backtop


Print 66 comment(s) - last by jamesd1234.. on Feb 22 at 9:23 AM


  (Source: zeeshan.netai.net)
Ramona Fricosu's attorney says she may have forgotten the password

Last month, a Colorado woman was ordered to decrypt her laptop in order to help prosecutors obtain evidence in the bank fraud case against her. Now, Ramona Fricosu's attorney is saying that the defendant may have forgotten her password, further prolonging the case and getting prosecutors nowhere with the hard drive.

"It's very possible to forget passwords," said Philip Dubois, Fricosu's attorney. "It's not clear to me she was the one who set up the encryption on this drive. I don't know if she will be able to decrypt it. The government will probably say you need to put her in jail until she breaks down and does what she is ordered to do. That will create a question of fact for the judge to resolve. If she's unable to decrypt the disc, the court cannot hold her in contempt."

Davies said Fricosu has not said in any court documents that she has forgotten the password. They are waiting to see what position she takes in court.

Fricosu was accused of bank fraud in 2010, and had her laptop seized by authorities for investigative purposes. When attempting to search her hard drive, authorities found that it was encrypted using full disk encryption, which prevents unauthorized access to data storage. The option can be found in operating systems like Mac OS and Windows, and if authorities tried to crack it themselves, they could damage the computer.

Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn then ordered Fricosu to decrypt her hard drive and return it to the court so prosecutors could use the files against her in the bank fraud case. Fricosu tried using the Fifth Amendment to protect herself, arguing that it protects her from compelled self-incrimination.

However, Blackburn concluded that "the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer." Assistant U.S. Attorney Patricia Davies backed Blackburn's decision, saying that encryption cannot be a sure way for criminals to bypass the system.

Source: Wired



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This is exactly why this is a violation of her rights
By tayb on 2/7/2012 12:49:16 PM , Rating: 3
Divulging a password is an act of the mind. An act of the mind is protected by the 4th amendment. Providing a physical key to unlock a locked box is NOT an act of the mind because a physical key exists.

There is already precedent set on this. You cannot force someone to provide the combination to a combination locked box. I know the judge wants a conviction here but if they try and force this woman to provide the passcode and then convict her based upon evidence found in the computer the whole trial will be thrown out on appeal.

The computer is in the hands of the prosecutors. It is now THEIR responsibility to decipher the contents. You can't force an act of the mind. It's protected by the Bill of Rights.




By tayb on 2/7/2012 12:57:40 PM , Rating: 3
Oh dammit. It's 5th amendment. Oh well. I really wish you could edit.


By Souka on 2/7/2012 7:35:07 PM , Rating: 2
so wait a minute... the laptop she likely used on a daily basis, which required some sort of authentication to access the encrypted data, she convienently forgot how to use?

I guess she should sue the authorities for making her forget, including the value of the data. Oh wait, scratch that second part as she should have to decrypt the data to prove the value of it!

:)


By zzeoss on 2/8/2012 2:16:41 AM , Rating: 2
She was arrested in 2010. Do you remember the passwords you used in 2010?


By Strunf on 2/8/2012 7:29:24 AM , Rating: 2
If you used the password on a daily basis, sure... Your brain may forgot something really fast but if you use it very often you will remember it even after a long time!


By JediJeb on 2/8/2012 9:30:30 AM , Rating: 2
If it was so hard to remember maybe the police should look inside the battery cover to see if she hid it there ;)


By snikt on 2/8/2012 3:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
We make our users change their passwords to log on our network every 90 days, they can not use the last 3 passwords. The passwords must be at least 6 characters and alpha-numeric. This is just to log on to our domain. We have various systems that our users log in that require passwords as well. Some of our users can have as many as 5 logon accounts to use that can all be the same passwords but that's not always the case. The various systems our users log into are a little more strict with password structures: they can require up to at least 8 characters, alpha-numeric, and special characters, i.e. upper case, symbol, etc.

I can see how it is possible not to remember one or even several passwords


By Strunf on 2/9/2012 7:21:23 AM , Rating: 2
Those are network passwords, not the passwords you have on your personal computer, also if you forget one of the passwords you talk about a simple phone call to your IT guy and you have a new one right away, the password she forgot is on a whole different category cause if you forget it you lose everything.


By Senju on 2/9/2012 1:12:15 AM , Rating: 2
Well...I know my password was "2010xxxxx"....
so yea...I remembered it.


By Senju on 2/9/2012 1:14:55 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, you may want to ask her the other passwords she uses for her other Pcs at home. I know alot of people use the same PW on different PCs.


By FaceMaster on 2/7/2012 1:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
It's obvious that you've got a massive encrypted hard-drive full of pirated stuff ;)


By AmbroseAthan on 2/7/2012 1:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
Many of us agree with you, but the Judge did not:

quote:
Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn then ordered Fricosu to decrypt her hard drive and return it to the court so prosecutors could use the files against her in the bank fraud case. Fricosu tried using the Fifth Amendment to protect herself, arguing that it protects her from compelled self-incrimination.

However, Blackburn concluded that "the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer." Assistant U.S. Attorney Patricia Davies backed Blackburn's decision, saying that encryption cannot be a sure way for criminals to bypass the system.

More can be found in the previous article talking about it: http://www.dailytech.com/Colorado+Woman+Ordered+to...


By tayb on 2/7/2012 1:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
I know the judge did not and that is why I mentioned the appeal throwing out the whole trial. Lower judges want convictions and make rulings like this all the time hoping that the defendant will either cave or settle. I've been wrong often (who hasn't) but the combination-lock precedent that is already set seems pretty strong here.


By lagomorpha on 2/7/2012 1:36:12 PM , Rating: 3
I don't disagree with your reasoning that this is a violation of her right to not be forced to testify against herself, but there is no reason to think the appeals court will see it that way. They're not THAT much less retarded than lower courts.


By vol7ron on 2/7/2012 1:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
You also have to keep in mind that just because there's a precedent, doesn't mean that the judge has to enforce it - many times there's precedence that follows both ways. "Precedence" is a term movies like to throw out there to create some sort of drama.

What you're talking about is something that is made unconstitutional, which would escalate this to the Supreme Court (if denied in appellate court).


By nafhan on 2/7/2012 2:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
Among other things, I think one of the problems here is that our laws are not really created with the concept of citizens having free military grade encryption within easy reach.

Getting charged with disobeying an order from the court is pretty reasonable if they could show, for instance, that this woman had logged into her laptop yesterday, and every day prior for the last year (In this specific instance, given the length of time since she last logged in, forgetting is a somewhat reasonable excuse, though).

The "strictly constitutional" method you describe would be another way of handling this, that would be better from a citizen's right's perspective.

As an aside, I saw someone (I think it was on Ars) mention that they have a law in the UK that allows for someone to go to jail for up to 2 years for refusing to provide a password. That might be a reasonable middle ground.


By mmatis on 2/7/2012 6:03:38 PM , Rating: 4
As if this country's "Law Enforcement" or "Legal System" give a damn about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights...


Is this actually necessary?
By drycrust3 on 2/7/2012 2:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone know what type of encryption was used?
The reason I ask is Passware claim their Passware kit can decrypt Bitlocker or Truecrypt encrypted HDDs, and in some cases it can provide a nearly instant decryption.
The price of the software is $995 (presumably USD), which is probably within the police budget for this case.
http://www.lostpassword.com/hdd-decryption.htm
In addition, if a brute force decryption is necessary then the Passware kit can make use of Amazon's servers to decrypt ten times faster than using a stand alone computer.
Here is a video supposedly finding the password to a Microsoft Office file (in less than 5 minutes!):
http://www.lostpassword.com/tutorials/amazon/passw...
If the encryption was done with one of those programs, then maybe the HDD could have been decrypted by now if the police started when they first decided they needed to see what was on the HDD, and even though the Amazon servers won't be cheap, the price may have been cheaper than all the trips to court.




RE: Is this actually necessary?
By hkscfreak on 2/7/2012 2:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
Their technology relies on having the the decryption keys in memory while the computer is powered on and the drive is mounted which is a weakness in all drive encryption schemes. It won't help if the computer is powered off and not hibernated or if the drive was not mounted at the time the police recovered the computer.

I don't remember the exact math, but brute forcing AES-256 is an exercise in frustration. I remember reading somewhere that the sun will explode before you are likely to find the key.

If you're going to encrypt something I highly recommend TrueCrypt, which is free and includes some helpful features such as auto-dismounting when there is no activity and hidden volumes for plausible deniability.


RE: Is this actually necessary?
By drycrust3 on 2/7/2012 3:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I highly recommend TrueCrypt

According to Passware, if you are using TrueCrypt "The decryption might take several minutes depending on the size of the memory image file".
I'm not sure if that means they can extract the password of a fully shut down computer with an encrypted HDD in less than an hour, but if does, then maybe TrueCrypt isn't as secure as you believe.
As I suggested, has anyone in the police department actually tried this software?


RE: Is this actually necessary?
By PhoenixTX on 2/7/2012 4:27:58 PM , Rating: 4
TrueCrypt is very secure. From the Passware website:

quote:
Passware Kit scans the physical memory image file ( acquired while the encrypted BitLocker or TrueCrypt disk was mounted , even if the target computer was locked), extracts all the encryption keys, and decrypts the given volume. Such memory images can be acquired using Passware FireWire Memory Imager (included in Passware Kit Forensic), or third-party tools, such as ManTech Physical Memory Dump Utility or win32dd.

If the target computer with the BitLocker/TrueCrypt volume is powered off, encryption keys are not stored in its memory, but they could be possibly recovered from the hiberfil.sys file, which is automatically created when a system hibernates.

NOTE: If the target computer is turned off and the TrueCrypt/BitLocker volume was dismounted during the last hibernation, neither the memory image nor the hiberfil.sys file will contain the encryption keys. Therefore, instant decryption of the volume is impossible . In this case, Passware Kit assigns Brute-force attacks to recover the original password for the volume.


Unless they seized this computer while it was on/hibernated and have kept it in that state for two years, then Passware (or anything like it) will be worthless.


RE: Is this actually necessary?
By SlyNine on 2/7/2012 9:20:52 PM , Rating: 4
Doesn't matter, since this is whole disk encryption the OS and thus hibernation file is most likely encrypted. If this person knew what they were doing there is likely (notice my weasel word) no way to encrypt the drive in a reasonable amount of time.


RE: Is this actually necessary?
By Varun on 2/7/2012 2:34:48 PM , Rating: 4
If you can do 2^56 guesses per second (that is a lot) it would still take you:
256 bit key:

50,955,671,114,250,072,156,962,268,275,658,377,80 7,020,642,877,435,085 years

Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_attack


RE: Is this actually necessary?
By bug77 on 2/7/2012 3:45:55 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, but they could use the Amazon cloud and divide that by 10!


RE: Is this actually necessary?
By Lifted on 2/7/2012 5:31:47 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't that be a lot less?


RE: Is this actually necessary?
By SlyNine on 2/7/2012 10:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think an Amazon cloud can do 2^56. In fact according to Toms Hardware, in regards to cracking WPA, said

"Each GPU cluster instance is armed with a 10 Gb Ethernet link, restricting bidirectional traffic between the master and nodes to 1.25 GB/s. This is what bottlenecks the cracking speed. Remember that a single ASCII character consumes one byte. So, as you start cracking longer passwords, the master server has to send more data to the clients. Worse still, the clients have to send the processed PMK/PTK back to the master server. As the network grows, the number of passwords each additional node processes goes down, resulting in diminishing returns. "

So having 4 Tesla GPUs is faster than renting an Amazon virtual computer.

Now lets say they have 100 570s, 2 of them can do 1.5billion passwords a second ( again according to tomshardware), so 1500000000x50=75 billion. So 75 billion Tries per second is about the Max amount of computer power they can through at it.

I believe to reach the Max security on AES 128 you need 32 characters. 64 for AES 256. But lets use 128 for example. You have 94 characters in a full ASCII character set. So you take 94 possibilities in every character of a passphrase. So if you have 2 characters in your password that's 94x94 or 94^2, If you use the full strength that's 94^32= 1.38067454 × 10^63 or 13 with 63 zeros behind it. That number looks like this 130000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000 + possible combinations. So lets take 130000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000/ 75000000000 Which takes you 1.84089939 X 10^52 Seconds to complete. That number looks like that
1800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000 So lets divide that by 60 and than by 60 again to get us to hours, and than by 24 to get to days, and than by 365 to get to years, than lets Divide by 10 again figureing they will find the phrases after trying 1/10 the possibilities. That number is 5.83745367 × 10^43 or 58000000000000000000000000000000000 years.

So it would take 58000000000000000000000000000000000 years to complete, now if you want to divide that by a million, or billion, you will still get a number that's to big to worry about.

No you are not brute forcing AES 128 with conventonal means. Not in our lifetimes anyways. Probably not with in the lifetime of the universe.


RE: Is this actually necessary?
By SlyNine on 2/7/2012 10:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
I screwed up, it should be 1.3 with 64 zeros behind it. But since the calculations were done using the scientific numbers the calculations are still correct. Just knock off a zero on each one of the non scientific numbers.


RE: Is this actually necessary?
By SlyNine on 2/7/2012 10:23:37 PM , Rating: 2
LOL oops again. But if you don't understand what I mean elementary algebra will show you.


RE: Is this actually necessary?
By Flunk on 2/7/2012 5:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
That's not actually how brute force attacks work. They work by comparing the hashes of likely passwords (dictionary attacks often work). If you did a dictionary attack, starting with low numbers of characters and working up it would be very unlikely that you wouldn't get the actual password much sooner than that.


RE: Is this actually necessary?
By SlyNine on 2/7/2012 9:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but you're wrong. Any DECENT password will never be solved by a dictionary attack, for example use 3 random key files and a password using characters like / numbers and caps. Your dictionary hack in that case would be a complete waste of time and resources.

Further since this was full disk encryption she most def. Had a good passphrase.


RE: Is this actually necessary?
By MGSsancho on 2/8/2012 1:14:29 AM , Rating: 2
Requirements: Firewire.

Read up on Direct Memory Access technologies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMA_attack and http://www.hermann-uwe.de/blog/physical-memory-att...

As said by another person above, unmount your encrypted drives when not in use. Shutting down might actually be beneficial as well.


This is just great!
By bigdawg1988 on 2/7/12, Rating: 0
RE: This is just great!
By Kurz on 2/7/2012 1:20:33 PM , Rating: 5
Just because you don't like the consquences of this ruling doesn't mean its not in the best interests of you and everyone else.


RE: This is just great!
By Kung Lau on 2/7/2012 8:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
The good thing about laws is that you can create new ones to circumvent the ones in the way.

Or just label her a terrorist against the U.S banking system or something along those lines and get a Jack Bauer type involved. She will remember.

Where there's a will there's a way.


RE: This is just great!
By Kung Lau on 2/7/2012 8:32:11 PM , Rating: 1
The good thing about laws is that you can create new ones to circumvent the ones in the way.

Or just label her a terrorist against the U.S banking system or something along those lines and get a Jack Bauer type involved. She will remember.

Where there's a will there's a way.


RE: This is just great!
By Kung Lau on 2/7/2012 8:32:38 PM , Rating: 1
The good thing about laws is that you can create new ones to circumvent the ones in the way.

Or just label her a terrorist against the U.S banking system or something along those lines and get a Jack Bauer type involved. She will remember.

Where there's a will there's a way.


RE: This is just great!
By Kung Lau on 2/7/2012 8:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
The good thing about laws is that you can create new ones to circumvent the ones in the way.

Or just label her a terrorist against the U.S banking system or something along those lines and get a Jack Bauer type involved. She will remember.

Where there's a will there's a way.


RE: This is just great!
By Kung Lau on 2/7/2012 8:33:24 PM , Rating: 2
The good thing about laws is that you can create new ones to circumvent the ones in the way.

Or just label her a terrorist against the U.S banking system or something along those lines and get a Jack Bauer type involved. She will remember.

Where there's a will there's a way.


RE: This is just great!
By Kung Lau on 2/7/2012 8:33:47 PM , Rating: 2
The good thing about laws is that you can create new ones to circumvent the ones in the way.

Or just label her a terrorist against the U.S banking system or something along those lines and get a Jack Bauer type involved. She will remember.

Where there's a will there's a way.


RE: This is just great!
By Kung Lau on 2/7/2012 8:33:53 PM , Rating: 2
The good thing about laws is that you can create new ones to circumvent the ones in the way.

Or just label her a terrorist against the U.S banking system or something along those lines and get a Jack Bauer type involved. She will remember.

Where there's a will there's a way.


RE: This is just great!
By Visual on 2/8/2012 6:49:20 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, what the beep?
I can imagine an accidental double post happening from time to time, but yours... seven times spread over a whole of 2 minutes... how did you manage that?


RE: This is just great!
By SlyNine on 2/8/2012 5:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well, he did say where there is a will there is a way.

Kinda remindes me of homer burning cereal. For some things, there's just no excuse.


RE: This is just great!
By formulav8 on 2/8/2012 11:05:14 AM , Rating: 2
OK we get it already :P


RE: This is just great!
By GuinnessKMF on 2/7/2012 8:42:53 PM , Rating: 3
I wonder if there is a good thing about laws that would help us circumvent this...


RE: This is just great!
By DigitalFreak on 2/7/2012 3:48:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now all the pedos will be doing it....


Speaking from experience?


I forget now...
By DtTall on 2/7/2012 12:59:17 PM , Rating: 3
Did anybody not see this coming? I mean really, how could you not?

Even if it is clear that the individual didn't forget the password, there is no (legal) way to force her to say it.




RE: I forget now...
By Flunk on 2/7/2012 1:06:29 PM , Rating: 4
There are a few techniques to make yourself forget things like this. Even if she did actually remember her password before the trial she could have purposefully forgotten it.

This was always a stupid idea in the first place, basically the equivalent of asking her to confess and incriminate herself.


RE: I forget now...
By GuinnessKMF on 2/7/2012 8:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I saw Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind too. What a great Documentary.


RE: I forget now...
By bebimbap on 2/7/2012 1:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
After this case, all users have to do is set encryption on their hard drives so when the FBI comes you can just "forget" your crimes


RE: I forget now...
By tayb on 2/7/2012 1:11:01 PM , Rating: 5
It's no different than locking a fragile document in a combination safe. The US Government would bear the responsibility in this particular example of cracking the safe and stealing the documents. The act of cracking the safe would pose a danger to the documents just as attempting to crack an encrypted drive poses a danger to the documents. You can't get around this by demanding the defendant open it for you.

It is not impossible to decrypt a drive just as it is not impossible to crack a safe. At some point the US Government invested in tools to crack safes. They'll have to do the same for encrypted drives.

Sorry but I'm not willing to waive my rights or anyone else's rights even if it means one or ten guilty people being set free.


RE: I forget now...
By Iketh on 2/7/2012 3:51:53 PM , Rating: 1
The manufacturer of safes are consulted to aid in opening them. I'm curious if Microsoft or Apple could/would be consulted in cracking their encryptions.

Also, wouldn't the password have to be buried somewhere within the OS accessible by Microsoft/Apple?


RE: I forget now...
By Gondor on 2/7/2012 4:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
With any decent encryption you don't actually store the passphrase; you only store encrypted data and need that specific passphrase (or one that fits exact same criteria for decryption !) to access the data, otherwise you're just looking at a set of scrambled bytes.

And it is trivial to increase the passphrase length and algorithm complexity compared to the amount of time required to brea the encryption.

This whole story is absurd anyway: if she had indeed commited bank fraud, there are bound to be some bank records of it , plus other records (of communication and such). I'm not sure what the dumbphuck investigators are doing there but obviously not their job, otherwise the prosecution wouldn't have to cling on her self-incrimination to win the case.They are looking for her "black book" diary of bank frauds (?!) ... idjits.


RE: I forget now...
By Strunf on 2/8/2012 7:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
Cracking a safe (any safe) is possible within a reasonable amount of time and without any risk for the papers, you just need the right tools.
In this case it's nearly impossible to decrypt the hard drive regardless of the tools you use, I think there's no real reason a person should be allowed to not give her password to the law enforcement authorities, if everyone would be encrypting their hard drives including on a business level our judicial system would be seriously handicapped.


By Basilisk on 2/7/2012 4:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
That's the second time I've seen this statement, and it seems as ridiculous as the first. I can't imagine any forensic analysis that wouldn't begin with imaging the disc and working on its copies Where would the threat be to the original computer? Is it wired to explode if opened?

That's not to say we haven't seen multiple TV shows where "gurus" defeat encrypting -on- the source computer.




By Etsp on 2/7/2012 4:46:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not an expert on encryption, so the following may be wrong, but think on this:

The drive is encrypted at the hardware level. This means the electronics on the drive will NOT let you access the encrypted data. The only data that the operating system ever sees is the unencrypted data, and that's only after providing the correct passkey.

In that scenario, the only means of making an image of the encrypted disk is to physically remove the platters from the drive, and read them with special equipment. There's certainly a chance of damage during this process.

Another scenario, is that they're trying to get the secret key that's hardcoded in an encryption IC in the drive. You can't read this data in the external pins, you have to shave off the top layers of the chip and probe its internals. This is also a destructive process. I believe this was the method used to get the secret key for something Sony was trying to protect(Hypervisor crack maybe?)


By Zok on 2/7/2012 5:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't hardware-level encryption (e.g. FIPS 140-2). A simple DD can copy the contents bit-by-bit to another disk.


They would have an easier time...
By EasyC on 2/7/2012 1:02:12 PM , Rating: 4
Trying to manipulate the woman into pissing off Anonymous.




So rights are meaningless...
By ppardee on 2/8/2012 12:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
Our rights are meaningless if they are able to be negated because having those rights makes it difficult to prosecute criminals. The entire justice system in the US was created to protect the rights of the citizens even if that means some criminals go free.

In the end, this ruling is worthless. They cannot force a person to give their password. The obvious defense is to say that they forgot it. You can't prove that they didn't forget it, and are you really going to put them in jail until they remember it? So we've surrendered rights and gotten no security or justice in return... Great job, Judge.




So she got away with it...
By tfk11 on 2/9/2012 5:04:36 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't stealing from bankers just sealing from thieves? They apparently don't have much on her... so the bankers may as well just let it go and put her on the payroll.




5th
By jamesd1234 on 2/22/2012 9:23:35 AM , Rating: 2
It's not the accused job to help the prosecution out, it doesn't matter if technology is getting so good that it's impossible to solve the case without help from the accused. It's that old 'link of the chain' argument that has been ruled by the Supreme Court many times.
The government has the hard drive, go at it.
And now is forgetting a password a crime? What's the statute? It happens. Maybe the Obama admin can force all password have to be registered with the government in some central server.
The argument can be made that encryption passwords are easy to forget because they are usually a pass phrase and not your simple password that you use everyday. Again, even if you did you can 'forget' it. She never said she forgot her password, but she also never said she remembered it.
Instead of saying 'no' just say 'I don't know'. I don't think there is a forgotten password law...yet.




By mmatis on 2/7/2012 6:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
Then maybe it's time for dead pigs. The Constitution, that they and the judge swear an oath to, prohibits that. Without that oath, they are NOT "Law Enforcement" or the "Legal System", but are instead merely Thugs with Guns. To be dealt with as one would with ANY thug with a gun.


By FredEx on 2/8/2012 1:05:13 AM , Rating: 2
If she refuses to answer or she actually did forget the key (been quite a while since she's had to use the key) what they could charge her with may be much less severe than what she'd serve if convicted with the bank fraud. She may be thinking a couple years is much better than a couple decades or more.


By mmatis on 2/8/2012 10:15:25 AM , Rating: 2
Hopefully the "Law Enforcement" and the "judge" will be rotting where they belong within the week. When they spit on their oath to the Constitution as they so clearly have here...


By silvaensis on 2/9/2012 6:05:58 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I can see because of this case encryption software having a build in scrubber or password reset feature. For instance, if the data is not accessed in 1 year or with a special secondary password, it autoscrubbs the drive on next boot. Sure they might get you for destroying evidence but that carries a max charge of 1 1/3 to 4 years, and for that the burden of proof is on them that you gave them the wrong password and did not misremember it.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki