|
Sci
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2008, 02:01:22 PM » |
|
I don't imagine wrapping enamelled copper wire around your HDD and putting some mains power through it would leave easily salvageable data. Especially if you did it while it was running.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
somenamenoname
|
|
« Reply #31 on: September 28, 2008, 06:34:32 PM » |
|
If I'm not mistaken, if done right you could have a linux distro on an encrypted partition, an encrypted home and the only thing left unencrypted would be the /boot partition. If this is setup right, no data would be decrypted except in ram... then you would need to find a way to effectively destroy ram in a fast manner.
As for DBAN, yes last time I used it on a 20GB drive with a 1.5GHz processor, it took about 2 hours for the simple wipe. Overall, DBAN wouldn't be useful for a "I need to destroy it now!" situation. Good strong encryption would be best.
I wonder what would happen if some government agency confiscated a pc with a highly encrypted drive and they demanded the key but the user refused on the grounds of their right to privacy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
For anyone wondering, I'm bowing out. It was great being here but I have to move on. I wish I could stay and keep contributing here but it just can't continue.
It was fun and I thank everyone for everything they have done.
|
|
|
|
101011
|
|
« Reply #32 on: September 29, 2008, 12:22:22 PM » |
|
I wonder what would happen if some government agency confiscated a pc with a highly encrypted drive and they demanded the key but the user refused on the grounds of their right to privacy.
I would imagine being a "witness" against yourself would be unconstitutional...call me silly.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Enki
|
|
« Reply #33 on: September 29, 2008, 12:45:13 PM » |
|
I wonder what would happen if some government agency confiscated a pc with a highly encrypted drive and they demanded the key but the user refused on the grounds of their right to privacy.
I would imagine being a "witness" against yourself would be unconstitutional...call me silly. I imagine that being declared an "enemy combatant" makes that irrelevant. Fortunately, that ain't gonna happen in a copyright case. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Loopy
Ranter Level 5
Karma: 43
Posts: 870
Son Of Liberty
|
|
« Reply #34 on: September 30, 2008, 12:51:28 PM » |
|
I was just doing some random surfing and I came across this: http://tinfoilhat.shmoo.com/ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
~I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis--broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe ...In the spirit of this gift I shall take it. -FDR
|
|
|
|
destined
|
|
« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2008, 11:55:33 AM » |
|
Is there not some laws against not revealing keys in the US? (Yeah, I know there are constitutional guarantees against search and siezue and self-incrimination. But what has stopped them from going after people?)
Why not use a rolling DD with random numbers into a file but leave 10 gigs or so as free space on a hard drive in an encrypted file space? The free space changes and is over written every time the machine is turned on and all data is sent to the encrypted container..
The key to the process is to leave some free space of a set number inside the container, so a file system has area to work in and write data to but any deleted data will be over written.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nicotine
Ranter Level 2
Karma: 10
Posts: 82
Habitual Resistor
|
|
« Reply #36 on: October 05, 2008, 11:55:47 AM » |
|
Fortunately, that ain't gonna happen in a copyright case. http://www.thewavingcat.com/2007/06/11/ifpi-rhetorics-imply-that-file-sharing-supports-terrorism/http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/3/14/234939/956http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080331-us-attorney-general-piracy-funds-terror.html...and I'm sure there is more. With the Patriot Act, if they really wanted to declare you an enemy combatant and deny your right to trial, they can. Not that I think they WILL over downloading, but the possability is always there. I would imagine being a "witness" against yourself would be unconstitutional...call me silly. Your fifth amendment right not to bear witness against yourself only applies if you choose to declare it. Once you have declared your fifth amendment right in court, you will not be able to defend yourself either and all your statements so far will be stricken from record. I'm not sure it would apply to your hard drive anyways, since the Supreme Court has decided that the fifth amendment applies when an individual is compelled to testify, not to evidence seized or access to evidence. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Auribus Tenere Lupum
|
|
|
Loopy
Ranter Level 5
Karma: 43
Posts: 870
Son Of Liberty
|
|
« Reply #37 on: October 05, 2008, 01:01:04 PM » |
|
The fifth amendment only really applies to common law cases such as murder and the like. In modern civil cases the judge orders people to testify against themselves all the time. Don't believe me? Try to use it when they ask you to give them all of your tax records.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
~I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis--broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe ...In the spirit of this gift I shall take it. -FDR
|
|
|
Nicotine
Ranter Level 2
Karma: 10
Posts: 82
Habitual Resistor
|
|
« Reply #38 on: October 05, 2008, 02:05:28 PM » |
|
The fifth amendment only really applies to common law cases such as murder and the like. In modern civil cases the judge orders people to testify against themselves all the time. Don't believe me? Try to use it when they ask you to give them all of your tax records. The Fifth applies to testimony only, and not requests for evidence. UNITED STATES v. SULLIVAN, 274 U.S. 259 (1927) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=274&invol=259United States Supreme Court ruled that a taxpayer could not invoke the Fifth Amendment's protections as the basis for refusing to file a required federal income tax return. GARNER v. UNITED STATES, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=424&invol=648The Court stated that "if a witness under compulsion to testify makes disclosures instead of claiming the privilege, the Government has not 'compelled' him to incriminate himself." This case was regarding an unusually stupid criminal who listed his illegal income in his tax returns and listed his occupation as "professional gambler". Talk about your darwin award winners... MALLOY v. HOGAN, 378 U.S. 1 (1964) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=378&invol=1The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right against self-incrimination applies whether the witness is in Federal or state court, and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil. From past SCOTUS rulings, it is reasonable to assume that the Fifth amendment applies only to verbal or written testimony, and not physical evidence. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 05, 2008, 02:15:05 PM by Nicotine »
|
Logged
|
Auribus Tenere Lupum
|
|
|
2xMakina
Ranter Level 1
Karma: 12
Posts: 18
Deus Ex Machina --- God from Machine
|
|
« Reply #39 on: October 05, 2008, 04:45:17 PM » |
|
you will not be able to defend yourself either and all your statements so far will be stricken from record.
Are you certain about this, in the United States? In Liberty, 2X |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
You cannot in good conscience separate the soldier from the philosopher. The philosopher who is not a soldier is an actionless dreamer. The soldier who is not a philosopher is a mindless drone.
|
|
|
Nicotine
Ranter Level 2
Karma: 10
Posts: 82
Habitual Resistor
|
|
« Reply #40 on: October 05, 2008, 05:40:49 PM » |
|
No, as a matter of fact, I am not sure of that...
It has long been understood around here that if you choose to declare your fifth amendment right not to incriminate yourself, you are not allowed to answer questions that favor you either. However, I am having a very difficult time finding any SCOTUS ruling or law that confirms this.
I suppose it could be another of the many mistruths about the legal system that those on the inside like to perpetuate. I will look into this more... In the meantime, don't take my word on it as fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Auribus Tenere Lupum
|
|
|
Outsider
Ranter Level 3
Karma: 8
Posts: 147
Went the day well?
|
|
« Reply #41 on: October 06, 2008, 08:13:44 AM » |
|
The fifth amendment only really applies to common law cases such as murder and the like. In modern civil cases the judge orders people to testify against themselves all the time. Don't believe me? Try to use it when they ask you to give them all of your tax records. The Fifth applies to testimony only, and not requests for evidence. UNITED STATES v. SULLIVAN, 274 U.S. 259 (1927) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=274&invol=259United States Supreme Court ruled that a taxpayer could not invoke the Fifth Amendment's protections as the basis for refusing to file a required federal income tax return. GARNER v. UNITED STATES, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=424&invol=648The Court stated that "if a witness under compulsion to testify makes disclosures instead of claiming the privilege, the Government has not 'compelled' him to incriminate himself." This case was regarding an unusually stupid criminal who listed his illegal income in his tax returns and listed his occupation as "professional gambler". Talk about your darwin award winners... MALLOY v. HOGAN, 378 U.S. 1 (1964) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=378&invol=1The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right against self-incrimination applies whether the witness is in Federal or state court, and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil. From past SCOTUS rulings, it is reasonable to assume that the Fifth amendment applies only to verbal or written testimony, and not physical evidence. Doesn't apply in the UK either as one of the various Acts that have been passed over the last few years has eliminated the right to remain silent; it is now considered to imply guilt. I am currently digging a tunnel to the United States where I will surface in time to join the Robot Uprising of 2120. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"And all of us ourselves, when no man was his own."
'The Tempest' by W. Shakespeare, Act 5, Scene 1, Line 212
"It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept."
Bill Watterson
"You never know you are in prison unless you try the door."
Joseph Bageant
|
|
|
avagdu
Ranter Level 5
Karma: 67
Posts: 1336
Son Of Liberty
|
|
« Reply #42 on: October 06, 2008, 10:47:44 AM » |
|
I am currently digging a tunnel to the United States where I will surface in time to join the Robot Uprising of 2120. Nice. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty, and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies" - HL Mencken
agorism.info | r4nger5blog.tk |
|
|
|
2xMakina
Ranter Level 1
Karma: 12
Posts: 18
Deus Ex Machina --- God from Machine
|
|
« Reply #43 on: October 06, 2008, 06:28:40 PM » |
|
Watch those tectonic plates...they're tricky.
In Liberty,
2X
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
You cannot in good conscience separate the soldier from the philosopher. The philosopher who is not a soldier is an actionless dreamer. The soldier who is not a philosopher is a mindless drone.
|
|
|
|
destined
|
|
« Reply #44 on: October 06, 2008, 11:29:04 PM » |
|
And watch out for those nose dives of a marianas trench in the Alantic and Pacific Oceans. Probably best idea is to simply have them super secret fins or some thing on those robots and make them cover the ocean instead of digging a tunnel.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
