Which Drive Encryptor for this?

[Jim Brown]

Have a look at the respective laws and regulations....

Done that. List the law or regulation that allows them to do anything
more than refuse you entry when you have done nothing illegal.

You can't, it does not exist.

 

[Arno]

Done that. List the law or regulation that allows them to do anything
more than refuse you entry when you have done nothing illegal.

You can't, it does not exist.

If you say so. I will continue to perform my risk analysis on
what they actually have done to people.

Arno

 

[Jim Brown]

If you say so. I will continue to perform my risk analysis on
what they actually have done to people.

You can't even list even a single example of them having done
anything to anyone except refuse them entry to their country.

Not one individual has EVER ended up in Gitmo that way or in a US jail either.

 

[abcd]

You do nkow that they can just require you to give them the
passphrase and if you refuse send you back after a few
days of incarceration?


Unless you drop the win98 requirement, you as likely out of luck.


Well. There is nothing usable without installation for win98.
With XP it is difficult. What about using Linux, e.g. a
Knoppix USB-Stick install with encrypted partition (all
standard Knoppix fearures)? That does not require any installation,
just a reboot. And a reboot is a very good idea anyways to get
around spyware on computers not yours.

Arno

Arno are you still reading replies (or anyone else wish to address this
comment?):
You're partly wrong. Drivecrypt works under 98SE but only for containers
up to 4GB. Under XP it will do partitions much larger. Also many cafes
disable usb boot so there goes your idea of using a linux usb stick.
Drivecrypt has a mode that does not require installation for access to
the encrypted volumes.

 

[Arno]

Arno are you still reading replies (or anyone else wish to address this
comment?):
You're partly wrong. Drivecrypt works under 98SE but only for containers
up to 4GB.

As answer to "4 GB-no good for my purposes." I am not partially
wrong, I am right.

Under XP it will do partitions much larger. Also many cafes
disable usb boot so there goes your idea of using a linux usb stick.

Not rally. I would not decrypt a flash drive with data of value
into a computer that you cannot assure has a clean OS. So I would
say these cafes do not qualify for what the OP wants to do anyways.

Drivecrypt has a mode that does not require installation for access to
the encrypted volumes.

Yes, but if there is malware on the computer reading everyting after
decryption, what is the point?

Arno

 

[Ed Light]

Drivecrypt has a mode that does not require installation for access to
the encrypted volumes.

Does it require administrator mode?
--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks, robots.

 

[Arno]

I can't say I've heard of any examples. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't
have any direct links for what I write here - I heard about it when the
various laws were passed by Bush, which was a while ago. However...

If a non-citizen in the USA is suspected of terrorism, he can be
detained without charge indefinitely. The authorities (police, FBI,
DHS, etc.) do not have to inform anyone - that includes the person's
family and his country's embassy in the USA. He can be interrogated
using techniques that most people would consider torture (though some of
the most obvious torture methods, such as water boarding, are no longer
permitted.) He has no rights to a lawyer or to know what charges, if
any, and levelled against him. He can be detained indefinitely (at
Gitmo or anywhere else) without any charge, or he can be tried in a
closed military court with no civil lawyers involved. This court has
the power to hand down the death sentence - and they don't need to
inform the person's family until it's time to collect the body.

I have never heard of this happening, and I don't believe it could have
happened without the news leaking out.

But the law allows this total disregard of human rights, as long as
someone can be accused of "terrorism" in some way - with "terrorism"
being a very broad and vague term.

I have no doubt that if you arrive off a plane in the USA, and an
airport official suspects that the encrypted partition on your PC holds
something terrorist-related (and remember it's /their/ definition that
counts, not reality), then you will suffer a lot more than just being
sent home on the next flight. You won't disappear into some black hole
(unless you come from an "evil" country, of course), but you will not be
having a pleasant stay.

Of course, a more realistic scenario is that if the border guards see
you have an encrypted partition, they will confiscate your laptop and
demand your access keys. Legally (in the USA), it's like asking you to
unlock your suitcase for a search. They will take the device away to
search of evidence of the one crime that is worse than "terrorism" -
"piracy".

Well, I think that may be the law, but is rather unlikely to happen,
at least to anymbody from a country that would genuinely care.

Also, while thay want you to belive you have to hand over the
encryption keys, the current state of affairs seems to be that
they tried that (including putting the suspect in jail), but
it ultimately failed as some high cpur rouled that telling
them the keys was self-incrimination.

The case I remember where they tried to force the keys out
of someboy involved a case of double-stupiditu: The person in
question was crossing the broder while having child-pornography
displayed on his laptop display and the customs officer saf that.
They then confiscated the laptop, but forgot that laptop batteries
has a limited charge and, sicne the drive was encrypted, could
not get in anymore. Then they tried to force the keys out of
the person (who has by now activated his last remaining
brain-cell and got a lawyer) with a number of nice threats,
that were derviced from the Bush laws you quote. AFAIK the person
was originally also ordered by a court to hand over the keys,
but that got reversed on appeal.

Side note: Laws, like in the UK, that allows them to demand
the keys or else imprison you, are completely stupid. What
if I do not have the key or genuinely forgot (after being
roughened up, for example)? There is no way to prove you
do _not_ know something and in all modern legal systems
innocent until proven guilty is a very fundamental principle,
that protects, among other things, against a police-state.

Back to border-crossing: There are people that have had their
laptops confiscated and not returned for months (or ever) and
denying you entry can mean that you spend a week or more in a
cell at immigration while they organize your deportation.
It can also mean that you will be forbidden to ever enter the
US again.

The last one is the real kicker. So again, best not carry
anything encrypted when crossing the US border and make
sure that is obvious.

Arno

 

[Jim Brown]

I can't say I've heard of any examples.

There aren't any. There would be a massive stink if it had ever happened and it hasn't.

I'm not a lawyer,

That's obvious.

and I don't have any direct links for what I write here - I heard about it when the various laws were passed by Bush,
which was a while ago.

What you ACTUALLY heard is CLAIMS by those who
opposed those changes, a different matter entirely.

However...

If a non-citizen in the USA is suspected of terrorism, he can be detained without charge indefinitely.

That is a bare faced lie. The most they can do in customs is to
refuse you entry to their country. They can't detain a non citizen.

The authorities (police, FBI, DHS, etc.) do not have to inform anyone - that includes the person's family and his
country's embassy in the USA.

Another lie.

He can be interrogated using techniques that most people would consider torture

Another lie. Obama has stopped that even with Gitmo.

(though some of the most obvious torture methods, such as water boarding, are no longer permitted.)

No torture is permitted.

He has no rights to a lawyer or to know what charges, if any, and levelled against him.

Another lie. List the law that says anything like that. You can't it doesnt exist.

He can be detained indefinitely (at Gitmo or anywhere else) without any charge,

Another lie with someone who attempts to enter the
US using the normal customs and immigration system.

or he can be tried in a closed military court with no civil lawyers involved.

Another lie with someone who attempts to enter the
US using the normal customs and immigration system.

This court has the power to hand down the death sentence

Another lie with someone who attempts to enter the
US using the normal customs and immigration system.

and they don't need to inform the person's family until it's time to collect the body.

Another lie with someone who attempts to enter the
US using the normal customs and immigration system.

I have never heard of this happening,

And you certainly would have if it had ever happened.

The reason you haven't is because it has never
happened with someone who attempts to enter the
US using the normal customs and immigration system.

and I don't believe it could have happened without the news leaking out.

Corse it couldn't, so when it hasn't its a lie that it could.

But the law allows this total disregard of human rights, as long as someone can be accused of "terrorism" in some
way - with "terrorism" being a very broad and vague term.

But showing up in customs/immigration with a device that may
or may not have something encrypted on it do NOT qualify.

You dont even see anything like that happening with
those who show up with a bomb in their shoes etc either.

Those have to be charged and convicted, just like anyone else who does anything illegal.

I have no doubt that if you arrive off a plane in the USA, and an airport official suspects that the encrypted
partition on your PC holds something terrorist-related (and remember it's /their/ definition that counts, not
reality),

Thats another lie with the legal system.

then you will suffer a lot more than just being sent home on the next flight.

Have fun listing even a single example of that ever happening.

You can't it doesn't exist.

You won't disappear into some black hole (unless you come from an "evil" country, of course),

Have fun listing even a single example of that ever happening.

You can't it doesn't exist.

but you will not be having a pleasant stay.

Have fun listing even a single example of that ever happening.

You can't it doesn't exist.

Of course, a more realistic scenario is that if the border guards see
you have an encrypted partition, they will confiscate your laptop and
demand your access keys. Legally (in the USA), it's like asking you
to unlock your suitcase for a search.

Wrong again.

They will take the device away to search of evidence of the one crime that is worse than "terrorism" - "piracy".

They can search all they like. The worst they can ever do is refuse you entry to their country.

 

[Jim Brown]

Well, I think that may be the law,

It isn't.

but is rather unlikely to happen,

It's never happened.

at least to anymbody from a country that would genuinely care.

It's never happened to anyone from any country.

Also, while thay want you to belive you have to hand over
the encryption keys, the current state of affairs seems to
be that they tried that (including putting the suspect in jail),

No it did not.

but it ultimately failed as some high cpur rouled
that telling them the keys was self-incrimination.

Of course it is.

The case I remember where they tried to force the keys out
of someboy involved a case of double-stupiditu: The person in
question was crossing the broder while having child-pornography
displayed on his laptop display and the customs officer saf that.

Thats clearly illegal right thruout the first world.

They then confiscated the laptop, but forgot that laptop batteries
has a limited charge and, sicne the drive was encrypted, could
not get in anymore. Then they tried to force the keys out of
the person (who has by now activated his last remaining
brain-cell and got a lawyer) with a number of nice threats,
that were derviced from the Bush laws you quote.

The bush laws say nothing about child porn.

AFAIK the person was originally also ordered by a court
to hand over the keys, but that got reversed on appeal.

Because it is self incrimination.

Side note: Laws, like in the UK, that allows
them to demand the keys or else imprison you,

There are no such laws.

are completely stupid. What if I do not have the key or
genuinely forgot (after being roughened up, for example)?

Thats illegal.

There is no way to prove you do _not_ know something
and in all modern legal systems innocent until proven guilty
is a very fundamental principle, that protects, among other
things, against a police-state.

And that is why there is no such law.

Back to border-crossing: There are people that have had their
laptops confiscated and not returned for months (or ever) and
denying you entry can mean that you spend a week or more in
a cell at immigration while they organize your deportation.

Thats a lie.

It can also mean that you will be forbidden to ever enter the US again.

Yes, they are certainly allowed to be selective about who they let into their country.

The last one is the real kicker.
Nope.

So again, best not carry anything encrypted when
crossing the US border and make sure that is obvious.

Thats not going to help you if some government fool decides
that they dont like the way you behave and you cant provide
what they decide is an adequate reason to visit their country.

Some fool can just decide that that is just the way an effective terrorist would operate.

 

[Jim Brown]

As I said, it's not going to happen - but I don't like the fact that the law allows it.

It doesn't.

Incidentally, I am not sure that US citizens have that much more protection from their own authorities as long as
someone claims there is terrorism in the air.

They have to do more than just claim it.

So your choice is between handing over the keys, or going to jail?
Nope.

Marvellous.

Its a lie, because of that self incrimination defence.

The USA is not alone in this - in the UK you can be jailed for
refusing to hand over encryption keys to the authorities.

No you can't. List the law. You can't, it doesnt exist.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for people with child porn - nor with
someone this stupid. My concern is for people with perfectly innocent
reasons for not wanting their laptops (phones, cameras, whatever) searched.

The most you risk is entry to the country being refused and your
time being wasted as they ship you back to where you came from.

And again, I don't consider being jailed until an appeal case as a very good alternative.

That cant happen when there was nothing illegal visible ever.

I agree entirely.

You're both wrong anyway.

It might not be Gitmo,

It certainly can't be Gitmo.

but it is certainly going to put a damper on your holiday.

Yes, just being refused entry will do that.

No wonder they call it the war on tourism!

You'll end up blind if you don't watch out.

Also note that "encrypted" is, like everything else, in the eye of the beholder.

Legally, it isnt.

If the border guards don't know what Linux is, and think "Ubuntu" sounds like it might be Arabic, then you are guilty
until proven innocent.

Another pig ignorant lie.

If you are lucky, you can explain it to a supervisor in a few hours (after you've missed your connecting flights). If
your unlucky, your attempted explanations are considered patronising and probably communist and un-American.

You don't have a ****ing clue about how it happens in the real world.

Even the stupidest govt ape can use google.

 

[Arno]

No you can't. List the law. You can't, it doesnt exist.

Enough if this nonsense. Just one reference to show you have your
head in the sand:

UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), Part 2, Section 49:
They can send you to prison for 2 years if you refuse to hand over
crypto keys and 5 years in terrorist cases.

And it is being used:

https://p10.secure.hostingprod.com/...ot-revealing-cryptographic-keys-to-theka.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/11/ripa_iii_figures/

Result of 5 minutes Googeling. Obviously you do not want
to know what is going on. That is fine by me if you want to
deceive yourself, but stop spreading your untruths here.

Incidentally, I now expect you to say, "ok, the UK
does it, but you have given no evidence the US does it,
I am right after all for the US". As the point was only
to show that you have no clue, and I have done that now
by proving one of the items you claim was definitely
unture, I do not need to give any further evidence.

Arno

 

[Jim Brown]

Arno wrote

Enough if this nonsense. Just one reference to show you have your head in the sand:

We'll see...

UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), Part 2, Section 49:
They can send you to prison for 2 years if you refuse to hand over crypto keys

Doesnt say that.

and 5 years in terrorist cases.

Or that either.

Lets have a look at what it ACTUALLY says, shall we ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000

'The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c.23) (RIP or RIPA)
is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, regulating the powers of
public bodies to carry out surveillance and investigation, and covering the
interception of communications'

Note the last. Whats on your laptop etc as you come thru CUSTOMS
is NOT COMMUNICATIONS. In spades when some goon believes
that there is something encrypted on it when there isnt.

Summary
RIPA regulates the manner in which certain public bodies may conduct
surveillance and access a person's electronic communications. The Act:

enables certain public bodies to demand that an ISP
provide access to a customer's communications in secret;
enables mass surveillance of communications in transit;
enables certain public bodies to demand ISPs fit equipment to facilitate surveillance;
enables certain public bodies to demand that someone hand over keys to protected information;
allows certain public bodies to monitor people's internet activities;
prevents the existence of interception warrants and any data collected with them from being revealed in court.

Whats on your laptop etc as you come thru CUSTOMS nothing like any of that.
In spades when some goon believes that there is something encrypted on it when there isnt.

And it is being used:

Not with those coming thru customs and immigration it aint.

https://p10.secure.hostingprod.com/...ot-revealing-cryptographic-keys-to-theka.html

Nothing to do with someone going thru customs/immigration.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/11/ripa_iii_figures/

Nothing to do with someone going thru customs/immigration.

Result of 5 minutes Googeling.

Pity its got absolutely NOTHING to do with what is actually being discussed.

Obviously you do not want to know what is going on.

You clearly dont.

That is fine by me if you want to deceive yourself,
but stop spreading your untruths here.

You're the one doing that.

Incidentally, I now expect you to say, "ok, the UK
does it, but you have given no evidence the US
does it, I am right after all for the US".

You haven't got a shred of evidence that Britain does it with the situation we are discussing.

As the point was only to show that you have no clue, and I have done
that now by proving one of the items you claim was definitely unture,

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying.

I do not need to give any further evidence.

Corse you do with the situation being discussed, CUSTOMS AND IMMIGRATION.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> David Brown

I can't say I've heard of any examples. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't
have any direct links for what I write here - I heard about it when the
various laws were passed by Bush, which was a while ago. However...

If a non-citizen in the USA is suspected of terrorism, he can be
detained without charge indefinitely. The authorities (police, FBI,
DHS, etc.) do not have to inform anyone - that includes the person's
family and his country's embassy in the USA. He can be interrogated
using techniques that most people would consider torture (though some of
the most obvious torture methods, such as water boarding, are no longer
permitted.) He has no rights to a lawyer or to know what charges, if
any, and levelled against him. He can be detained indefinitely (at
Gitmo or anywhere else) without any charge, or he can be tried in a
closed military court with no civil lawyers involved. This court has
the power to hand down the death sentence - and they don't need to
inform the person's family until it's time to collect the body.

I have never heard of this happening, and I don't believe it could have
happened without the news leaking out.

Just ask Maher Arar who was detained for weeks without a lawyer, then
deported to a country other than his origin or destination despite being
welcome to proceed to his destination (where he held citizenship), all
for the crime of having a connecting flight in the US while Arab.

But the law allows this total disregard of human rights, as long as
someone can be accused of "terrorism" in some way - with "terrorism"
being a very broad and vague term.

There's no such requirement to claim terrorism, it's just a convenient
way to reframe the issue. You simply have no rights until you're
assigned rights by border services.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> David Brown

I don't have a lot of sympathy for people with child porn - nor with
someone this stupid. My concern is for people with perfectly innocent
reasons for not wanting their laptops (phones, cameras, whatever) searched.

How about for people just suspected of child porn, even if they don't
have any?

How about when the customers officer just didn't like your attitude so
they threw a "suspect child porn" label on you just for giggles?

 

[Jim Brown]

DevilsPGD wrote

David Brown


How about for people just suspected of child porn, even if they don't
have any?

How about when the customers officer just didn't like your attitude
so they threw a "suspect child porn" label on you just for giggles?

They need proof in a court of law in any country I care to visit.

 

[Jim Brown]

In message <[email protected]> David Brown


Just ask Maher Arar who was detained for weeks without a lawyer, then
deported to a country other than his origin or destination despite
being welcome to proceed to his destination (where he held
citizenship), all for the crime of having a connecting flight in the
US while Arab.

That wasnt his crime.

There's no such requirement to claim terrorism, it's just a convenient
way to reframe the issue. You simply have no rights until you're
assigned rights by border services.

Thats a lie with citizens.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "Jim Brown"

That wasnt his crime.

He didn't commit any crime, nor was he even accused of one.

 

[Jim Brown]

DevilsPGD wrote

In message <[email protected]> "Jim Brown"

He didn't commit any crime,

You don't know that.

nor was he even accused of one.

Another lie.

 

[Jim Brown]

David Brown wrote

Actually, if you look at what I /actually/ said, I made a side point
that in the UK you can be jailed for refusing to hand over encryption
keys to the relevant authorities.

Pity you cant in the situation being discussed, coming thru customs/immigration
and some goon decides with no evidence what so ever that you might have
encrypted something on your electronic device.

The worst they can do if you arent an EU citizen is refuse you entry to their country.

I didn't say it was referring to customs and immigration

Pity that was what was being discussed.

(though in fact it also applies there

No it does NOT. The UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), ONLY
applys to COMMUNICATIONS, not physical devices at customs/immigration.

- and no, I don't know of any cases when it has been applied there).

Because there isn't even a single one.

I also didn't say whether it applied to laptop or to communications.

The UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) does tho.

I am aware this is a slight sidetrack from earlier posts,

It is in fact completely irrelevant to what was being discussed.

but that's how Usenet conversations work.

Like hell it is.

If you arrive in the UK with a laptop, you will not be searched or asked to show its contents unless the border police
have good cause for suspicion.

Thats another pig ignorant lie.

But if they do search it, and find encrypted data, and they have suspicion that it is hiding a serious crime
(typically
terrorism or child porn), then they /will/ take both you and the
laptop into custody until they have found out what's on the disk.

Another pig ignorant lie if there is no evidence of what is encrypted.

They will arrest you first, and let the lawyers argue about the letter of the law afterwards.

Another pig ignorant lie. You cant list even a single example
of that ever happening with no evidence of what is encrypted.

Perhaps you will be released, or perhaps the scope of the law will be expanded

There is no such law that allows anything like that with CUSTOMS AND IMMIGRATION.

- it depends on the case.

Like hell it does.

And if you think I am exaggerating,

I know you are pig ignorantly lying.

here's a couple of links.

None of which have anything to do with what is being discussed,
what CUSTOMS AND IMMIGRATION can do if ALL THEY HAVE
is evidence that SOMETHING has been encrypted on a laptop
thats coming thru customs and immigration.

These are all UK cases, not USA - simply because I am more familiar with them. I am not aware that the situation in
the USA is significantly different in principle

It is anyway.

(though the details of the law varies),

There is no US law that allows anyone to be arrested if they refuse
to provide the key with an encrypted laptop in customs/immigration.

The worst they can do is refuse you entry into their country and they
can do that on any grounds like not believing you are a tourist etc.

and I'm sure that lots of other countries have the same or worse failings.

Your surety is completely irrelevant. You havent got a clue about even the most basic law.

Note that in general I think the police in the UK (and presumably the
USA) do an excellent job under often very difficult circumstances. The situations described here are caused by
fear-mongering from a
political level leading to wide-ranging and abusive laws, and
paranoid public and police. And this is something that the UK
definitely acquired from the USA.

Arrested for suspiciously carrying a rucksack:
<http://www.globalissues.org/article/565/suspicious-behaviour-on-the-tube-london-underground>

Nothing to do with what is being discussed, an ENCRYPTED LAPTOP IN CUSTOMS/IMMIGRATION.

Arrested for taking photos:
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest>

Nothing to do with what is being discussed, an ENCRYPTED LAPTOP IN CUSTOMS/IMMIGRATION.

Arrested for refusing to hand over a decryption key:
<http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/crime-refusal-to-de-crypt/>

Nothing to do with what is being discussed, an ENCRYPTED LAPTOP IN CUSTOMS/IMMIGRATION.

Try again.

 

[Jim Brown]

Oh, I have plenty of sympathy for people wrongly accused of having
child porn. I also think a fair number of cases where people have
been charged with child porn are unreasonable (a fifteen year old
sending a nude picture of himself or herself to a boyfriend or
girlfriend is stupid, but not hardly a paedophile - even though it is
technically child porn).

No it isnt if its a picture of yourself.

I also believe there is good reason for saying that certain types of child porn can be of a help for paedophiles

More fool you.

- but that's for the psychiatrists to determine on an individual basis.

Not even possible.

The current anti-porn laws in the UK are an appalling breach of the rights of adults - Queen Victoria would have
considered them draconian.

You have absolutely no way of knowing what she would have thought of them.

But in this case, the guy had a drive full of child porn pictures.

You dont know that.

I may be misjudging him, having not followed the case - maybe there was a good reason.

There are no good reasons.