker than the subject. You're not from a background of habitual power plays are you? Hostile takeovers, maybe? Or S/M?

"Unless they have some evidence that I'm committing a crime, they have no right to rifle through my private things."

Yes, they do have that right. Always have. The question is, how does that extend consistently to the digital domain?


Re: Oh deary, deary me, rtli-

"fallacies in your arguments"

No, I stand by everything I said. I don't believe the Fifth Amendment has any place in that ruling, and I don't have any issue with making withholding a crypto password a criminal offence. The only problem I have is with transfer of the burden of proof. But if you have encrypted the hard disk on your computer and you fail to hand over the password, despite a warrant, you are deliberately blocking the police from accessing evidence, and you deserve a sentence irrespective of whether you were even a suspect in the case.

Blocking the gathering of evidence wastes time and police resources, and that impacts society negatively. This is precisely why we have laws: to protect society from individuals who believe they are more important than other people.

(I'm talking about you there, by the way.)


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile, back in Blighty...

"...or incriminate yourself by saying "I don't know it" in which case the prosecution says "AHA! He clearly has something to hide therefore the jury must find him guilty!""

Is _that_ where you were going with that? If your problem is the "guilty until proven innocent" aspect of RIPA, you should have bothered to mention it at any point before this. Transferring the burden of proof is clearly crap. So is totally failing to make a coherent argument, though. Try less tempestuous rambling, more actually bothering to state your point.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile, back in Blighty...

"That's a nice contradiction you have there. Either you are forced to reveal the password OR you can claim that you don't know it."

Yep, that's the size of it. If you know it, you have to reveal it. If you don't know it, you have to reveal that you don't know it. Except...that's not a contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction). I think you mean dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy). Now explain to me why a dichotomy is a bad thing in law?

Thumb Up

Re: Re: Re: @rtli

"Did not see anything in the post I quoted, that said anything to counter the point I made. Which is that the police power to not have their evidence gathering obstructed, does not supersede a suspects right not to incriminate themselves."

Actually, you said (as I quoted):

"So why not throw people in prison for not telling you where a dead body or murder weapon is. As by not giving the police this info, you are obstructing them gathering evidence, by your logic."

So in addition to being unable to read two whole paragraphs, you are unable to remember your own last post. Or you're a _different_ Anonymous Coward from the one I was quoting, and failed to determine which post I was responding to despite my actually quoting, in my response, the exact text I was responding to.



Re: @ rtli-

I'm all for preventing fishing expeditions: I can see how they are clearly open to abuse. I just don't think it has any connection with protection against self-incrimination, and I don't see why it would even be mentioned in the judge's ruling, let alone set any kind of precedent.


Re: Re: _sigh_ Totally missing the point of the amendment

"I personally think it's bad to torture people into giving truthful confessions as well."

Indeed -- and the Fifth prevents that, also. In the case of a password, though, this interpretation of the Fifth provides no protection against a corrupt police force. If they torture the guy behind closed doors and he eventually caves and gives the password, they can simply claim they found it on a piece of paper in his house, or recovered it from his computer's RAM, or something equally suspect but not damning. There will be no visible violation of the Fifth. On the other hand, in the case of a suspect testifying against himself, there are independent witnesses (jury, judge) to him doing so.

"There does exist the possibility that he has forgotten the password (or never had it) and thus would be "tortured" (imprisoned) indefinitely"

In this case, you would need an entirely different set of laws to prevent indefinite imprisonment without trial. The Fifth wouldn't help you.

Since there is no torture-preventing benefit to appealing to the Fifth in this case, and no way false evidence could be coerced, it seems madness to me to claim it applies.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Cmon guys read the paper

"Lets stick with the porn theory . There is a charge in the federal and most local statues that makes posing obscene porn illegal. What is obscene porn ? It's defined by the local community. So just because it's legal in one area does not mean it will be legal some were else in the United States . Oh and people seem to have this twisted notion that only perverts look at porn. So even if it's legal you are pervert and must be kept away from kids . Look at the GOP and these so called family values."

But that's not relevant to this case. Just because there's one law you disagree with, doesn't mean all laws should be reinterpreted on the off-chance it offsets the law you don't like.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile, back in Blighty...

"With the law you "don't see a problem with" I can deposit an encrypted hard drive in your mailbox, knowing that you will keep it at home at least for a few days out of curiosity, and immediately call the anonymous tip-off line saying you are a kiddie fiddler. See you in ten when you get out of the slammer."

How fortunate we have a jury-based legal system based on evidence, rather than the deranged examples of an internet poster.

Thumb Up

Re: @rtli

"So why not throw people in prison for not telling you where a dead body or murder weapon is. As by not giving the police this info, you are obstructing them gathering evidence, by your logic."

I refer you to the second paragraph of my post, where I already addressed this exact point in the sure knowledge someone would strawman my argument. It was also pretty predictable that selfsame nit would never manage to read a whole *two* paragraphs before responding, and would hence miss that completely. Congratulations. You have been stupid on the Internet.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile, back in Blighty...

"It's now a criminal offence *not* to give up your password if the Authorities demand it."

I don't see a problem with that. The police would already require a warrant. Allowing people to obstruct them as they attempt to uncover evidence serves no principle of justice, nor does it serve as a check against a corrupt police force. Do I remember correctly that obstructing an officer in the pursuit of his duty was already an offence in the physical world? What issue with extending that to the digital?

Of course, if they don't -know- the password, they can't very well give it out, but then that would be a pretty compelling point for the defence should such a case reach trial, no?


"If the authorities had any information other than the fact he has encrypted hard drives then he would be compelled to assist in decryption. They don't, that's the point."

That would be a valid line of reasoning. It's not what happened in this case, though. The judge has said the defendant can stand on the Fifth, irrespective of the merits of the case in question. Even if the police had five reliable witnesses testifying they saw child porn on his computer, he could still refuse to assist.


Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile, back in Blighty...

"Think about that while you look in all your personal files for something someone might put you in jail for."

I think the law should take that into account whether or not I manage to flummox police with my 1337 encryption skills.


Re: Meanwhile, back in Blighty...

"For those who believe justice is served by forcing someone to incriminate themselves, wait until you're the one getting the 6am knock at the door."

Seriously? You think giving a password to a hard disk is forcing you to incriminate yourself? If nothing else, if there's evidence you've broken the law on there, your hard disk would be incriminating you, not your testimony.

I swear, half of these posts sound like they were posted by children afraid of their parents finding their porn stash, not mature adults with intelligent views on society. Oh, wait...


_sigh_ Totally missing the point of the amendment

The amendment is there to prevent anyone being forced to provide false testimony. However, a password is not evidence. You can't be tortured into giving a password that makes child porn magically appear on your hard disk. It either decrypts the data or it doesn't. It's a totally ignorant appeal to the amendment.

FTC tears into Apple, Google over kids' privacy - or lack of


"Couldn't figure out from the *promotion* pages"

Hint's in the name, morons

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019