Encrypted files on computer as indication for guilt

Science Forum Index » Cryptography Forum » Encrypted files on computer as indication for guilt - where?

Page 1 of 1

Encrypted files on computer as indication for guilt - where?

Author

Message

Martin Kahlert

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:23 am

Guest

Hi,

iirc, somebody (in this group?) wrote, that there is a country (Hungaria?),
where an encrypted file on your computer is used as indication of guilt
in a criminal case by law enforcement agencies.

So if you are accused, your computer got seized and you have encrypted
data on it, the court will use this as indication that you are guilty.

Can anybody confirm this and tell me the country, where this is current
(or lately changed) law and give me an URL?

Thanks a lot for any hints in advance,
Martin.

PS: Yes, i googled, but did not find anything relevant.

Juuso Hukkanen

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:00 pm

Guest

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:23:58 +0100, mkcon@gmx.de (Martin Kahlert)
wrote:

[quote:b1f90e9cb0]Hi,
So if you are accused, your computer got seized and you have encrypted
data on it, the court will use this as indication that you are guilty.
Can anybody confirm this and tell me the country, where this is current
(or lately changed) law and give me an URL?

Thanks a lot for any hints in advance,
Martin.

PS: Yes, i googled, but did not find anything relevant.
[/quote:b1f90e9cb0]
Maybe this is not the same, bt link gives lots of relevant well
presented about Dutch court practices about the potential oblication
to decrypt.

<quote>
So, the refusal to decrypt or deliver the key might be used as
(supporting) evidence that
Alice did it, but only if:
1. there is enough other evidence against Alice that, combined with
her refusal, allows a common-sense conclusion of guilt,
2. Alice has not been pressured by Polly to give the key (echoing the
European Court, if she does not give it, she has apparently not been
unduly pressured),
3. the ciphertext at stake must ‘call’ for an explanation, and
4. there is enough evidence that Alice is able to decrypt.
</quote>

http://rechten.uvt.nl/koops/THESIS/cryptocontroversy-ch08.PDF

Juuso
(remove non-alphabetic tokens from mail-address)

<OT>
I am preparing to launch (on 2005/06/15) an open source project for
building a C based programming language and after that I need LOTS of
helping hands and minds. Language will include C (except the typical
overflow functions) and most of the modern stuff missing from C -
including encryption. If you are interested in being reminded/
participating drop me a line.
</OT>

Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:45 pm

Juuso Hukkanen <juuso929@tele3d.net> writes:

[quote:6fc59097e3]OT
I am preparing to launch (on 2005/06/15) an open source project for
building a C based programming language and after that I need LOTS of
helping hands and minds. Language will include C (except the typical
overflow functions) and most of the modern stuff missing from C -
including encryption. If you are interested in being reminded/
[/quote:6fc59097e3]
Why in the world would you include encryption as a part of C itself? It
sounds to me like an add on library does this just as well as trying to
make it part of the language. That does not seem to me where it belongs.

Martin Kahlert

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 2:22 am

Guest

Hi Juuso,

On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:00:03AM +0200, Juuso Hukkanen wrote:

[quote:5b5bdb718f]Maybe this is not the same, bt link gives lots of relevant well
presented about Dutch court practices about the potential oblication
to decrypt.

quote
So, the refusal to decrypt or deliver the key might be used as
(supporting) evidence that
Alice did it, but only if:
1. there is enough other evidence against Alice that, combined with
her refusal, allows a common-sense conclusion of guilt,
2. Alice has not been pressured by Polly to give the key (echoing the
European Court, if she does not give it, she has apparently not been
unduly pressured),
3. the ciphertext at stake must ‘call’ for an explanation, and
4. there is enough evidence that Alice is able to decrypt.
/quote

http://rechten.uvt.nl/koops/THESIS/cryptocontroversy-ch08.PDF
[/quote:5b5bdb718f]
Thanks to you and the other posters who helped me!

Seems that my brain gets older. I would have bet that someone - even
here - mentioned a country inside east Europe, where this is
current law.

But your reply helps a lot, too. Thanks again!

Regards
Martin.

Andrew Swallow

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 6:38 am

Guest

Pubkeybreaker wrote:
[snip]
[quote:12525b4c24]I could just hand over the "key". The police decode the files and they
turn out to be just a personal diary or some other harmless (but
private)
peieces of information. Of course, THIS key is fake. But how can they
prove
it?

[/quote:12525b4c24]
To implement use a one time pad.

file = (message XOR pad) XOR sports

Where sports is a file containing tactics to be used in the next game.
The tactics must not to be revealed to the opposing team or they will
plan counter attacks. No need to name the opposing team or date of the
game.

When asked you give the police (message XOR pad), which will return the
sports file that they have already found.

Andrew Swallow

Juuso Hukkanen

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:53 pm

Guest

On 22 Mar 2005 00:45:51 GMT, unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca wrote:

[quote:c0970e149c]Juuso Hukkanen <juuso929@tele3d.net> writes:

OT
I am preparing to launch (on 2005/06/15) an open source project for
building a C based programming language and after that I need LOTS of
helping hands and minds. Language will include C (except the typical
overflow functions) and most of the modern stuff missing from C -
including encryption. If you are interested in being reminded/

Why in the world would you include encryption as a part of C itself? It
sounds to me like an add on library does this just as well as trying to
make it part of the language. That does not seem to me where it belongs.
[/quote:c0970e149c]
<OT perhaps>

Originally the idea was just to build a collection of C tools for
personal use. Then after re-thinking the library organization, the
original tool pile had started to look like something totally
different and scaringly good. The things which did result the
"scaringly good" appearence, also made it require bounds checking. Ok,
more libraries would help, but also other tools (networking, GUI,
timing, threading, garbage collection, getting / setting environmental
info, using multimedia) would require additional non-C features or
libraries.

So I gradually got more far away from the original idea of C.
Perhaps something like what Bjarne Stroustrup had experienced while
designing the "C with objects". However t3d-language can still include
C - similarly as C++ does.

Now - while creating a new language from C, why not throw away
some of anxient and worst stuff - atleast all those "avoid-using-this"
functions. Also those almost-defined datatypes need to become
precicely defined char = 8 bit, int = 32 bit etc. And what about C:s
time measured only in seconds not very modern and if you want to take
a half seconds sleep, how do you do that with C99.

To be honest, I am here at sci.crypt mostly because of a need to
sense the general feeling about building the suggested "C with
libraries"-language. I may be stupid sometimes/often - but I will try
to contribute to sci.crypt.
Why sci.crypt?
1) Well, I quess most of You are professional C coders. Some even seem
to worship C.

2) You 'all' need something that is not provided by C. e.g. C99 has no
twofish(param,param,param,param) - kind of functions. One of the
regulars is even providing for free the most liberate, most good, C
encryption library in existence.

3) Take a look of comp.lang.c a forum full of expressions of
a) C problems,
b) "undefined behaviour"
c) "off topic" requests

So to put it an other way, what I am trying to to feel is, if there is
any such dissatisfaction towards C among top coders, which would
warrant building a better C based language. A language which does not
have much of those "off topic" technology areas.

I believe the t3d-language is good (it has a chance), and I know some
of it's features are unique. The only potential downside, I can think
is the open source license. I would like to license the whole
language, under an open source license, which does not yet exist -
(the language definitions are already ready - license is not).

Charity open source license would be like GPL 2, but with an exception
that (only!) companies in rich countries would be required to buy an
annual license - from a pool of selected charity organizations. Such
as Red Cross, Greenpeace, Amnesty international etc. That annual
license would cover a right to use all ChOS-licensed material. Half
of the license money should go directly to a one poor African country,
most preferrably Ethiopia. Charity organizations would be selected by
a public vote among donators of licensed material. And the licensing
fee would be dependent on the estimated democracy level of each rich
country see. www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm . In order to avoid
accusations of jingoism (in selection of fee-selector), Finland would
be required to not have the cheapest annual license-fee. Until the
licensing charity organizations would start to require annual
payments, even the companies might use all ChOS material for free.
personally would newer be allowed to sell any license, but I’d like to
control to some degree the early development of t3d-language, ChOS
license and ChOS-projects.
Who knows what happensin the future, maybe in year 2015, there
would be a killer applcation ( e.g Linux, Gimp, OpenSLL) licensed
under ChOS license, bringing millions of euros annually into pockets
of charity organizations - and even some food to hungry Africans.
The ChOS- license would also contain suggestions of selected + needed
software projects. Software which the world / charity organizations /
or perhaps just the t3d-programing language needs. The idea is to
create limited number of co-ordinated projects within the community -
for the benefit of the world.

Basically that is it;
A language licensed under a GPL type infecting license, made to make
good things.

How does that sound?

</OT>

Pubkeybreaker

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:12 pm

Guest

Andrew Swallow wrote:

<snip>

[quote:87f0986b7e]To implement use a one time pad.
[/quote:87f0986b7e]
I already said this in my original reply. Read it again.

I am somewhat surprised by the relative lack of replies in this
thread. Everyone, it seems, wants to argue with JSH. (although I
can't imagine why; it is a totally wasted effort) Very few,
it seems, want to discuss the impact crypto has on civil rights
and civil liberties. I wonder why?

John Smith

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:22 pm

Guest

Pubkeybreaker wrote:

[quote:aa79ebb842]Andrew Swallow wrote:

snip

To implement use a one time pad.

I already said this in my original reply. Read it again.

I am somewhat surprised by the relative lack of replies in this
thread. Everyone, it seems, wants to argue with JSH. (although I
can't imagine why; it is a totally wasted effort) Very few,
it seems, want to discuss the impact crypto has on civil rights
and civil liberties. I wonder why?

Booooooooooorrrrring! Lots more fun to bash JSH.[/quote:aa79ebb842]

Page 1 of 1

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:30 pm Science Forum Index