FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-25-2011, 02:47 AM
NoOp
 
Default Strong encryption

On 01/24/2011 07:33 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
...
> I had a problem unravelling his headers so I made the rash assumption
> that he was in the U.S. Even if I'm wrong, there aren't many first world
> countries that will kick your door down for using/exporting "strong"
> encryption.

Doug has been on this list for several years (since 2008), he lives in
the British Columbia Canada area.

Still curious what he means by "Strong Encryption" and what he is trying
to to accomplish. Without that last I reckon that any further is
speculation... even with "Thank you. There are many options; but right
now I am looking at RSA/AES|blowfish or perhaps twofish."


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-25-2011, 03:00 AM
Harry Strongburg
 
Default Strong encryption

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:33:05PM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote:
> That link had another link to cwis.kub.nl that I would love to read but
> Cox claim's it can't be found.

Try out <http://rechten.uvt.nl/koops/cryptolaw/>.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-25-2011, 03:26 AM
Basil Chupin
 
Default Strong encryption

On 25/01/2011 10:08, Robert Holtzman wrote:

On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 04:11:51PM -0700, Doug Robinson wrote:

Does anybody have a feel for the problems associated with
distributing software that employs Strong Encryption.

I have looked around and there is a number of good things
out there but I wonder if the US Feds are still throwing
hissie fits every time this stuff appears in public?

They probably are but since Phil Zimmermann, the creator of PGP,
beat them in court I don't think you have too much to worry about.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Note: I am *not* a lawyer and the above is *not* legal advice.


There was an article recently about a person who was placed in jail for
contempt of court because he refused to provide the "authorities" his
encryption key to the data on his computer. I cannot remember in which
country this occurred whether it was USA, or Australia, or Britain :-( .
(I *think* that the article was on BBC Online but I am not sure.)


But in the same article it came out that, say, in the USA you MUST
provide your encryption key on demand by "the spooks" if they feel that
you are being 'naughty' and trying to act like a 'terrorist' (and of
course all Americans it seems are 'terrorists' as they are under
surveillance by at least 3 'spook' organisations :-) ).


BC

--
Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-25-2011, 09:11 AM
Colin Law
 
Default Strong encryption

On 25 January 2011 04:26, Basil Chupin <blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On 25/01/2011 10:08, Robert Holtzman wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 04:11:51PM -0700, Doug Robinson wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anybody have a feel for the problems associated with
>>> distributing software that employs Strong Encryption.
>>>
>>> I have looked around and there is a number of good things
>>> out there but I wonder if the US Feds are still throwing
>>> hissie fits every time this stuff appears in public?
>>
>> They probably are but since Phil Zimmermann, the creator of PGP,
>> beat them in court I don't think you have too much to worry about.
>> Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>> Note: I am *not* a lawyer and the above is *not* legal advice.
>
> There was an article recently about a person who was placed in jail for
> contempt of court because he refused to provide the "authorities" his
> encryption key to the data on his computer. I cannot remember in which
> country this occurred whether it was USA, or Australia, or Britain :-( . (I
> *think* that the article was on BBC Online but I am not sure.)

I think it was in the UK, a guy was charged with child pornography and
would not provide the key for an encrypted disk, no prizes for
guessing why. I believe he was found guilty anyway.

Colin

>
> But in the same article it came out that, say, in the USA you MUST provide
> your encryption key on demand by "the spooks" if they feel that you are
> being 'naughty' and trying to act like a 'terrorist' (and of course all
> Americans it seems are 'terrorists' as they are under surveillance by at
> least 3 'spook' organisations :-) ).
>
> BC
>
> --
> Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse.
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-25-2011, 09:32 AM
"Joep L. Blom"
 
Default Strong encryption

On 25/01/11 11:11, Colin Law wrote:

On 25 January 2011 04:26, Basil Chupin<blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:

On 25/01/2011 10:08, Robert Holtzman wrote:


On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 04:11:51PM -0700, Doug Robinson wrote:


Does anybody have a feel for the problems associated with
distributing software that employs Strong Encryption.

I have looked around and there is a number of good things
out there but I wonder if the US Feds are still throwing
hissie fits every time this stuff appears in public?


They probably are but since Phil Zimmermann, the creator of PGP,
beat them in court I don't think you have too much to worry about.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Note: I am *not* a lawyer and the above is *not* legal advice.


There was an article recently about a person who was placed in jail for
contempt of court because he refused to provide the "authorities" his
encryption key to the data on his computer. I cannot remember in which
country this occurred whether it was USA, or Australia, or Britain :-( . (I
*think* that the article was on BBC Online but I am not sure.)


I think it was in the UK, a guy was charged with child pornography and
would not provide the key for an encrypted disk, no prizes for
guessing why. I believe he was found guilty anyway.

Colin


Colin,
It was in the Netherlands and the apprehended guy was a paedophile who
worked in a "Kindergarten" and had misused > 80 children from 1 year to
10. He was part of a large paedophile network and had thousands of
really awful paedophylic pictures on his computer but he had it really
well encrypted. However, the police has "persuaded" him to give his
encryption code.

This kind of guys is be removed permanently from society.
Joep

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-25-2011, 10:22 AM
Jordon Bedwell
 
Default Strong encryption

On 1/24/2011 10:26 PM, Basil Chupin wrote:
On
25/01/2011 10:08, Robert Holtzman wrote:


On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 04:11:51PM -0700,
Doug Robinson wrote:


Does anybody have a feel for the
problems associated with


distributing software that employs Strong Encryption.




I have looked around and there is a number of good things


out there but I wonder if the US Feds are still throwing


hissie fits every time this stuff appears in public?



They probably are but since Phil Zimmermann, the creator of PGP,


beat them in court I don't think you have too much to worry
about.


Someone correct me if I'm wrong.




Note: I am *not* a lawyer and the above is *not* legal advice.





There was an article recently about a person who was placed in
jail for contempt of court because he refused to provide the
"authorities" his encryption key to the data on his computer. I
cannot remember in which country this occurred whether it was USA,
or Australia, or Britain :-( . (I *think* that the article was on
BBC Online but I am not sure.)




But in the same article it came out that, say, in the USA you MUST
provide your encryption key on demand by "the spooks" if they feel
that you are being 'naughty' and trying to act like a 'terrorist'
(and of course all Americans it seems are 'terrorists' as they are
under surveillance by at least 3 'spook' organisations :-) ).




BC







The "spooks" would not ask you for your encryption key because the
spooks job is to find a way to get it. The spooks are the CIA and
partially the NSA.* They are not in the business of asking questions
and taking names like the FBI, they are in the business of kicking
ass first and asking questions later (not really) and mostly
counting wins.* They are called "spooks" for a reason, and given
most people know what the CIA and NSA is and how good they are you
can only guess why they are called that.* The CIA and NSA will
either have it, try to find a way to get it or create a way to
undeniably get it; they won't come and ask you for it.* They
wouldn't even charge you with anything, they are not police they are
intelligence agencies.* The FBI or DHS and other such agencies like
ICE are not spooks.



*There is no law in the United States that requires the disclosure
of any encryption key and probably never will be as it would
violate a god given right.*



/*In the Unites States you cannot be punished for refusing to
hand over encryption keys because you have the right to blindly
deny any such reasonable warrant under the 5th Amendment.*/*
This is supported by the supreme court in the case: United States
vs. Boucher
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher).* A judge
cannot punish you or rule against your right to plea the 5th as
there is no reasonable proof that you have given the key to anybody
else or that the encrypted information would not further and/or aid
in incriminating you.* You have the right against self-incrimination
and you also have the right to request a grand jury be convened in
the case and if they fail to support you then you still use your 5th
Amendment right.* In the United States you truly, lawfully,
undoubtedly, undeniably, unrefutably, unalterably have the right to
remain silent.* This is a guaranteed right under the Constitution of
the United States unlike other countries where they are simply laws.



There are exceptions to 5th amendment rights though (and only the
supreme court, the supreme justice of the land, the only people with
more power than the president can truly decide this), like stated
before: giving the key to somebody else and a court being able to
reasonable prove they (the 3rd party) know it, the court could force
said person to give the key and even punish them for not handing it
over if they can reasonably prove it would not incriminate them
which again they couldn't because it's a blind 5th amendment claim.
In large cases the prosecutors will most likely just hand out a
blind immunity to the 3rd party.* There was a case recently
involving the 5th amendment that the supreme court ruled did not
apply.* The guy tried to plea the 5th on IRS documents stating that
it would be self-incrimination, it was ruled that he could not use
that right since he submitted the documents to the IRS in the first
place.* This is obviously not the case of encryption since it
well...defeats the entire purpose of encryption in the first place.



The case you are speaking about was in the UK though where, if I
recall right, the right to remain silent is simply a law.* It
involved a 19 year old boy if I remember right.



You guys also need to clearly define your context, some of the
contexts (like the PGP case) are irrelevant IMO to what the OP is
actually asking because it's an entirely different context of export
there are no real set of given variables or anything of the sort
that help us help the OP, this is nothing more than a case full of
competing contexts that conflict and confuse people who are trying
to clearly learn from a situation and gather some real R&D.



A little bit of twisting for you Basil since you think America is
worse than Australia: The Cybercrime Act 2001 No. 161, Items 12 and
28 grant police with a magistrate's order the wide-ranging power to
require "a specified person to provide any information or assistance
that is reasonable and necessary to allow the officer to" access
computer data that is "evidential material"; this is understood to
include mandatory decryption. Failing to comply carries a penalty of
6 months imprisonment.* Lets not even bring up the great Australian
firewall.* Intriguing.



*I'm not lawyer, I just research a lot*



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-25-2011, 10:32 AM
Jordon Bedwell
 
Default Strong encryption

On 1/25/2011 5:22 AM, Jordon Bedwell wrote:


/*In the Unites States you cannot be punished for refusing to
hand over encryption keys because you have the right to blindly
deny any such reasonable warrant under the 5th Amendment.*/*
This is supported by the supreme court in the case: United States
vs. Boucher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher).*
A judge cannot punish you or rule against your right to plea the
5th as there is no reasonable proof that you have given the key to
anybody else or that the encrypted information would not further
and/or aid in incriminating you.* You have the right against
self-incrimination and you also have the right to request a grand
jury be convened in the case and if they fail to support you then
you still use your 5th Amendment right.* In the United States you
truly, lawfully, undoubtedly, undeniably, unrefutably, unalterably
have the right to remain silent.* This is a guaranteed right under
the Constitution of the United States unlike other countries where
they are simply laws.




I figure I should elaborate this case before somebody calls it as
well.* The case was ultimately overturned and the magistrates
decision overturned because Boucher provided some of the contents of
the encrypted data, this immediately revoked his right to remain
silent because he well, talked :S.* Ultimately he was not required
to give the encryption key though, only the unencrypted version of
the drive because he had already supplied some of the unencrypted
contents.* So it's either full or not at all when it comes to your
fifth amendment right.



*Still not a lawyer*



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-25-2011, 12:49 PM
Doug Robinson
 
Default Strong encryption

On 11-01-24 08:47 PM, NoOp wrote:

On 01/24/2011 07:33 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
...

I had a problem unravelling his headers so I made the rash assumption
that he was in the U.S. Even if I'm wrong, there aren't many first world
countries that will kick your door down for using/exporting "strong"
encryption.

Doug has been on this list for several years (since 2008), he lives in
the British Columbia Canada area.


do you have any idea how large BC is??


Still curious what he means by "Strong Encryption" and what he is trying
to to accomplish. Without that last I reckon that any further is
speculation... even with "Thank you. There are many options; but right
now I am looking at RSA/AES|blowfish or perhaps twofish."





--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-25-2011, 02:41 PM
Aart Koelewijn
 
Default Strong encryption

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:32:18 +0100, Joep L. Blom wrote:

> On 25/01/11 11:11, Colin Law wrote:
>> On 25 January 2011 04:26, Basil Chupin<blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>> On 25/01/2011 10:08, Robert Holtzman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 04:11:51PM -0700, Doug Robinson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anybody have a feel for the problems associated with
>>>>> distributing software that employs Strong Encryption.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have looked around and there is a number of good things out there
>>>>> but I wonder if the US Feds are still throwing hissie fits every
>>>>> time this stuff appears in public?
>>>>
>>>> They probably are but since Phil Zimmermann, the creator of PGP, beat
>>>> them in court I don't think you have too much to worry about. Someone
>>>> correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Note: I am *not* a lawyer and the above is *not* legal advice.
>>>
>>> There was an article recently about a person who was placed in jail
>>> for contempt of court because he refused to provide the "authorities"
>>> his encryption key to the data on his computer. I cannot remember in
>>> which country this occurred whether it was USA, or Australia, or
>>> Britain :-( . (I *think* that the article was on BBC Online but I am
>>> not sure.)
>>
>> I think it was in the UK, a guy was charged with child pornography and
>> would not provide the key for an encrypted disk, no prizes for guessing
>> why. I believe he was found guilty anyway.
>>
>> Colin
>>
> Colin,
> It was in the Netherlands and the apprehended guy was a paedophile who
> worked in a "Kindergarten" and had misused > 80 children from 1 year to
> 10. He was part of a large paedophile network and had thousands of
> really awful paedophylic pictures on his computer but he had it really
> well encrypted. However, the police has "persuaded" him to give his
> encryption code.
> This kind of guys is be removed permanently from society. Joep

Joep, there has been no trial yet, so he is suspected of and not yet
found guilty. The case seems rather strong though. And as no one may be
forced to give evidence against himself he may well have the right not to
give those keys according to dutch law. But like you, I would not like it
if someone like him would be able to get near my grandchildren.

Aart


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-25-2011, 03:53 PM
NoOp
 
Default Strong encryption

On 01/25/2011 05:49 AM, Doug Robinson wrote:
> On 11-01-24 08:47 PM, NoOp wrote:
>> On 01/24/2011 07:33 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
>> ...
>>> I had a problem unravelling his headers so I made the rash assumption
>>> that he was in the U.S. Even if I'm wrong, there aren't many first world
>>> countries that will kick your door down for using/exporting "strong"
>>> encryption.
>> Doug has been on this list for several years (since 2008), he lives in
>> the British Columbia Canada area.
>
> do you have any idea how large BC is??

Yes. Actually I was quoting from one of your posts sometime back :-)


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:43 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org