Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Didn't monetize = Al didn't get paid. (Score 1) 288

by lucidlyTwisted (#39704593) Attached to: Paramount Claims Louis CK "Didn't Monetize"

If he can make a few mill from fans, why should he care if he's a "nobody"?
Heck, if all he can make in a year-or-two is $100,000 from fans; is that so bad? People get to see his work and he still earns a comfortable salary.
One can't eat fame not use it to shelter from the elements.

Comment: Please! (Score 1) 227

by lucidlyTwisted (#39461751) Attached to: Notch Wants To Make a Firefly-Inspired Sandbox Space Game

I hope this gets made. It's not like Braben is going to pull his finger out and make "Elite 4". And even if he did, given his recent attacks on the second-hand market, I don't think I could bring myself to buy it from him. Sorry, not "buy", "license the ability to play" and until such times as Mr. Braben decides he needs more money and changes the DRM codes.

Comment: Re:Inside my HD there are two very important files (Score 1) 1009

by lucidlyTwisted (#38965143) Attached to: Defendant Ordered To Decrypt Laptop Claims She Had Forgotten Password

If you've not managed your system so that logfiles don't exist, that isn't the problem of the "hidden volume" system

Oh, no argument there at all. Most people will simply say "It's in a hidden volume, I'm safe! ROFL" and ignore the fact that various other things happily log what they've been doing, leading to evidence of said hidden volume.

And never mind logs, if one has a 100mb TrueCrypt file, but the mounted volume only reveals 1k of space...one's going to have some more questions to answer.

Note : I'm reading what your saying as "the files containing visible and hidden TrueCrypt (or something else) volumes AND ONLY THOSE FILES AND NOTHING ELSE WHATSOEVER" have been cracked by the spooks and the results described in public in formal court proceedings".

Yeah, pretty much. The case I was thinking of is rather old now (and I can only find a couple of [dodgy] links to it): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CvUs7ezVExQJ:myreader.co.uk/msg/1303199419.aspx+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk
Was it a "simple" brute force of a short password? Probably, the actual technical details of what went on are unknown to me. I wish I could find a better link that that one.

Which brings us back to earlier points. Simply using TrueCrypt (and others like it) is not enough, they need to be used properly.

Comment: Re:Inside my HD there are two very important files (Score 1) 1009

by lucidlyTwisted (#38964663) Attached to: Defendant Ordered To Decrypt Laptop Claims She Had Forgotten Password

That is not the case. If you forget the password to your encryption before you are ordered to decrypt it you have a defence under s. 53(2) RIPA.

I guess the trick is being able to prove when one forgot. I have only heard of people being sent down for not handing keys/passwords over, not of a successful "forgot" defence.

Comment: Re:Inside my HD there are two very important files (Score 0) 1009

Then they simply ask for both passwords.
Don't hand them over, or claim there is only one? Off to jail you go. (I don't think plausible deniability has been tested in a UK court yet).
Or the file gets taken to the spooks and cracked (and yes, this has happened).

Comment: Re:Inside my HD there are two very important files (Score 4, Interesting) 1009

This wouldn't fly in the UK (under Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA)).
You forgot? Tough.
You used some honey-pot ruse like this? Tough.
Either you give the key/passphrase to decrypt the file when requested or go to jail. End of discussion.

Sounds like the USA is trying to bring in similar measures via precedent.

Save the whales. Collect the whole set.

Working...