News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard driv... by harryh on Tuesday March 21, 2017 @08:38AM (#13921607)
While it's true in a mathematical sense that one may not be able to prove that a sequence of seemingly random bits is an encrypted files that is not true in a legal sense. The law isn't about proving things 100%. The law is about weighing the available evidence and proving things to various standards (preponderance of the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, etc).

For example if if there are server logs showing I downloaded illegal files, and there are people who testify that I talked about downloading illegal files, and there is non pre-installed software on my computer that is used for encryption then probably that sequence of random bits is an encrypted file.

Maybe you can't prove it mathematically, but you can prove it legally.

Re:Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard driv... by ouid on Tuesday March 21, 2017 @11:18AM (#13922928)
the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt".

A doubt which you cannot reason away is reasonable, by definition. Therefore it is below the threshold of legal proof.

Re:Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard driv... by harryh on Tuesday March 21, 2017 @11:21AM (#13922961)
That's not what the legal term "beyond reasonable doubt" means. Beyond reasonable doubt means that a reasonable person would have no doubt that the party in question was guilty.