Invisible Secrets Encryption Suite

exactly my point what I was trying to say. it is not the issue that the code is free. cause it is. it is there for everybody. just need to program good.

 

Hi Peter. I have no idea what you might be referring to. I know of no case where someone was ordered to hand over passwords, like in the UK. If they were the whole case would be thrown out of court in a split second. In the United States, every person charged with ANY crime has the right to remain silent. That also applies to any investigation before charges are filed. Nobody can be ordered to hand over passwords. No court order can force one to hand over passwords. There have been test cases on this, but way back in the 80's. It is so fundamental a right in the United States, that nobody has since challenged the right to remain silent and the right against self incrimination. These are fundamental rights of any defendant in America.
Gerard

 

Even without the patriot act - it doesn't matter. The 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination is not all-emcompassing - it only relates to testimonial evidence. Non-testimonial evidence is not covered or protected and includes things such as blood samples, an individuals appearance, fingerprints, records/documents, voice recordings, etc. A password to unlock records or other non-testimonial evidence would not be considered by the Supreme Court as testimonial evidence.

 

It should additionally be noted that that is the minimum level of protection according to federal precedent and individual states are free to offer more individual protection than the federal minimum.

 

who would be non affiliated and trustworthy and could test the program if it doing the tasks it is supposed to do? what if let's say: cryptosuite or bestcrypt not using any secure algorithms? this would be very important to know now since I am planning to purchase something but now I am doubting. I really really like Invisible Secrets and their Steganography is tested good. but how do you test a programs' cryptography?

Thanx

 

No, no, no. The PATRIOT Act has nothing to say on this matter at all. Nothing. As for the Fifth Amendment, it protects a defendant from the MOMENT he or she is arrested. In 1966, the US Supreme Court even ruled that law enforcement is REQUIRED to tell an individual of these rights. It is known as the Miranda ruling and the Miranda warning is known to all Americans.
----------
Miranda warning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Miranda warning is given by police officers of the United States to suspects who they have arrested and intend to question. The Miranda Rights were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda Warning is a means of protecting a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right not to be subjected to coerced self-incrimination. This principle of law, though under different names, has been adopted in some other jurisdictions that derive their legal systems from English common law.
-------------

The Miranda warning must be given in some variation of the following:
''You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost.'''

The 5th amendment protects anyone being questioned by the police, not only to a defendant on trial. This was the PURPOSE of Miranda, so that suspects facing questioning know they have the right to remain silent. Silent means silent with no exceptions and that includes any self incriminating evidence like passwords.

As for blood samples, DNA and the like. None of this is self incrimination, which has been defined as primarily knowledge of ones own actions. Even with DNA, it cannot be required of a suspect and must be obtained in sometimes sneaky ways by law enforcement. i.e.: Following a suspect and picking up a cigarette butt, finding blood samples within a home after a search warrant has been obtained, getting a suspect to touch a glass to use for fingerprints, are but a few examples. If law enforcement finds a password written down in your home, it is fair game and is not protected. Not offering up a password verbally, however, is constitutionally protected in America.

More on the 5th Amendment and Miranda can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_Warning

Regards,
Gerard

 

Peter,

Every American should understand this. NO COURT ORDER can supercede the constitution of the United States. Period. None. No court would issue such an order in the United States. Like I said in an earlier post, this was last visited by the courts in the EIGHTIES, that's how clearcut this is. In the nineties, they went after Zimmerman and PGP because they saw it as a threat. The whole thing was dropped because there was just no way around the issue constitutionally. The fifth amendment is alive and well. NOBODY can be forced to give up a password, known only to themselves, in the United States. In the UK? Yep. It's called the RIP laws, I believe. In the US, nobody is forced to incriminate themselves. No "court order" can force you to give up your fifth amendment rights.

 

Why a PM? It's no secret. Random generated passkeys stored on removable media have been around for a long time. Keep it on a floppy, USB drive, whatever you want. You also equated learning Windows XP to learning cryptography. Pete, you can't compare the two. One is an operating system and the other is a mathematical science. The IMPLEMENTATION of strong and open cryptography is as important as the algorithm used. Programs using crypto libraries are a dime a dozen. It takes a cryptographer to properly implement strong cryptography. Do you think major corporations use off-the-shelf $49 encryption programs? No, they don't. They hire cryptographers to properly secure their data. The rest use PGP. That's what the statistics tell us. No Fortune 500 company would EVER trust a closed-source, boxed or downloaded program for their security. There's a reason for that.

 

peter: you are wrong about the law in the USA. Gerald is right on this. A pass key is nothing special. You haven't used encryption much?

 

But still, the product is good to me, if not why? they must be good cause they are tested by cryptographers. it is just that some people cannot understand why they do some things others won't do like building a generator for making passwords, and the IP 2 IP password transfer, I checked it with the Port Explorer...only the password it exchanged and IP. so that is OK too...really I dont understand.

good eve;

inf.

 

I head sometime back about someone who had to do that (kind of a urban internet myth/legend) but he had a setup where if a certain password was used that a gui would pop up give and the appearance is was decrypting the files on the hard drive with a progress bar but was really doing a low level format and then some how ceased the hard drive after the format finished. He gave that password to the arresting authorities they used it, wiped and killed the hard drive and he got off due to lack of evidence.