Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #82492 > unrolled thread
| Started by | FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-08 04:43 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-10-08 15:04 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 134 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 04:43 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2015-10-08 11:13 +0100
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 07:36 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-10-08 13:36 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-08 08:38 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-08 17:23 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-08 16:30 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-08 20:39 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-08 16:46 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-08 21:00 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-08 17:02 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-08 21:17 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-08 17:37 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-08 21:48 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-08 18:21 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-09 16:48 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-09 13:29 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-09 18:01 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-08 18:06 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-09 07:16 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-09 10:05 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-09 15:57 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-09 12:50 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-09 18:01 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-09 14:43 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-09 18:14 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-09 14:29 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-09 14:56 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-10-09 15:09 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-09 15:13 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-11 01:58 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 10:11 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-11 21:04 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 17:16 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-11 01:56 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 10:09 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-11 11:18 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 11:37 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-11 11:54 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 12:07 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-11 12:41 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 13:33 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-11 21:03 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 17:15 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-11 17:49 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 19:13 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 03:10 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 09:12 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 15:13 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 12:03 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 22:31 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-10-09 14:26 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-09 18:39 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-11 01:59 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-09 16:45 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-09 13:26 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-09 18:00 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-09 14:24 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-09 18:39 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-09 15:12 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-09 12:09 +0100
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-08 22:21 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2015-10-08 20:53 -0500
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-09 16:49 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-08 17:53 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-08 22:01 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-08 18:08 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-09 07:16 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-09 10:03 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-10-08 18:09 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-09 07:22 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-08 10:24 -0700
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-08 13:27 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-08 17:29 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-08 11:26 -0700
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 20:13 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-09 16:50 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 15:29 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-10 02:15 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-10-08 14:21 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-08 18:51 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-10-09 12:09 +1300
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2015-10-08 13:49 -0500
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-08 16:35 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-08 16:31 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-08 20:40 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-08 16:47 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-08 21:00 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-08 17:56 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-08 22:03 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-08 18:08 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-10-08 18:16 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-08 16:40 -0700
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-09 07:22 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-09 10:14 -0700
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-09 18:04 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-09 14:11 -0700
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-10-08 18:09 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-08 18:11 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-09 07:17 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 20:14 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2015-10-09 20:18 +0100
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-10 04:00 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 08:04 -0700
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-10-10 16:00 +1300
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-10 04:05 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-10-10 11:02 -0700
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-10-11 10:39 +1300
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-10-11 10:10 -0700
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 13:38 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-11 02:02 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-10-11 10:16 -0700
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-11 21:06 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-10-13 11:08 -0700
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-13 14:10 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? android <here@there.was> - 2015-10-13 21:22 +0200
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-13 15:24 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? android <here@there.was> - 2015-10-13 21:30 +0200
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-13 15:30 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? android <here@there.was> - 2015-10-13 21:39 +0200
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-13 19:41 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? android <here@there.was> - 2015-10-13 21:44 +0200
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-13 22:43 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-13 22:42 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? android <here@there.was> - 2015-10-14 05:03 +0200
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-14 07:41 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? android <here@there.was> - 2015-10-14 10:22 +0200
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-14 15:02 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? android <here@there.was> - 2015-10-14 17:32 +0200
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-14 19:14 -0400
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-14 23:19 +0000
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? android <here@there.was> - 2015-10-15 06:31 +0200
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-10-14 09:59 -0700
Re: El Capitan - Secure Delete Trash Option gone? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-08 15:04 +0000
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 10:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <VfOdnQVkHvIPVIrLnZ2dnUU7-aGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #82718 |
On 2015-10-09 03:16, Jolly Roger wrote: > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2015-10-08 17:02, nospam wrote: >>> In article <d7o3qoFgbrkU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger >>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> The keys are encrypted with a pass phrase only I and my wife know. I'm >>>>>> not worried. : ) >>>>> >>>>> Hence the term "rubber hose decryption" (aka: court order). >>>> >>>> Courts don't scare me. I'll never give it up, based on principle. >>> >>> a court can't compel you to disclose a password, however, they can >>> force you to put your finger on a fingerprint sensor of an iphone. >> >> There are cases in the US where the court successfully ordered the >> defendant to give up the keys. > > That doesn't mean the defendant can't refuse. > >> Also NSL's can be used to force disclosure of keys from 3rd parties. >> (Lavabit quit e-mail over it). > > If you can't trust your spouse with your deepest secrets, you married the > wrong person. ; ) Agreed - but that's not what I was on about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 15:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1fp2p.2snb.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #82736 |
In message <VfOdnQVkHvIPVIrLnZ2dnUU7-aGdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2015-10-09 03:16, Jolly Roger wrote: >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2015-10-08 17:02, nospam wrote: >>>> In article <d7o3qoFgbrkU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger >>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> The keys are encrypted with a pass phrase only I and my wife know. I'm >>>>>>> not worried. : ) >>>>>> >>>>>> Hence the term "rubber hose decryption" (aka: court order). >>>>> >>>>> Courts don't scare me. I'll never give it up, based on principle. >>>> >>>> a court can't compel you to disclose a password, however, they can >>>> force you to put your finger on a fingerprint sensor of an iphone. >>> >>> There are cases in the US where the court successfully ordered the >>> defendant to give up the keys. >> >> That doesn't mean the defendant can't refuse. >> >>> Also NSL's can be used to force disclosure of keys from 3rd parties. >>> (Lavabit quit e-mail over it). >> >> If you can't trust your spouse with your deepest secrets, you married the >> wrong person. ; ) > Agreed - but that's not what I was on about. Then you are very confused. There are no third parties that have JRs pass phrase. -- Yes, I do happen to believe that love is mainly about pushing chocolate covered candies and, y'know, in some cultures, a chicken. You can call me a sucker, I don't care, because I do believe in it. Bottom line: it's couples who are truly right for each other that wade through the same crap as everybody else, but the big difference is they don't let it take them down. One of those two people will stand up and fight for that relationship every time. If it's right, and they're real lucky, one of them will say something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 12:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iNKdnes-jInxbYrLnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #82754 |
On 2015-10-09 11:57, Lewis wrote: > In message <VfOdnQVkHvIPVIrLnZ2dnUU7-aGdnZ2d@giganews.com> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2015-10-09 03:16, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>> On 2015-10-08 17:02, nospam wrote: >>>>> In article <d7o3qoFgbrkU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger >>>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> The keys are encrypted with a pass phrase only I and my wife know. I'm >>>>>>>> not worried. : ) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hence the term "rubber hose decryption" (aka: court order). >>>>>> >>>>>> Courts don't scare me. I'll never give it up, based on principle. >>>>> >>>>> a court can't compel you to disclose a password, however, they can >>>>> force you to put your finger on a fingerprint sensor of an iphone. >>>> >>>> There are cases in the US where the court successfully ordered the >>>> defendant to give up the keys. >>> >>> That doesn't mean the defendant can't refuse. >>> >>>> Also NSL's can be used to force disclosure of keys from 3rd parties. >>>> (Lavabit quit e-mail over it). >>> >>> If you can't trust your spouse with your deepest secrets, you married the >>> wrong person. ; ) > >> Agreed - but that's not what I was on about. > > Then you are very confused. There are no third parties that have JRs > pass phrase. You're the one who's confused. I was referring to Lavabit discontinuing service because they didn't want to be served warrants against their clientele.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 18:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d7qdojF25gvU11@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #82770 |
On 2015-10-09, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > > I was referring to Lavabit discontinuing service because they didn't > want to be served warrants against their clientele. I applauded them for that. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 14:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Yr-dnWJriKool4XLnZ2dnUU7-WmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #82795 |
On 2015-10-09 14:01, Jolly Roger wrote: > On 2015-10-09, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> >> I was referring to Lavabit discontinuing service because they didn't >> want to be served warrants against their clientele. > > I applauded them for that. Me too. Sadly. I wasn't a user of their services, but it seemed a crying shame that someone had to take the high road of destruction because of the low road of government overreach. Makes you want to upchuck: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit#Suspension_and_gag_order
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 18:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1g13i.307u.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #82770 |
In message <iNKdnes-jInxbYrLnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2015-10-09 11:57, Lewis wrote: >> In message <VfOdnQVkHvIPVIrLnZ2dnUU7-aGdnZ2d@giganews.com> >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2015-10-09 03:16, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> On 2015-10-08 17:02, nospam wrote: >>>>>> In article <d7o3qoFgbrkU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger >>>>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The keys are encrypted with a pass phrase only I and my wife know. I'm >>>>>>>>> not worried. : ) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hence the term "rubber hose decryption" (aka: court order). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Courts don't scare me. I'll never give it up, based on principle. >>>>>> >>>>>> a court can't compel you to disclose a password, however, they can >>>>>> force you to put your finger on a fingerprint sensor of an iphone. >>>>> >>>>> There are cases in the US where the court successfully ordered the >>>>> defendant to give up the keys. >>>> >>>> That doesn't mean the defendant can't refuse. >>>> >>>>> Also NSL's can be used to force disclosure of keys from 3rd parties. >>>>> (Lavabit quit e-mail over it). >>>> >>>> If you can't trust your spouse with your deepest secrets, you married the >>>> wrong person. ; ) >> >>> Agreed - but that's not what I was on about. >> >> Then you are very confused. There are no third parties that have JRs >> pass phrase. > You're the one who's confused. I was referring to Lavabit discontinuing > service because they didn't want to be served warrants against their > clientele. And you were comparing that to JR's encryption. As I said, you are very confused. -- 'But you ain't part of it, are you?' said Granny conversationally. 'You try, but you always find yourself watchin' yourself watchin' people, eh? Never quite believin' anything? Thinkin' the wrong thoughts?'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 14:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <FuqdnSxuZc7wmoXLnZ2dnUU7-f-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #82801 |
On 2015-10-09 14:14, Lewis wrote:
> In message <iNKdnes-jInxbYrLnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015-10-09 11:57, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <VfOdnQVkHvIPVIrLnZ2dnUU7-aGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-10-09 03:16, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2015-10-08 17:02, nospam wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <d7o3qoFgbrkU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>>>>>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The keys are encrypted with a pass phrase only I and my wife know. I'm
>>>>>>>>>> not worried. : )
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hence the term "rubber hose decryption" (aka: court order).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Courts don't scare me. I'll never give it up, based on principle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a court can't compel you to disclose a password, however, they can
>>>>>>> force you to put your finger on a fingerprint sensor of an iphone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are cases in the US where the court successfully ordered the
>>>>>> defendant to give up the keys.
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't mean the defendant can't refuse.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also NSL's can be used to force disclosure of keys from 3rd parties.
>>>>>> (Lavabit quit e-mail over it).
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't trust your spouse with your deepest secrets, you married the
>>>>> wrong person. ; )
>>>
>>>> Agreed - but that's not what I was on about.
>>>
>>> Then you are very confused. There are no third parties that have JRs
>>> pass phrase.
>
>> You're the one who's confused. I was referring to Lavabit discontinuing
>> service because they didn't want to be served warrants against their
>> clientele.
>
> And you were comparing that to JR's encryption. As I said, you are very
> confused.
Not at all. Of course I know what I wrote and why I wrote it.
1) Nospam claimed that courts could not compell pw disclosure.
2) I replied, in a general, non specific manner, that there were cases
and I described 2 of them. Again ('cause you need the again) it was not
specifically referencing what JR said.
3) The 2nd instance was presented as an "Also" ... eg: additional
commentary, again ('cause you need that) not specifically related to
what JR said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 14:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <091020151456012956%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #82807 |
In article <FuqdnSxuZc7wmoXLnZ2dnUU7-f-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> >>> Then you are very confused. There are no third parties that have JRs
> >>> pass phrase.
> >
> >> You're the one who's confused. I was referring to Lavabit discontinuing
> >> service because they didn't want to be served warrants against their
> >> clientele.
> >
> > And you were comparing that to JR's encryption. As I said, you are very
> > confused.
>
> Not at all. Of course I know what I wrote and why I wrote it.
>
> 1) Nospam claimed that courts could not compell pw disclosure.
> 2) I replied, in a general, non specific manner, that there were cases
> and I described 2 of them. Again ('cause you need the again) it was not
> specifically referencing what JR said.
what you mentioned was different circumstances. in one, it was already
known that what was on the encrypted volume was incriminating.
because of the 5th amendment, a court cannot force an individual to
disclose his own password.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 15:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <561810e1$0$49145$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #82823 |
On 2015-10-09 14:56, nospam wrote: > because of the 5th amendment, a court cannot force an individual to > disclose his own password. > Yet, Lavabit was forced to hand over the stuff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 15:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <091020151513165026%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #82826 |
In article <561810e1$0$49145$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > because of the 5th amendment, a court cannot force an individual to > > disclose his own password. > > > > Yet, Lavabit was forced to hand over the stuff. lavabit is not an individual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 01:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1jgmi.6cq.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #82826 |
In message <561810e1$0$49145$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2015-10-09 14:56, nospam wrote: >> because of the 5th amendment, a court cannot force an individual to >> disclose his own password. > Yet, Lavabit was forced to hand over the stuff. They handed over 10 pages of 6pt type showing the SSH key. When the government (wrongly) got a judge to agree that was insufficient, they shut down. Not a password. -- Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 10:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jcGdnXKIwaaN84fLnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #82986 |
On 2015-10-10 21:58, Lewis wrote: > In message <561810e1$0$49145$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com> > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >> On 2015-10-09 14:56, nospam wrote: > >>> because of the 5th amendment, a court cannot force an individual to >>> disclose his own password. > >> Yet, Lavabit was forced to hand over the stuff. > > They handed over 10 pages of 6pt type showing the SSH key. The point was they were ordered by the government to hand over the password (or key). Silly bugger games aside.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 21:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1ljr9.bvl.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #83028 |
In message <jcGdnXKIwaaN84fLnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2015-10-10 21:58, Lewis wrote: >> In message <561810e1$0$49145$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com> >> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>> On 2015-10-09 14:56, nospam wrote: >> >>>> because of the 5th amendment, a court cannot force an individual to >>>> disclose his own password. >> >>> Yet, Lavabit was forced to hand over the stuff. >> >> They handed over 10 pages of 6pt type showing the SSH key. > The point was they were ordered by the government to hand over the > password (or key). Silly bugger games aside. NOT A PASSWORD, dipshit. -- "What's a Velvet Underground?" "You wouldn't like it." "Oh, Be-bop."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 17:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <H5udnc5au4UITIfLnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83104 |
On 2015-10-11 17:04, Lewis wrote: > In message <jcGdnXKIwaaN84fLnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2015-10-10 21:58, Lewis wrote: >>> In message <561810e1$0$49145$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com> >>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>>> On 2015-10-09 14:56, nospam wrote: >>> >>>>> because of the 5th amendment, a court cannot force an individual to >>>>> disclose his own password. >>> >>>> Yet, Lavabit was forced to hand over the stuff. >>> >>> They handed over 10 pages of 6pt type showing the SSH key. > >> The point was they were ordered by the government to hand over the >> password (or key). Silly bugger games aside. > > NOT A PASSWORD, dipshit. What part of "or key" flew over your tiny head?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 01:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1jgil.6cq.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #82807 |
In message <FuqdnSxuZc7wmoXLnZ2dnUU7-f-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-10-09 14:14, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <iNKdnes-jInxbYrLnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2015-10-09 11:57, Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <VfOdnQVkHvIPVIrLnZ2dnUU7-aGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-10-09 03:16, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2015-10-08 17:02, nospam wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <d7o3qoFgbrkU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>>>>>>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The keys are encrypted with a pass phrase only I and my wife know. I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> not worried. : )
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hence the term "rubber hose decryption" (aka: court order).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Courts don't scare me. I'll never give it up, based on principle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a court can't compel you to disclose a password, however, they can
>>>>>>>> force you to put your finger on a fingerprint sensor of an iphone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are cases in the US where the court successfully ordered the
>>>>>>> defendant to give up the keys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't mean the defendant can't refuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also NSL's can be used to force disclosure of keys from 3rd parties.
>>>>>>> (Lavabit quit e-mail over it).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can't trust your spouse with your deepest secrets, you married the
>>>>>> wrong person. ; )
>>>>
>>>>> Agreed - but that's not what I was on about.
>>>>
>>>> Then you are very confused. There are no third parties that have JRs
>>>> pass phrase.
>>
>>> You're the one who's confused. I was referring to Lavabit discontinuing
>>> service because they didn't want to be served warrants against their
>>> clientele.
>>
>> And you were comparing that to JR's encryption. As I said, you are very
>> confused.
> Not at all. Of course I know what I wrote and why I wrote it.
> 1) Nospam claimed that courts could not compell pw disclosure.
> 2) I replied, in a general, non specific manner, that there were cases
> and I described 2 of them. Again ('cause you need the again) it was not
> specifically referencing what JR said.
Even in that case, you are very confused. The courts did not compel a
password in either of those cases.
--
"As God as my witness, I though turkeys could fly," Arthur Carlson, WKRP
in Cincinnati
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 10:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jcGdnXOIwaY58IfLnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #82985 |
On 2015-10-10 21:56, Lewis wrote:
> In message <FuqdnSxuZc7wmoXLnZ2dnUU7-f-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015-10-09 14:14, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <iNKdnes-jInxbYrLnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-10-09 11:57, Lewis wrote:
>>>>> In message <VfOdnQVkHvIPVIrLnZ2dnUU7-aGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2015-10-09 03:16, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2015-10-08 17:02, nospam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <d7o3qoFgbrkU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>>>>>>>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The keys are encrypted with a pass phrase only I and my wife know. I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>> not worried. : )
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hence the term "rubber hose decryption" (aka: court order).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Courts don't scare me. I'll never give it up, based on principle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a court can't compel you to disclose a password, however, they can
>>>>>>>>> force you to put your finger on a fingerprint sensor of an iphone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are cases in the US where the court successfully ordered the
>>>>>>>> defendant to give up the keys.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That doesn't mean the defendant can't refuse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also NSL's can be used to force disclosure of keys from 3rd parties.
>>>>>>>> (Lavabit quit e-mail over it).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you can't trust your spouse with your deepest secrets, you married the
>>>>>>> wrong person. ; )
>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed - but that's not what I was on about.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you are very confused. There are no third parties that have JRs
>>>>> pass phrase.
>>>
>>>> You're the one who's confused. I was referring to Lavabit discontinuing
>>>> service because they didn't want to be served warrants against their
>>>> clientele.
>>>
>>> And you were comparing that to JR's encryption. As I said, you are very
>>> confused.
>
>> Not at all. Of course I know what I wrote and why I wrote it.
>
>> 1) Nospam claimed that courts could not compell pw disclosure.
>> 2) I replied, in a general, non specific manner, that there were cases
>> and I described 2 of them. Again ('cause you need the again) it was not
>> specifically referencing what JR said.
>
> Even in that case, you are very confused. The courts did not compel a
> password in either of those cases.
Wow, how early do you get up to spout nonsense just to try to score
points?. In Boucher, yes the password was compelled on appeal by the
gov't; in lavabit, yes, passwords were compelled. But, shit the truth
never seems to sink in with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 11:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <111020151118337117%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #83027 |
In article <jcGdnXOIwaY58IfLnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> 1) Nospam claimed that courts could not compell pw disclosure.
> >> 2) I replied, in a general, non specific manner, that there were cases
> >> and I described 2 of them. Again ('cause you need the again) it was not
> >> specifically referencing what JR said.
> >
> > Even in that case, you are very confused. The courts did not compel a
> > password in either of those cases.
>
> Wow, how early do you get up to spout nonsense just to try to score
> points?. In Boucher, yes the password was compelled on appeal by the
> gov't; in lavabit, yes, passwords were compelled. But, shit the truth
> never seems to sink in with you.
once again, in the usa, the 5th amendment prevents a court from
compelling someone to disclose their password. period. end of story.
that does not apply to someone who has *already* incriminated
themselves or for a corporation, the issues in the two cases you
mention.
what goes on in other countries may be different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 11:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <RaCdnf6_OJvWH4fLnZ2dnUU7-VWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83033 |
On 2015-10-11 11:18, nospam wrote:
> In article <jcGdnXOIwaY58IfLnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> 1) Nospam claimed that courts could not compell pw disclosure.
>>>> 2) I replied, in a general, non specific manner, that there were cases
>>>> and I described 2 of them. Again ('cause you need the again) it was not
>>>> specifically referencing what JR said.
>>>
>>> Even in that case, you are very confused. The courts did not compel a
>>> password in either of those cases.
>>
>> Wow, how early do you get up to spout nonsense just to try to score
>> points?. In Boucher, yes the password was compelled on appeal by the
>> gov't; in lavabit, yes, passwords were compelled. But, shit the truth
>> never seems to sink in with you.
>
> once again, in the usa, the 5th amendment prevents a court from
> compelling someone to disclose their password. period. end of story.
In Boucher it _was_ compelled. Period.
>
> that does not apply to someone who has *already* incriminated
> themselves or for a corporation, the issues in the two cases you
> mention.
I mentioned them as things that happened. Regardless of the fine points
about them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 11:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <111020151154044974%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #83036 |
In article <RaCdnf6_OJvWH4fLnZ2dnUU7-VWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >> Wow, how early do you get up to spout nonsense just to try to score > >> points?. In Boucher, yes the password was compelled on appeal by the > >> gov't; in lavabit, yes, passwords were compelled. But, shit the truth > >> never seems to sink in with you. > > > > once again, in the usa, the 5th amendment prevents a court from > > compelling someone to disclose their password. period. end of story. > > In Boucher it _was_ compelled. Period. because they knew he had committed a crime. > > that does not apply to someone who has *already* incriminated > > themselves or for a corporation, the issues in the two cases you > > mention. > > I mentioned them as things that happened. Regardless of the fine points > about them. the fine points are critical. you can't ignore them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 12:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Av-dnWFu1eOhFIfLnZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83038 |
On 2015-10-11 11:54, nospam wrote: > In article <RaCdnf6_OJvWH4fLnZ2dnUU7-VWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne > <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >>>> Wow, how early do you get up to spout nonsense just to try to score >>>> points?. In Boucher, yes the password was compelled on appeal by the >>>> gov't; in lavabit, yes, passwords were compelled. But, shit the truth >>>> never seems to sink in with you. >>> >>> once again, in the usa, the 5th amendment prevents a court from >>> compelling someone to disclose their password. period. end of story. >> >> In Boucher it _was_ compelled. Period. > > because they knew he had committed a crime. Was it ordered? Y or N. > >>> that does not apply to someone who has *already* incriminated >>> themselves or for a corporation, the issues in the two cases you >>> mention. >> >> I mentioned them as things that happened. Regardless of the fine points >> about them. > > the fine points are critical. you can't ignore them. You don't ignore them when you're taking the argument further.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web