NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.com.com/Minnesota+court+takes+dim+view+of+encryption/2100-1030_3-5718978.html

Now note I am not condoning his actions in any way shape or form

BUT the use of encryption as proof of guilt is asinine do we use the fact that people have locks on their houses as evidence of guilt?

People store information such as credit cards or financial information on their computer all the time … encryption is a way to make that secure.

Encryption is all around us … some of your instant messengers use them (MSN(ssl) and Yahoo a BIT (md5deep)) websites (banking and non) Email uses a mime format usually

It is ALL around us … if encryption is proof of guilt then we are all guilty (and that “if you are innocent you have nothing to hide is BS” that’s like saying those that are innocent should not bother to lock their door at night, they do it not to hide something but to protect their possessions and safety from intruders)

I'm glad they arrested the scumbag, but if we start viewing encryption as probable cause to search one's computer it will result in horrible privacy violations.

I'm glad they arrested the scumbag, but if we start viewing encryption as probable cause to search one's computer it will result in horrible privacy violations.
Exactly he is a scumbag but encryption is NOTHING to base the decision off of the problem is the standard juror has no idea what encryption actually is and what it is used for

Its like the jury having no idea what a door lock is and me getting to explain it as “something that can and is used to keep secrets from duly appointed law officials”

http://news.com.com/Minnesota+court+takes+dim+view+of+encryption/2100-1030_3-5718978.html

Now note I am not condoning his actions in any way shape or form

BUT the use of encryption as proof of guilt is asinine do we use the fact that people have locks on their houses as evidence of guilt?

People store information such as credit cards or financial information on their computer all the time … encryption is a way to make that secure.

Encryption is all around us … some of your instant messengers use them (MSN(ssl) and Yahoo a BIT (md5deep)) websites (banking and non) Email uses a mime format usually

It is ALL around us … if encryption is proof of guilt then we are all guilty (and that “if you are innocent you have nothing to hide is BS” that’s like saying those that are innocent should not bother to lock their door at night, they do it not to hide something but to protect their possessions and safety from intruders)

Well, if you read the full report on the case, the use of "PGP" was part of an establishment of "intent" in conjunction with other evidence (including things pulled from the his browser cache, and the testimony of a witness as well, who was solicited. So, I would not necessarily disagree with the ruling. The "encrytion" ruling was part of the establishment of intent prior to commission of the crime, in association with other evidence. The argument was over wether the presence of the PGP software was relevant to charge. In this case, it was.

Well, if you read the full report on the case, the use of "PGP" was part of an establishment of "intent" in conjunction with other evidence (including things pulled from the his browser cache, and the testimony of a witness as well, who was solicited. So, I would not necessarily disagree with the ruling. The "encrytion" ruling was part of the establishment of intent prior to commission of the crime, in association with other evidence. The argument was over wether the presence of the PGP software was relevant to charge. In this case, it was.
I use PGP how is that establishing my intent? I am not saying that is what convicted him but he could have had it to store credit card info

“The court didn't say that police had unearthed any encrypted files” They have no idea what it was used for

Like a lock on a door it CAN be used to conceal but having a lock hardly proves your intent to conceal illegal activity

I use PGP how is that establishing my intent? I am not saying that is what convicted him but he could have had it to store credit card info

“The court didn't say that police had unearthed any encrypted files” They have no idea what it was used for

Like a lock on a door it CAN be used to conceal but having a lock hardly proves your intent to conceal illegal activity

It can be used to establish intent if it isn't the ONLY evidence.

They had other evidence to show probable cause as to what might be behind the "locked door".

If I have a neighbor testify to screams at your house a week ago, and other neighbors complain of a terrific stench, and one says your wife hasn't been seen for over a week, and the police get a warrant and search your house, and find the basement door sealed with nailed plywood and fresh paint, I bet they could (especially if they found her body in the basement) use that plywood and paint as evidence of your guilt.

People have encryption on their PCs to prevent criminals on the net getting to their important documents.
Encryption comes in many forms - to get MP3 files onto school PCs i save them as .txt files (effing RM security) and then rename them back to .MP3 in school.

does this mean that at 15 they should search my PC? check if my essays have in fact got pornographic images of kids encrypted into them?

My dad's a suspect because he encrypts his online bank statements?

oh, and i guess the government of minnesota doesn't encrypt it's files at all but just leaves them on an unprotected network...

this is en example of our culture being overall too ready to be suspicious. I mean it's almost like the curtain twitching old lady over the street is a thought police officer ready to arrest me for a facecrime!
:eek: :sniper:
You are making a face that may mean you have a icture of a naked cat under your shirt! please come quietly to your unfair trial!

[/rant]

Whoah guys, If a murderer used a shovel to bury a body, the shovel would be admitted as evidence in court. However, such a ruling would not mean that anyone who uses shovels is using them criminally.

The article is slightly misleading. The defendant's use of encryption was a TOOL he used to cover up a crime: i.e. hide evidence that could be used to convict him. The prosecution merely argued that the encryption was a TOOL, like the shovel, used to cover up evidence in the trial, and was therefore relevant in this case.

As noted, the encryption wasn't part of the *intent* to commit a crime, but was merely used *with other facts* in the commission of the crime to prove that the defendant was hiding evidence.

You'll note the prosecution's entire case wasn't just "this guy has encrypted files, so we're going to put him in jail." Rather, the girl's testimony against the defendant was the primary impetus for the search of his computer.

The case does not grant the Law the ability to just search any computer because it has encrypted files on it, just like the law can't just search any home, just because it has a lock on it, nor can it charge anyone working in their yard with a shovel with murder, just because they're using a shovel.

You guys are going way overboard trying to claim that the law was saying encryption = guilt. That wasn't the primary focus of the case. It's something called "supporting evidence."

It can be used to establish intent if it isn't the ONLY evidence.

They had other evidence to show probable cause as to what might be behind the "locked door".

If I have a neighbor testify to screams at your house a week ago, and other neighbors complain of a terrific stench, and one says your wife hasn't been seen for over a week, and the police get a warrant and search your house, and find the basement door sealed with nailed plywood and fresh paint, I bet they could (especially if they found her body in the basement) use that plywood and paint as evidence of your guilt.
But in this case to this point it would be the equivalent of using the paint and board as evidence of your guilt when she was really killed in the living room and the wood and paint were only used to keep out rodents that were getting into the basement

Does not make you innocent but they have not proved a tie between the use of encryption and the intent to conceal anything in this case


If they found encrypted files that fit the profile of a picture or something like that I DEFFINATLY can see but from the story I don’t think they did (or if so did not use it in the case)

(That and their supposition that only the NSA could decrypt a PGP encrypted file is false … we did that as an undergraduate project for my encryption course)

(That and their supposition that only the NSA could decrypt a PGP encrypted file is false … we did that as an undergraduate project for my encryption course)

Depends on the keysize now, doesn't it? A really large RSA key pair might take next to forever.

People have encryption on their PCs to prevent criminals on the net getting to their important documents.
Encryption comes in many forms - to get MP3 files onto school PCs i save them as .txt files (effing RM security) and then rename them back to .MP3 in school.

Not really a form of encryption as no data is changed by an extention change


Just pointing that out :)

Depends on the keysize now, doesn't it? A really large RSA key pair might take next to forever.
Brute force yes but PGP stock does not use RSA by default if I remember right they do a block or exponential cyperher (I have never tried the full paid version)

Ours did a 256 x256 block encryption in triplicate (recursivly that is)

Takes a bit to decrypt but once you set it up and do some work it was not that bad

Brute force yes but PGP stock does not use RSA by default if I remember right they do a block or exponential cyperher (I have never tried the full paid version)

Ours did a 256 x256 block encryption in triplicate (recursivly that is)

Takes a bit to decrypt but once you set it up and do some work it was not that bad

Ah, you were breaking triple DES. Not too hard.

Whoah guys, If a murderer used a shovel to bury a body, the shovel would be admitted as evidence in court. However, such a ruling would not mean that anyone who uses shovels is using them criminally.

The article is slightly misleading. The defendant's use of encryption was a TOOL he used to cover up a crime: i.e. hide evidence that could be used to convict him. The prosecution merely argued that the encryption was a TOOL, like the shovel, used to cover up evidence in the trial, and was therefore relevant in this case.

As noted, the encryption wasn't part of the *intent* to commit a crime, but was merely used *with other facts* in the commission of the crime to prove that the defendant was hiding evidence.

You'll note the prosecution's entire case wasn't just "this guy has encrypted files, so we're going to put him in jail." Rather, the girl's testimony against the defendant was the primary impetus for the search of his computer.

The case does not grant the Law the ability to just search any computer because it has encrypted files on it, just like the law can't just search any home, just because it has a lock on it, nor can it charge anyone working in their yard with a shovel with murder, just because they're using a shovel.

You guys are going way overboard trying to claim that the law was saying encryption = guilt. That wasn't the primary focus of the case. It's something called "supporting evidence."

The problem is there is no evidence that he used it to commit that crime they said the court was told about no actual encrypted files

Ah, you were breaking triple DES. Not too hard.
Naw (and DES has some fine differences from strait up block) but yeah

Great to find another security geek :) I got my second masters in Comp information security (though my focus was on network security we did our time with encryption too lol)

Naw (and DES has some fine differences from strait up block) but yeah

Great to find another security geek :) I got my second masters in Comp information security (though my focus was on network security we did our time with encryption too lol)
My sister is the new head of wireless security for the Justice Department.

http://news.com.com/Minnesota+court+takes+dim+view+of+encryption/2100-1030_3-5718978.html

Now note I am not condoning his actions in any way shape or form

BUT the use of encryption as proof of guilt is asinine do we use the fact that people have locks on their houses as evidence of guilt?

People store information such as credit cards or financial information on their computer all the time … encryption is a way to make that secure.

Encryption is all around us … some of your instant messengers use them (MSN(ssl) and Yahoo a BIT (md5deep)) websites (banking and non) Email uses a mime format usually

It is ALL around us … if encryption is proof of guilt then we are all guilty (and that “if you are innocent you have nothing to hide is BS” that’s like saying those that are innocent should not bother to lock their door at night, they do it not to hide something but to protect their possessions and safety from intruders)

You won't get any arguments out of me on this one. They guy deserves to be locked away for a long long time, but saying that because his computer was encrypted it was ground for search and seizure is a huge violation of individual rights. It's like saying, if you put up black shades in your house it's because your doing something illegal and your home should be searched... Insanity!

My sister is the new head of wireless security for the Justice Department.
Sweet I handle ours for MINSCU (Minnesota state colleges and universities) among other things

Though we have a wireless guy we actually use VPN Tunneling and authentication (and encryption) because it allows more hefty encryption then WEP or WPA

You won't get any arguments out of me on this one. They guy deserves to be locked away for a long long time, but saying that because his computer was encrypted it was ground for search and seizure is a huge violation of individual rights. It's like saying, if you put up black shades in your house it's because your doing something illegal and your home should be searched... Insanity!
Exactly I mean if they could prove any tie between him using it to try to conceal evidence in the past then they have definite grounds for using it as evidence (or a history of using it as such)
But so far as I have seen there is no proof that his possession of it had anything to do with the crime at all

Sweet I handle ours for MINSCU (Minnesota state colleges and universities) among other things

Though we have a wireless guy we actually use VPN Tunneling and authentication (and encryption) because it allows more hefty encryption then WEP or WPA

She also won a Wi-Fi contest at the last DefCon - most geeks bring their own huge antennas from home - but she and her friend went in the hotel dumpster for cardboard and aluminum wrap.

She has a nice home lab, too. I sometimes feel she could build anything anywhere.

She also won a Wi-Fi contest at the last DefCon - most geeks bring their own huge antennas from home - but she and her friend went in the hotel dumpster for cardboard and aluminum wrap.

She has a nice home lab, too. I sometimes feel she could build anything anywhere.
Made more then a few cantennas in my day too :)

I use PGP how is that establishing my intent? I am not saying that is what convicted him but he could have had it to store credit card info

“The court didn't say that police had unearthed any encrypted files” They have no idea what it was used for

Like a lock on a door it CAN be used to conceal but having a lock hardly proves your intent to conceal illegal activity

You're missing the legal concept here. presence of encrpytion software, illegal refferences found in browser file and search cache, as well as messages was used to establish intent... Prior to the act commited, provided by witness testimony. "having encryption" software alone was not the establishment of the intent in the ruling. Basically, what we have, is someone convicted of intent to commit a crime, through information gleened, cursory programs to obscure, and actual testimony of intent to engage in those activities in question. The argument was whether the presence of encryption testimony was valid in establishing intent (or should that evidence be removed). The judgement stands, by the appelate, that the evidence of encryption software was admissiable, as part of the intent clause (not the end all and be all of it).

You're missing the legal concept here. presence of encrpytion software, illegal refferences found in browser file and search cache, as well as messages was used to establish intent... Prior to the act commited, provided by witness testimony. "having encryption" software alone was not the establishment of the intent in the ruling. Basically, what we have, is someone convicted of intent to commit a crime, through information gleened, cursory programs to obscure, and actual testimony of intent to engage in those activities in question. The argument was whether the presence of encryption testimony was valid in establishing intent (or should that evidence be removed). The judgement stands, by the appelate, that the evidence of encryption software was admissiable, as part of the intent clause (not the end all and be all of it).
I understand the concept but how does the tool of PGP help establish intent?

Its like saying because my wife was found dead in the kitchen abandoned the fact that I have a shovel somewhere helps establish my intent of killing her?

The shovel COULD be used but it hardly establishes the intent to murder just because I have a common tool

Do you think the encryption issue would have been viewed differently by the court if this character had been using a Mac and Filevault?

Filevault is built-in but is turned off by default. PGP must be installed. So both require deliberate action to use. Filevault encrypts the user's home directory while PGP is usually used to encrypt specific files and folders. So if I use PGP to encrypt a folder containing criminal evidence but nothing else on the drive it seems doubly damning.

Anybody care to speculate?

Do you think the encryption issue would have been viewed differently by the court if this character had been using a Mac and Filevault?

Filevault is built-in but is turned off by default. PGP must be installed. So both require deliberate action to use. Filevault encrypts the user's home directory while PGP is usually used to encrypt specific files and folders. So if I use PGP to encrypt a folder containing criminal evidence but nothing else on the drive it seems doubly damning.

Anybody care to speculate?
Yes but in this case as far as I have seen there is no evidence that he has encrypted ANYTHING inosent or not

http://news.com.com/Minnesota+court+takes+dim+view+of+encryption/2100-1030_3-5718978.html

Now note I am not condoning his actions in any way shape or form

BUT the use of encryption as proof of guilt is asinine do we use the fact that people have locks on their houses as evidence of guilt?

People store information such as credit cards or financial information on their computer all the time … encryption is a way to make that secure.

Encryption is all around us … some of your instant messengers use them (MSN(ssl) and Yahoo a BIT (md5deep)) websites (banking and non) Email uses a mime format usually

It is ALL around us … if encryption is proof of guilt then we are all guilty (and that “if you are innocent you have nothing to hide is BS” that’s like saying those that are innocent should not bother to lock their door at night, they do it not to hide something but to protect their possessions and safety from intruders)

I do not know if this is judicial ingorance or a slide twoard Big Brother...it certainly is one of the two!

I just re-read the article. It says "The court didn't say that police had unearthed any encrypted files or how it would view the use of standard software like OS X's FileVault."

So we don't know whether he encrypted anything.

I just re-read the article. It says "The court didn't say that police had unearthed any encrypted files or how it would view the use of standard software like OS X's FileVault."

So we don't know whether he encrypted anything.
No we don’t I was hoping for more information (though the presence of encrypted files AND the encryption program I would guess would be newsworthy)

Great, now the desire for privacy is justification to take privacy away.

Privacy n : Government's lack of interest in your personal affairs

I understand the concept but how does the tool of PGP help establish intent?

Its like saying because my wife was found dead in the kitchen abandoned the fact that I have a shovel somewhere helps establish my intent of killing her?

The shovel COULD be used but it hardly establishes the intent to murder just because I have a common tool

You just conceded the point: in fact, the shovel could be used (with other evidence), that you had intent of killing her. Exactly as "PGP" was used, in this case, with other evidence, to establish intent. Could the shovel, or PGP stand alone? No... and it hasn't...

They didn't uphold intent for this guy because he had PGP.

They upheld intent because:

1. He attempted solicitation of illicit services from a minor.
2. He had queries stored in his browser in relation to illicit acts with minors.
3. He had software that can be used to conseal evidence regarding solicitation.

The court was faced with ruling whether or not presence of tools, in relation consealment of illicit acts was admissable as evidence in establishing intent. They held that the evidence was adminisible in proving intent.

The ruling is that "encryption" softwares presence can be used as an aspect of proving intent to commit a crime (not the end all and be all of establishing guilt).

If your wife was found abandoned and dead in your kitchen, with wounds consistent with being blugeoned to death with a "rod" consistent with that found on the shovel; you better fucking believe the courts will rule that shovel in as evidence in establishing intent.

You just conceded the point: in fact, the shovel could be used (with other evidence), that you had intent of killing her. Exactly as "PGP" was used, in this case, with other evidence, to establish intent. Could the shovel, or PGP stand alone? No... and it hasn't...

They didn't uphold intent for this guy because he had PGP.

They upheld intent because:

1. He attempted solicitation of illicit services from a minor.
2. He had queries stored in his browser in relation to illicit acts with minors.
3. He had software that can be used to conseal evidence regarding solicitation.

The court was faced with ruling whether or not presence of tools, in relation consealment of illicit acts was admissable as evidence in establishing intent. They held that the evidence was adminisible in proving intent.

The ruling is that "encryption" softwares presence can be used as an aspect of proving intent to commit a crime (not the end all and be all of establishing guilt).

If your wife was found abandoned and dead in your kitchen, with wounds consistent with being blugeoned to death with a "rod" consistent with that found on the shovel; you better fucking believe the courts will rule that shovel in as evidence in establishing intent.

(I was not thinking of the shovel as the weapon rather a disposal tool)

If I found my wife dead in a kitchen and she was shot in the head with no attempt to burry her I would not take the fact that he had a shovel as evidence of intent as it is too generic of tool to help establish intent

(I was not thinking of the shovel as the weapon rather a disposal tool)

If I found my wife dead in a kitchen and she was shot in the head with no attempt to burry her I would not take the fact that he had a shovel as evidence of intent as it is too generic of tool to help establish intent

However, evidence of illicit solicitations, along with inquiries towards acitivities and tools for evidence disposal, do establish intent.

However, evidence of illicit solicitations, along with inquiries towards acitivities and tools for evidence disposal, do establish intent.

Rather like the tools, boat, and cement kept by Scott Petersen. And the receipt for using the boat launch ramp, etc.

Evidence is determined by evidientiary hearings, and the judge, ultimately, determines which evidence is "admissibile" or if their is a precedent for throwing such out. (Like throwing out a wife's "testimony" based on Spousal Confedentiality).

That is, admissibility is not a blanket statement. Nor is inadmissibility. Merely because encryption was used in this case, does not mean precedent is set to use encryption software alone for establishment of guilt or intent.

Evidence is determined by evidientiary hearings, and the judge, ultimately, determines which evidence is "admissibile" or if their is a precedent for throwing such out. (Like throwing out a wife's "testimony" based on Spousal Confedentiality).

That is, admissibility is not a blanket statement. Nor is inadmissibility. Merely because encryption was used in this case, does not mean precedent is set to use encryption software alone for establishment of guilt or intent.
I sure hope not because its not going away lol

here's a link to the court document:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:K9T_gyKeBUkJ:www.minnlawyer.com/opinions/050509/a04381.htm+minnesota+appeals+court+encryption+pornography&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

here's a few snippets that indicate the relevance of encryption in this appeal:

"Appellant first argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the district court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence of his internet usage and the existence of an encryption program on his computer. Rulings involving the relevancy of evidence are generally left to the sound discretion of the district court. State v. Swain, 269 N.W.2d 707, 714 (Minn. 1978). And rulings on relevancy will only be reversed when that discretion has been clearly abused."

"Evidence of appellant’s computer usage and the presence of an encryption program on his computer was relevant to the state’s case. We affirm the district court’s evidentiary rulings."

I'm less concerned about this matter after having read the document.

here's a link to the court document:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:K9T_gyKeBUkJ:www.minnlawyer.com/opinions/050509/a04381.htm+minnesota+appeals+court+encryption+pornography&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

here's a few snippets that indicate the relevance of encryption in this appeal:

"Appellant first argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the district court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence of his internet usage and the existence of an encryption program on his computer. Rulings involving the relevancy of evidence are generally left to the sound discretion of the district court. State v. Swain, 269 N.W.2d 707, 714 (Minn. 1978). And rulings on relevancy will only be reversed when that discretion has been clearly abused."

"Evidence of appellant’s computer usage and the presence of an encryption program on his computer was relevant to the state’s case. We affirm the district court’s evidentiary rulings."

I'm less concerned about this matter after having read the document.


Thanks for the information!

Though Schaub’s claim of “but Schaub also admitted that the PGP program may be included on every Macintosh computer that comes out today”

Is factually incorrect … they come with an ENCRYPTION program not PGP (which is a brand name for a specific piece of software that as far as I know does not come with mac os 10.x)


But yeah that’s just a pet peeve lol

Is factually incorrect … they come with an ENCRYPTION program not PGP (which is a brand name for a specific piece of software that as far as I know does not come with mac os 10.x)

I'm using a Mac and OS X (my first one) and it comes with Filevault built into the OS. Unlike PGP it encrypts everything in the home folder automatically in the background transparently. I haven't used it yet though.

I'm using a Mac and OS X (my first one) and it comes with Filevault built into the OS. Unlike PGP it encrypts everything in the home folder automatically in the background transparently. I haven't used it yet though.
Yup I have dealt with it a bit in the past I believe it is an exponential cipher base

RSA is still pretty processor intensive (though I am not familiar with mac software enough out of the network environ)

Is factually incorrect … they come with an ENCRYPTION program not PGP (which is a brand name for a specific piece of software that as far as I know does not come with mac os 10.x)

Technically it might. MacOs X is *nix based and once upon a time PGP was both opensource and free. It might contain a modified version.

http://news.com.com/Minnesota+court+takes+dim+view+of+encryption/2100-1030_3-5718978.html

Now note I am not condoning his actions in any way shape or form

BUT the use of encryption as proof of guilt is asinine do we use the fact that people have locks on their houses as evidence of guilt?

People store information such as credit cards or financial information on their computer all the time … encryption is a way to make that secure.

Encryption is all around us … some of your instant messengers use them (MSN(ssl) and Yahoo a BIT (md5deep)) websites (banking and non) Email uses a mime format usually

It is ALL around us … if encryption is proof of guilt then we are all guilty (and that “if you are innocent you have nothing to hide is BS” that’s like saying those that are innocent should not bother to lock their door at night, they do it not to hide something but to protect their possessions and safety from intruders)

It just shows the glaring ignorance of the masses as to what to do to protect oneself on the Internet. :( Encryption is just another protection.

The guy was creepy, yeah, but if they just start using Carnivore on every PC that has some sort of encryption....ugh.

Then again, it doesn't surprise me that Minnesota would do this... :D

At least the concealed carry stuff is back for non-residents! I'll have to fill out the paperwork again... ;)