News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:DOJ: Strong encryption that we don’t have access to is “u... by AstralStorm on Friday November 10, 2017 @03:50AM (#15668725)
Can't remember is a statement that can be disproven. Pleading non self incrimination laws (as per Miranda) is more effective. Even if you have nothing incriminating.

This is what DoJ wants to close by making just possession of encrypted documents criminal.

(Note: not a lawyer.)

Re:DOJ: Strong encryption that we don’t have access to is “u... by garblegarble on Friday November 10, 2017 @05:21AM (#15668996)
>Can't remember is a statement that can be disproven

It is? I'm not sure how you'd disprove it. Anecdotally (which I suppose actually matters in this case!) I've had a case where a (fairly long, 26 character) password I used regularly suddenly (and thus far, permanently!) went out of my head. I can remember some fragments of the password but not the whole thing.

Re:DOJ: Strong encryption that we don’t have access to is “u... by jasomill on Friday November 10, 2017 @08:45AM (#15669803)
I'd say the point is that the idea that the legal system suddenly has no way to deal with witnesses claiming forgetfulness "because encryption" is absurd.

The only novel issues encryption brings to the table involve self incrimination, because, AFAIK, IANAL, etc., the only time an encryption key is inarguably protected by the fifth amendment is where the fact that the defendant knows the key is itself incriminating evidence, because the fifth amendment only applies to self-incriminating testimony, not other self-incriminating evidence in the defendant's possession (e.g., the contents of a hard drive, encrypted or not).

Re:DOJ: Strong encryption that we don’t have access to is “u... by AstralStorm on Friday November 10, 2017 @08:33AM (#15669733)
If the prosecution has evidence you have recently logged in it will be all upto whether the jury believes you.