Massachusetts high court orders suspect to decrypt his computers

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by lotuseclat79, Jun 26, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    9,252
    As noted previously, ones lawyer does the talking.
     
  2. DesuMaiden

    DesuMaiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Posts:
    599
    Yeah the golden rule is to NEVER SPEAK THE POLICE.
     
  3. justpeace

    justpeace Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Posts:
    48
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    Another case from the UK - a conviction under RIPA S.49:

    of note is that the state could not prove the suspect guilty of sending the messages but got him for failure to disclose encryption keys.

    But maybe he had forgotten the key, or the password didn't work because a datablock was corrupted.



    Interestingly the judge argues that the reason why the suspect failed to decrypt was because he was guilty of the other crime.


    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/0...al_to_give_up_crypto_keys_jail_sentence_ripa/

    Bad practice:
    Sending messages from traceable computer likely from own IP address through Facebook account

    Using easily detectable encryption that even the police could detect

    Next time:

    Do all the work from a live cd and prepare for the S.49 order.
    - Delete/wipe or relocate all encrypted data not intended for the police.
     
  4. Randcal

    Randcal Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2014
    Posts:
    76
    @S.B. getting all this?

    Also just came across this to reiterate:

    http://www.wired.com/2013/04/encrypt-your-data/
     
  5. HopelesslyFaithful

    HopelesslyFaithful Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2012
    Posts:
    65
    Location:
    IL
    i haven't been able to read this whole thread yet (halfway) but trucrypt doesn't offer plausible deniability according to an article or thread i read in the last few months. The while trucrypt hides an encrypted drive is easily noticed.

    haven't finished this article but this might have been it but not sure

    http://www.zdnet.com/schneier-research-team-cracks-truecrypt-3039448526/
     
  6. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    9,252
    This is a 2008 article about the non-deniability of hidden file containers.
     
  7. HopelesslyFaithful

    HopelesslyFaithful Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2012
    Posts:
    65
    Location:
    IL
    i thought there was a more recent issue though about trucrypt 7.1a or whatever.
     
  8. Rilla927

    Rilla927 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    1,740
    There is a way for you take control back from them and put the ball back your court, but you have to assert your true remedy that has been hidden for ever. This is all a game to them and when you don't know the rules of the game you will lose every time. First thing is to stay out of the courts. There is no justice in them and never will be. The rabbit hole goes much deeper than anyone could ever imagine. In order not to be held to these ridiculous Statutory Laws (codes and rules) you do have a choice. It's all about consent and jurisdiction! This is really how simple it is...but your not supposed to know about this because it would take money out of a lot of peoples pockets and give you back your freedom because you would have control of it.

    In order for any case to be prosecuted you have to give the Courts (judge or Administrator rather) jurisdiction and consent. They do this by getting you to answer some simple questions (without you really knowing what's happening) like please state your name, do you understand the charges etc. When you say yes to these questions you are giving them jurisdiction and consent over you. You make them prove jurisdiction from the very beginning and you do not let them move off this until you do. They will try to trick you by controlling the path of conversation with other issues to get you to respond in the way they want to get jurisdiction over you. The judge, DA, and your attorney all work for the same people and it's not you. We have entered into tons of different contracts with this government without knowing. Your signature is what gives them the majority of the jurisdiction and consent and the rest will be from your very mouth. Knowing how to respond to them in all these different situations will make all the difference in the world...a much happier one I might add.

    You can discharge anything that you receive such as a summons to appear in court. When you get it you 72 hours to reserve all your rights and act. Using a custom made stamp in blue ink "I do not accept this offer to contract and I do not consent to these procedures" on a 45 degree angle in large letters so it can't be missed...then another stamp with "Without Prejudice UCC 1-308 All Rights Reserved" and do not sign anything. Then you type up a Proof of Service or Certificate of Service (the same thing) with a Return Request Signature (you will need a stack of the green cards from the post office and send all of these "Certified Mail") with a copy of the mail# written in your sworn affidavit. This is proof that you did indeed send these documents.

    Pay close attention to whom it's from. A lot of times a private servicer is used and it will specify who they are, and if a lawyer is involved his name be on there some where, the sheriff's office, and the Clerk of Courts. You will make copies for your self for safe keeping and then send a copy of the summons after it is stamped (summons only) and the certificate of service (sworn affidavit) to the above involved parties on the summons (all of them). Do not put a return address on the envelope and you are done. See if you were to do this and only send it to the Clerk of Courts, then the sheriff could possibly be showing up at your door for you so you need to inform all parties to this issue. Believe me, it works and then some. This is just a tip of the iceberg of what you can do. I carry these stamps with me and use when necessary, like a traffic ticket. Just make sure you roll up your window when you do it because there are cops that will reach in to grab to stop you. In this situation you will put your signature on it. As soon as the Judge see's this he will dismiss it because you are not giving him jurisdiction or consent to hear the case. If the ticket is mailed to you at your home then you will follow everything with no signature and send it back. Do your research so you understand what it is you are doing. This stuff is much easier to understand over the Statutory crap we have been living under.

    When you know how to defend yourself, they can't steam roll you!

    Google Judge Dale (retired Federal Judge) that blew the whistle.

    hxxp://src-fla.us/index.php/understanding-the-fraud/14-sample-data-articles/109-legal-fraud


    hxxp://removingtheshackles.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-sovereign-citizen-by-judge-dale.html


    hxxp://shiftfrequency.com/judge-dale-retd-admiralty-courts-and-the-law-of-the-see/
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2014
  9. hawki

    hawki Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Posts:
    5,630
    Location:
    DC Metro Area
    I question the wisdom of this approach, despite the fact that in some cases you might prevail.

    Failure to appear in court in response to a summons issued by a civil or criminal court may result in the court's issuing bench warrant for your arrest for failure to appear (Contempt of Cort). While, generally in a civil action an officer of the law will not be sent to your house to arrest you, if you are ever stopped for a traffic violation you will be screened through a nation-wide data base of outstanding warrants. Should your name appear, you will be arrested on the spot. A very unfortunate situation if you live in New York and get stopped for speeding in Los Angeles. The LA's law enforcement agency's method of transporting you to New York may be less than pleaasnt.

    Also, lack of jurisdiction is generally regarded as an Affirmative Defense that YOU must argue before the court. The presumption is that if a summons civil/or criminal has been issued by an attorney or court, that they have jurisdiction over you and it is YOU that have to make the argument that they don't.

    Your advice of not signing anything may be a good idea, but it's ultimate effect is open to question.
     
  10. Tipsy

    Tipsy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    207
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19746-2004Jul1.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/19/saddam.trial/

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6218485.stm
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.