Should there be a constitutional right to strong encryption

[dismal]

How do you not get it: an 'unencrypted' laptop is an 'encrypted' laptop. An 'encrypted' laptop is an 'unencrypted' laptop. The terms have no meaning aside from reference contexts. Any piece of data at all can be 'decrypted' into any other piece of data. I could, given time, decrypt your laptop into child porn. Or a plot to assassinate a politician.all it requires is the correct pad to be used. the judge issued a meaningless, worthless, or illegal order. That's all there is to it. The fact that her husband happened to know her secrets is her own fault.

OK, but the court ordered her to produce a decrypted laptop. And producing such thing was possible.

These are facts that all your rhetorical dancing does not alter.

Yes, she can claim she doesn't remember the password. A person can also claim they don't remember where they put paper records the government has compelled them to produce. However non-compliance with a subpoena means they can hold her in contempt.

 

[Jarhyn]

How do you not get it: an 'unencrypted' laptop is an 'encrypted' laptop. An 'encrypted' laptop is an 'unencrypted' laptop. The terms have no meaning aside from reference contexts. Any piece of data at all can be 'decrypted' into any other piece of data. I could, given time, decrypt your laptop into child porn. Or a plot to assassinate a politician.all it requires is the correct pad to be used. the judge issued a meaningless, worthless, or illegal order. That's all there is to it. The fact that her husband happened to know her secrets is her own fault.

OK, but the court ordered her to produce a decrypted laptop. And producing such thing was possible.

These are facts that all your rhetorical dancing does not alter.

Yes, she can claim she doesn't remember the password. A person can also claim they don't remember where they put paper records the government has compelled them to produce. However non-compliance with a subpoena means they can hold her in contempt.

'Producing an unencrypted laptop' is literally creating a bunch of data using a mnemonic. The data is in two pieces. One piece of data lives in the head of the person being charged. Either price without the other is nonsense.

I can't educate you on encryption or what it is or how it works, when to use it and why, or what it's implications are to information theory or language. It would take years and I don't even know if your brain has infrastructure such that it could handle the subject.

I don't even know if you understand the basics of an XOR.

I don't even think you've shown, in all the time I have known of you, the ability to construct models.

You are blind and mocking those who speak of 'sight' and 'color' and I pity you.

 

[dismal]

OK, but the court ordered her to produce a decrypted laptop. And producing such thing was possible.

These are facts that all your rhetorical dancing does not alter.

Yes, she can claim she doesn't remember the password. A person can also claim they don't remember where they put paper records the government has compelled them to produce. However non-compliance with a subpoena means they can hold her in contempt.

'Producing an unencrypted laptop' is literally creating a bunch of data using a mnemonic. The data is in two pieces. One piece of data lives in the head of the person being charged. Either price without the other is nonsense.

I can't educate you on encryption or what it is or how it works, when to use it and why, or what it's implications are to information theory or language. It would take years and I don't even know if your brain has infrastructure such that it could handle the subject.

I don't even know if you understand the basics of an XOR.

I don't even think you've shown, in all the time I have known of you, the ability to construct models.

You are blind and mocking those who speak of 'sight' and 'color' and I pity you.

The world must be tough for a genius such as yourself.

 

[fromderinside]

Again, you don't seem to have mastered the art of reading what I actually wrote.

You should try it. Might help.

Wow. Great contribution there/shutup

 

[dismal]

Again, you don't seem to have mastered the art of reading what I actually wrote.

You should try it. Might help.

Wow. Great contribution there/shutup

Yes, my humble contribution to the thread is limited to producing links to all the relevant cases and telling Jahyrn he is either not reading or misconstruing my posts.

But you, you produced this gem of a post for the ages.

We are all so grateful.

 

[Jarhyn]

'Producing an unencrypted laptop' is literally creating a bunch of data using a mnemonic. The data is in two pieces. One piece of data lives in the head of the person being charged. Either price without the other is nonsense.

I can't educate you on encryption or what it is or how it works, when to use it and why, or what it's implications are to information theory or language. It would take years and I don't even know if your brain has infrastructure such that it could handle the subject.

I don't even know if you understand the basics of an XOR.

I don't even think you've shown, in all the time I have known of you, the ability to construct models.

You are blind and mocking those who speak of 'sight' and 'color' and I pity you.

The world must be tough for a genius such as yourself.

Only when sophists attempt to prognosticate about cryptography.

Then, you must be some kind of super-genius. You seem to know every aspect of constitutional law enough to shame Supreme Court justices, enough about climat scientists to consider the establishment of global warming a hoax, you seem to know enough about philosophy to consider decades of rebuttals to Ayn Rand vacuous, and you know enough about linguistic and information theory to say you know the nature and best uses of cryptography.

Or perhaps you know about none of those things and are simply full of shit. It's hard enough just pursuing both information theory and philosophy. Hell, you'd probably argue about this with me even if I were Alan fucking Turing.

 

[dismal]

The world must be tough for a genius such as yourself.

Only when sophists attempt to prognosticate about cryptography.

Then, you must be some kind of super-genius. You seem to know every aspect of constitutional law enough to shame Supreme Court justices, enough about climat scientists to consider the establishment of global warming a hoax, you seem to know enough about philosophy to consider decades of rebuttals to Ayn Rand vacuous, and you know enough about linguistic and information theory to say you know the nature and best uses of cryptography.

Or perhaps you know about none of those things and are simply full of shit. It's hard enough just pursuing both information theory and philosophy. Hell, you'd probably argue about this with me even if I were Alan fucking Turing.

It does not take super genius level talent to find relevant links to relevant court cases and read them.

The real genius belongs to those who can come up with flowery rhetorical verbal dances that have little to do with reality, all for reasons entirely incomprehensible to us more pedestrian thinkers.

 

[fromderinside]

It does not take super genius level talent to find relevant links to relevant court cases and read them.

I'm sure the wisdom of courts on the technology of electronic privacy is going to lead us somewhere other than, say, another  Dred Scott decision?

I, for one, am looking forward to another  Civil War

Eyup. Great skill required to bring up references relevant to  the court and cryptolology security (sic)./cryptololgylesson

 

[Jarhyn]

Only when sophists attempt to prognosticate about cryptography.

Then, you must be some kind of super-genius. You seem to know every aspect of constitutional law enough to shame Supreme Court justices, enough about climat scientists to consider the establishment of global warming a hoax, you seem to know enough about philosophy to consider decades of rebuttals to Ayn Rand vacuous, and you know enough about linguistic and information theory to say you know the nature and best uses of cryptography.

Or perhaps you know about none of those things and are simply full of shit. It's hard enough just pursuing both information theory and philosophy. Hell, you'd probably argue about this with me even if I were Alan fucking Turing.

It does not take super genius level talent to find relevant links to relevant court cases and read them.

The real genius belongs to those who can come up with flowery rhetorical verbal dances that have little to do with reality, all for reasons entirely incomprehensible to us more pedestrian thinkers.

Incomprehensible to you maybe. Not incomprehensible to others. Most people have no difficulty I. Understanding that encryption is not a lock, and the reasons why. then again most people can grasp the idea that words have no intrinsic meaning either, nor does money, nor does anything, except given a context, and that any context you wish can be used as a perspective on any given thing, though it won't necessarily help much.

You can't grasp the concept that encryption is a transformation of data, which renders it into two separate pieces, without the context of the other, either is meaningless.

The request for the context of a piece of information is in act no different than asking for the context of any other information. It is a request that someone explain a thing with a context, to provide absent metadata. The fifth is a right to not be forced to give testimony, or release information that exists only in your head, and which incriminates you. The meaning which the court wants to probe does not exist without the context, and the context, in a case where the defendant doesn't give their secrets away, is the private knowledge of the defendant. No more than the meaning of a person in an alleyway soaked in blood has meaning without a corpse, a missing person, a DNA test, or some other context which reveals Criminal activities.

You argue that she can be held in contempt, and I argue that the constitution disagrees, and if she is, it is an illegal action. Of course, sometimes illegal actions are taken. Sometimes illegal actions SHOULD be taken. I do not believe this is I e of those times.

Nothing will change the fact that encryption is an act of separating a meaning into two or more constituent contexts.

 

[coloradoatheist]

What happens in a court case where you are asked to produce a document and you take the document shred it, and give it to the government?

 

[fromderinside]

What happens in a court case where you are asked to produce a document and you take the document shred it, and give it to the government?

The one required to produce the document is thrown in jail since the government presumably made the request by legal means, a warrant, meaning they are entitled to the original meaning of the content.

 

[coloradoatheist]

What happens in a court case where you are asked to produce a document and you take the document shred it, and give it to the government?

The one required to produce the document is thrown in jail since the government presumably made the request by legal means, a warrant, meaning they are entitled to the original meaning of the content.

Yeah, they would hold you in contempt or charge you with destroying evidence. Same thing would be in the case of an encrypted laptop. You don't have to give them the documents, but you are compelled to gived them the documents. So do people have the same problem with the government requiring people to hand over documents under a warrant?

 

[Jarhyn]

What happens in a court case where you are asked to produce a document and you take the document shred it, and give it to the government?

The one required to produce the document is thrown in jail since the government presumably made the request by legal means, a warrant, meaning they are entitled to the original meaning of the content.

No. They charge you with destruction of evidence. But they can't charge you for non-construction of evidence. If you shredded the document before they asked for it, or better, if the document never existed in the first place, then what can they charge you with? Failure to incriminate yourself?

 

[coloradoatheist]

The one required to produce the document is thrown in jail since the government presumably made the request by legal means, a warrant, meaning they are entitled to the original meaning of the content.

No. They charge you with destruction of evidence. But they can't charge you for non-construction of evidence. If you shredded the document before they asked for it, or better, if the document never existed in the first place, then what can they charge you with? Failure to incriminate yourself?

You also have the Obstruction of Justice which includes a wide variety of activities of which concealing evidence is one. So I think it's pretty easy for the court to say that you must turn over an unencrypted laptop or face obstruction charges.

 

[HelixSpiral]

If you wrote all your documents in a language no one but you understood, could the court legally compel you to translate it?

 

[dismal]

No. They charge you with destruction of evidence. But they can't charge you for non-construction of evidence. If you shredded the document before they asked for it, or better, if the document never existed in the first place, then what can they charge you with? Failure to incriminate yourself?

You also have the Obstruction of Justice which includes a wide variety of activities of which concealing evidence is one. So I think it's pretty easy for the court to say that you must turn over an unencrypted laptop or face obstruction charges.

If you disobey a court order you are subject to being held in contempt. No trial, the judges just whacks the table and off to jail you go.

Imagine what would happen if the court subpoenas a document from you and you tell them you forgot where you put it. Pretty sure this result in you being held in contempt unless you had a pretty convincing argument you actually did forget.

 

[dismal]

If you wrote all your documents in a language no one but you understood, could the court legally compel you to translate it?

It would seem a bit pointless because you could say it said anything.

It's a cook book, a cook book!

 

[Jarhyn]

If you wrote all your documents in a language no one but you understood, could the court legally compel you to translate it?

It would seem a bit pointless because you could say it said anything.

It's a cook book, a cook book!

and now you might have a hope of understanding encryption!

 

[coloradoatheist]

If you wrote all your documents in a language no one but you understood, could the court legally compel you to translate it?

But what would the courts say okay Enron "You changed all your profit hiding emails and then just decided to randomly write numbers on the screen and say that was the email" Could Enron get away with that?

 

[Jarhyn]

If you wrote all your documents in a language no one but you understood, could the court legally compel you to translate it?

But what would the courts say okay Enron "You changed all your profit hiding emails and then just decided to randomly write numbers on the screen and say that was the email" Could Enron get away with that?

And then comes the foil of every court everywhere, that pesky but about needing to prove that you did it before punishing you.