FBI struggles to unlock killer's phone

[Stadin6]

On 10.2.2016 at 6:21 PM, iamdarkyoshi said:

I have mixed feelings here. I think law enforcements should be able to get past stuff like this in scenarios like this, and the average joe should not, but of course there will be information publicly released on how to crack the encryption and stuff.

how to crack encryption: a metric fuck tonne of compute power. 

for instance AES 256-bit encryption requires so much compute power it is literally impossible to do it. even a quantum computer would take too long time

[GeekJump]

2 hours ago, Tataffe said:

Stuff that one has to consider when encrypting their phone/buying a phone with encryption.

 

You are absolutely correct. This time. But what if the suspect is, as I mentioned, not dead? ...

I meant if someone else's phone is encrypted and it can prove another's innocence. Obviously if the owner of the phone was innocent he would just give it to them lmao

 

Just saying hypothetically, I am suspected of killing someone (I'm innocent). And, during the investigation a phone is found at the crime scene that may prove I'm innocent. The owner can't be identified and it's encrypted. It looks like that is my only chance to be cleared. But because it's encrypted I'm SOL.

 

Before you ask "how do you know the phone has evidence?" It just does! That's the point of a hypothetical >_>

[Zodiark1593]

 

5 hours ago, GeekJump said:

I meant if someone else's phone is encrypted and it can prove another's innocence. Obviously if the owner of the phone was innocent he would just give it to them lmao

 

Just saying hypothetically, I am suspected of killing someone (I'm innocent). And, during the investigation a phone is found at the crime scene that may prove I'm innocent. The owner can't be identified and it's encrypted. It looks like that is my only chance to be cleared. But because it's encrypted I'm SOL.

 

Before you ask "how do you know the phone has evidence?" It just does! That's the point of a hypothetical >_>

Difficult situation. If the hypothetical evidence against you is otherwise solid without proof of innocence, then you would probably be convicted.

 

If manufacturer encryption couldn't be trusted, couldn't a nefarious person simply use 3rd party tools or code their own. Android is open enough to do that much, and a cold boot attack is relatively difficult to perform on such integrated devices.

[Blade of Grass]

On 2/10/2016 at 0:27 PM, Trik'Stari said:

Indeed they will, which is why you keep an eye on them (the keys), and if/when that happens, change the locks and keys.

Just like you would if you lost the keys to your house/apartment when out and about. You would change the locks and as a result, get new keys.

Changing the key to something that's encrypted is not very similar to changing the lock to your house. It's extremely computationally intensive, especially if it was running one a relatively low powered device like a cell phone.

On 2/10/2016 at 0:31 PM, Tataffe said:

True. On the other hand, I always have the right to remain silent (which of course is only applicable if I'm not dead, otherwise it's more of a duty than a right ...), and I feel like this encryption-thing is like an extended way to remain silent.

On 2/10/2016 at 0:34 PM, Trik'Stari said:

That's an interesting theory, you do have a right not to incriminate yourself. In such a situation, a judge would need to sign a search warrant for the phone (because you refuse to unlock it)

I think you mean a subpoena.

On 2/10/2016 at 2:27 PM, Memories4K said:

Someone asked earlier about a possible case where someone's encrypted data might incriminate them; the problem is that with a few of the court cases i've seen so far involving encryption and the 5th amendment, the rulings have been that your data is not protected even from self-incrimination.

There is a disconnect on exactly what and when your data can be accessed and whether certain practices by agencies is actually ethical. Blank warrants would be the biggest problem, even with a solution like manufacturers being the only one to hold encryption keys.

Even then though, there's no law that specifies that you would have to give up an encryption key or password, only a few conflicting cases (In re Boucher, U.S. v. Doe). Although the cases are from different districts, the Doe case was in a higher court. 

 

This is a complicated legal issue and there really is no simple solution to it, but weakening the encryption or creating a backdoor is definitely not the answer. 

[Yoinkerman]

Freedom has a cost.  This is one of them.  It's very unfortunate lives were lost.  

[Tataffe]

21 hours ago, GeekJump said:

I meant if someone else's phone is encrypted and it can prove another's innocence. Obviously if the owner of the phone was innocent he would just give it to them lmao

 

Just saying hypothetically, I am suspected of killing someone (I'm innocent). And, during the investigation a phone is found at the crime scene that may prove I'm innocent. The owner can't be identified and it's encrypted. It looks like that is my only chance to be cleared. But because it's encrypted I'm SOL.

 

Before you ask "how do you know the phone has evidence?" It just does! That's the point of a hypothetical >_>

You must admit though, that this situation is extremely unlikely (not impossible, I know!) to happen, especially the combination of "phone's content proves innocence" and "phone's owner is unknown" is rather unrealistic. Your general chances of being wrongly convicted are way higher than this scenario anyways, therefore it is a very weak point against encryption. And as long as you're not living in one of the few retarded areas where death penalty is still a thing, time is usually on your side.

 

And who are you going to blame: The manufacturer or the phone's owner?

[Trik'Stari]

21 hours ago, Blade of Grass said:

Changing the key to something that's encrypted is not very similar to changing the lock to your house. It's extremely computationally intensive, especially if it was running one a relatively low powered device like a cell phone.

I think you mean a subpoena.

Even then though, there's no law that specifies that you would have to give up an encryption key or password, only a few conflicting cases (In re Boucher, U.S. v. Doe). Although the cases are from different districts, the Doe case was in a higher court. 

 

This is a complicated legal issue and there really is no simple solution to it, but weakening the encryption or creating a backdoor is definitely not the answer. 

Even under a subpoena, you can still plead the fifth. So a subpoena cannot force you to speak, only force you to appear in court, get on the stand, and plead the fifth.

 

So technically, you cannot be compelled to give evidence that would incriminate you. Right? You cannot be required, or penalized, by law, to unlock your phone.

[Blade of Grass]

19 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Even under a subpoena, you can still plead the fifth. So a subpoena cannot force you to speak, only force you to appear in court, get on the stand, and plead the fifth.

 

So technically, you cannot be compelled to give evidence that would incriminate you. Right? You cannot be required, or penalized, by law, to unlock your phone.

You can't always plead the fifth, and if you're in one of those cases you can be held in contempt of court and sentenced as such.

 

Re: Unlocking phones, the law isn't clear about it. Does providing the encryption key count as self incrimination? According to In re Broucher, no. According to US v. Doe, yes. There has yet to be a case taken to the Supreme Court about the matter and there has yet to be a law passed specifically about it either. 

[Trik'Stari]

12 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

You can't always plead the fifth, and if you're in one of those cases you can be held in contempt of court and sentenced as such.

 

Re: Unlocking phones, the law isn't clear about it. Does providing the encryption key count as self incrimination? According to In re Broucher, no. According to US v. Doe, yes. There has yet to be a case taken to the Supreme Court about the matter and there has yet to be a law passed specifically about it either. 

In what circumstance can you not plead the fifth, or remain silent? Just curious. If politicians can do it before congress.... I can't imagine a circumstance in which you can't.

[Blade of Grass]

7 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

In what circumstance can you not plead the fifth, or remain silent? Just curious. If politicians can do it before congress.... I can't imagine a circumstance in which you can't.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/can-people-held-contempt-invoking-5th-amendment/

^ Surprisingly accurate article about this (writer is also apparently a real lawyer). I would explain, but as that article shows there's actually quite a few. It really depends on the circumstances of the case, civil vs. criminal etc. 

[Trik'Stari]

6 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/can-people-held-contempt-invoking-5th-amendment/

^ Surprisingly accurate article about this (writer is also apparently a real lawyer). I would explain, but as that article shows there's actually quite a few. It really depends on the circumstances of the case, civil vs. criminal etc. 

So basically, you can only plead the fifth, if you have already decided not to testify (in a criminal case) or if you have a good reason to do so, in a civil case (as in the answering of said question would actually incriminate you. Not "it would hurt your case".)

 

Oh, so Lois Lerner was a lying bitch. Why was she not held in contempt?