Twyko64 writes "The UK police may need 90 days to hold terrorist suspects because it takes that long to crack a suspect's PC hard drive." From the article: "Combining the analysis, the translation and second stage analysis, add inter-country co-operation and interview strategy formation, and from the police point of view, the existing 14 days is inadequate and 90 days doesn't look excessive. Another factor is encryption sophistication. If 256-bit triple-DES or similar techniques are used then decryption could require supercomputer-levels of cracking." Police Need 90 Days To Crack Hard Drives Log in/Create an Account | Top | 635 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 635 comments 0: 633 comments 1: 521 comments 2: 346 comments 3: 93 comments 4: 60 comments 5: 41 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. (1) | 2 90 days, eh? (Score:5, Funny) by BushCheney08 (917605) on Friday November 04, @10:16AM (#13949999) Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. Hmmmm. Guess I'll come back in 90 days for the dupe... [ Reply to This Re:90 days, eh? (Score:5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04, @10:47AM (#13950310) I hope not. Holding suspects for any amount of time without probable cause is bullshit. A hard drive whose contents is not decipherable (as yet if ever) is not probable cause. It is an unknown. If the police do not have reason to hold an individual aside from a hard drive of unknown content, the police have do not have reason to hold an individual. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:90 days, eh? (Score:5, Insightful) by Don_dumb (927108) on Friday November 04, @11:07AM (#13950558) Mod that comment upIf they don't have enough proof to charge someone after even a couple of days, why are they so sure someone is a suspect at all? They must have some reason to arrest someone in the first place and I sincerely hope that reason is based on a collection of very compelling evidence. At which point they can charge him/her and have as much time as they want anyway. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:90 days, eh? by operagost (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:24AMRe:90 days, eh? by Don_dumb (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:45AMRe:90 days, eh? by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Friday November 04, @12:42PMRe:90 days, eh? by rtb61 (Score:2) Friday November 04, @05:48PMRe:90 days, eh? by Rac3r5 (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:18PMRe:90 days, eh? by Don_dumb (Score:1) Friday November 04, @12:40PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:90 days, eh? (Score:5, Informative) by mikerich (120257) on Friday November 04, @11:36AM (#13950846) I sometimes wonder if the evidence is along the lines of 'looking foreign with possession of, or intent to grow, a beard'. From The Daily Telegraph [telegraph.co.uk] (27/01/05):That police activity has been considerable. Since September 11, 2001 to the end of last year, 701 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, which requires only "reasonable suspicion" to arrest. Most have come from various branches of the Muslim community - either North Africans, who were the subject of most arrests in the immediate post-September 11 period, and Middle Eastern Muslims, or British-born suspects of Pakistani origin.However, only 119 of those arrested were charged under the Act. Of those, 45 were also charged with offences under other legislation. A total of 135 others were charged under other legislation, including charges for "terrorist offences that are already covered in general criminal law such as grievous bodily harm and use of firearms or explosives". There have also been a number of fraud cases.Of the rest, about 60 were transferred to immigration authorities and 351 were released without charge. Only 17 individuals have been convicted of offences under the Terrorism Act and there have been "lesser" convictions, either Irish-related or as a result of membership of proscribed terror groups.There have been no convictions of alleged Islamic fundamentalist terrorists for the kind of readily understandable "direct" terrorist offences, such as bombings, shootings or possession of explosives and guns, which characterised the years when the Provisional IRA attacked the mainland. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:90 days, eh? by h4rm0ny (Score:2) Friday November 04, @01:05PMRe:90 days, eh? by Irish_Samurai (Score:3) Friday November 04, @12:14PMRe:90 days, eh? by StopSayingYouSir (Score:1) Friday November 04, @12:42PMRe:90 days, eh? by Irish_Samurai (Score:2) Friday November 04, @06:12PMRe:90 days, eh? by Handpaper (Score:2) Friday November 04, @06:51PMRe:90 days, eh? by Irish_Samurai (Score:2) Friday November 04, @07:10PMRe:90 days, eh? by StopSayingYouSir (Score:1) Friday November 04, @09:15PMRe:90 days, eh? by StopSayingYouSir (Score:1) Friday November 04, @09:27PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:90 days, eh? (Score:5, Insightful) by h4rm0ny (722443) <h4rm0ny@@@tarddell...net> on Friday November 04, @01:19PM (#13951773) (Last Journal: Tuesday December 02, @06:03AM) The thing that did my head in in the USA, were all the people who were convinced they're Irish. I'd get some guy there tell me in a pure american accent that he was Irish american? How are you Irish, mate? Were you born there? Do you have an Irish accent? Citizenship? Read Ulysseses? What?In fact I met almost no actual americans, only hyphenated americans. When someone found I was from Europe, she introduced herself to me as a German-American. So I started talking in German to her and she didn't understand a bloody word. But she said her "Grandad would understand it." I met a guy over there from Mozambique. He said the thing that annoyed him most were people who said they were african-american. It pissed him off because they didn't know a damn thing about africa. It makes NO SENSE! If you're born and raised in America, you're american. Culture is not transmitted genetically and nothing that is makes a bit of difference to who you are.So if the parent poster is born and raised in Ireland, then he can continue to rant about discrimination. If he's another hyphenated-american, I'm not interested.And I'm Welsh, btw, and we're the Irish who couldn't swim. It's like anything else - if you let something bother you, people will use it. If you you're proud of who you are, they can't. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:90 days, eh? by Irish_Samurai (Score:2) Friday November 04, @01:48PMRe:90 days, eh? by oh_bugger (Score:1) Friday November 04, @02:11PMRe:90 days, eh? by h4rm0ny (Score:2) Friday November 04, @03:03PM Re:90 days, eh? (Score:5, Interesting) by ninjagin (631183) on Friday November 04, @03:11PM (#13952658) You've made some good obervations, and I think I can help you a little bit with your confusion about how Americans describe themselves.There was a time, around the mid-1800s, when Americans would identify themselves as just that -- Americans. This was back in the early days of the republic, and there was still a cultural (and sometimes a real) memory of the war of independence. Self-identification as American was part of the pride.Now, back then, there were self-identified Americans who were actually born in France or England or Germany. To anyone else, they were French or British or German. Their kids, not having any personal experience of the family-homeland, also identified themselves as Americans, though saying you were British-American or French-American or German-American wasn't really an option, since all American families actually hailed from somewhere else in the past. Assimilation (the melting pot) was a very powerful force for white Americans. In a social sense, blacks of the era simply didn't have the social power to self-identify, and their identity was further stripped by having to take their master's surname. Native Americans (or North American aboriginals, if you prefer that appelation) had their own tribal identification, which still remains to this day.As you get closer to 1900, there were huge waves of immigrants from all over the world, and these were people who wanted a clean slate. They wanted nothing more than to be assimilated. In some families, the language of the homeland was forbidden. Educational institutions sought to have kids learn and speak english without accent. The pride of the immigrant American at the turn of 1900 buried the notion of self-identification of the homeland. My four great grandfathers and mothers (on both mom and dad's sides) spoke very little english because they came to the country when they were too old for schooling, but their kids (my grandmas and grandpas) all spoke English in the upper-midwestern American accent, and while they could understand some of the old languages and maybe speak and read a bit, they were Americans and identified themselves as such.Consider, then, the melting pot. By the time it got around to me, the national heritage of my family was Belorussian, Lithuanian, French and Norwegian. I only speak one of those languages, but how could I possibly self-identify with any of those nations? I can't, and I don't, but mustly because I still take some pride in being an American, regardless of how my country seems to be perceived at present.However, their are groups who have been marginalized over time, who seek to re-enforce their sense of identity to elevate their pride. Some black Americans prefer to align themselves with their African roots. Some Irish-Americans identify themselves that way because they seek a tie to their family heritage that may have been repressed as a part of assimilation. Interestingly, the force of assimilation has decreased in American culture. We're a much more multi-lingual, multi-cultural nation, now, and that's also being reflected in the way certain people self-identify. In America, you are free to identify yourself in any way that you prefer, and that's what people do.Hope it helps. [ Reply to This | Parent19th Century Immigration has a lot to do with it by billstewart (Score:2) Friday November 04, @04:12PMRe:90 days, eh? by Hurricane78 (Score:1) Friday November 04, @06:03PMRe:90 days, eh? by Hurricane78 (Score:1) Friday November 04, @06:06PMRe:90 days, eh? by dcam (Score:2) Saturday November 05, @12:10AM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Re:90 days, eh? (Score:4, Interesting) by keraneuology (760918) on Friday November 04, @01:34PM (#13951891) (Last Journal: Thursday October 13, @10:31AM) Everyone hates us Irish... "Paddywagon", hows that. If any other nationality or group was inserted into that term Stop looking for proof that the world hates you. The term paddywagon is one of respect, from the days when most cops were Irish. Paddywagons were driven by the Irish - they weren't carrying them.And I'm Irish on my paternal great-grandfather's side. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:90 days, eh? (Score:4, Funny) by Xcott Craver (615642) on Friday November 04, @04:01PM (#13953149) And I'm Irish on my paternal great-grandfather's side.Yeah, and I'm a woman on my grandmother's side.Xcott [ Reply to This | ParentRe:90 days, eh? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday November 04, @05:15PMpersecution complex? by Ponzicar (Score:1) Friday November 04, @01:53PMThe IRA *were* terrorists, after all by billstewart (Score:3) Friday November 04, @03:42PMRe:The IRA *were* terrorists, after all by Grym (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:26PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:90 days, eh? by Anonymous Brave Guy (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:27PMRe:90 days, eh? by keyrat rafa (Score:1) Friday November 04, @12:57PMRe:90 days, eh? by rapoZa (Score:1) Friday November 04, @01:07PM Re:90 days, eh? (Score:4, Insightful) by haraldm (643017) on Friday November 04, @04:07PM (#13953206) Err - sure. Like in Al Ghureib and Guantanamo, right? Without any possibility of consulting a lawyer, right. Yeeeessss sure.If the U.S. were a constitutional state - OK. But the current government has demonstrated publicly that it doesn't give a shit about constitutional rights or the Geneva convention. If it appears convenient, people are taken to another country where even less shit is given about people's rights. It's not as if we hadn't been there, done that.Strategically, you don't fight a worldwide guerilla organization by staring to control your own citizens electronically. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:90 days, eh? by Grym (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:53PM Re:90 days, eh? (Score:5, Insightful) by kilodelta (843627) on Friday November 04, @11:10AM (#13950584) Encrypting a drive is enough for probable cause.In the twisted logic of the law enforcement game, pretty much anything can be used as PC.Put it this way, when I worked for the state AG's office all we'd need is the slightest whif and the next thing you know we would be hauling out paper records and computers, servers, etc.And in the U.S. we have secret courts that will issue warrants with virtually no burden of proof. How do you like those apples? [ Reply to This | Parent Re:90 days, eh? (Score:4, Informative) by networkBoy (774728) on Friday November 04, @11:25AM (#13950736) (http://www.networkboy.net/) "And in the U.S. we have secret courts that will issue warrants with virtually no burden of proof."No we don't, they issue warrents right out in the open :P(sad but true, due to the lack of public scrutiny, they might as well be secret)-nB [ Reply to This | ParentRe:90 days, eh? by sandman_eh (Score:1) Friday November 04, @12:40PMRe:90 days, eh? by networkBoy (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:49PMRe:90 days, eh? by networkBoy (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:54PM Re:90 days, eh? (Score:5, Informative) by Parity (12797) on Friday November 04, @01:01PM (#13951633) Err, we have both. The prior poster was referring to the patriot act provisions that allow for closed hearings held in an undisclosed location with an unpublished docket. Supposedly they aren't entirely secret in that they're supposed to reveal what they've done some amount of time after the fact. Unless a motion is granted to keep the information secret for longer do to an investigation still being 'ongoing'...Of course, that's supposed to be only in case of terrorists, ordinary criminal cases are supposed to be tried in ordinary open courts (although even there, the court can seal entire hearings so all you know is that the police made a motion before a judge at a particular time and place, not anything about the content of the motion. In wiretap warrants, for example, so as not to tip off the person to be spied on.) [ Reply to This | ParentRe:90 days, eh? by networkBoy (Score:2) Friday November 04, @01:08PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:90 days, eh? by pixelpunk (Score:1) Friday November 04, @01:00PMRe:90 days, eh? by TomV (Score:1) Friday November 04, @03:25PMRe:90 days, eh? by gwjgwj (Score:1) Friday November 04, @03:42PMEncrypted drives? by WoTG (Score:3) Friday November 04, @04:30PMRe:Encrypted drives? by kilodelta (Score:2) Friday November 04, @04:38PMRe:90 days, eh? by Cronky (Score:1) Friday November 04, @04:40PMRe:90 days, eh? by kilodelta (Score:2) Friday November 04, @04:44PMRe:90 days, eh? by fodZ (Score:1) Friday November 04, @04:59PMRe:90 days, eh? by Trevahaha (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:50AMRe:90 days, eh? by Red Flayer (Score:3) Friday November 04, @12:47PMRe:90 days, eh? by hpavc (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:52PMRe:90 days, eh? by JasonEngel (Score:1) Friday November 04, @01:38PMRe:90 days, eh? by griffjon (Score:2) Friday November 04, @01:54PMRe:90 days, eh? by hurfy (Score:2) Friday November 04, @05:02PMIf she floats, she's a witch! by billstewart (Score:2) Friday November 04, @05:15PM3 replies beneath your current threshold. Re:90 days, eh? (Score:5, Interesting) by dswan69 (317119) on Friday November 04, @11:56AM (#13951041) I do think they should pay full compensation if nothing comes of their investigation. A detained person can't work, and will quite probably also lose their job. Given the police force's tendency towards extreme paranoia and abuse of power, especially when given sweeping powers, the government must be willing to pay up, and pay up big, anytime they make a mistake.Maybe we should start differential taxation - if you support extended imprisonment without trial and excessive police powers because you think it will make you safer, then you must also be willing to pay extra for it. I don't want my taxes wasted on this game of idiots. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:90 days, eh? by stfvon007 (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:10PMRe:90 days, eh? by JonToycrafter (Score:3) Friday November 04, @04:09PMPlease mod parent up! by mrraven (Score:1) Friday November 04, @07:40PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:90 days, eh? by rbannon (Score:1) Friday November 04, @03:17PM They're really going to hate it when... (Score:5, Insightful) by TWX (665546) on Friday November 04, @10:18AM (#13950015) (http://www.blacksatin.net/) They're really going to hate it when suspects start using steganography. Imagine having to brute-force decrypt, only to then have to search for a particular piece of straw in a haystack... [ Reply to This Re:They're really going to hate it when... (Score:5, Informative) by AKAImBatman (238306) * on Friday November 04, @10:26AM (#13950117) (http://akaimbatman.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday September 30, @07:23AM) They're really going to hate it when suspects start using steganography.Generally they try to capture a complete computer containing all the algos used for the steganography. That way they don't have to search for a needle in a haystack.It's a bit like the code devices of WWII. It was always easier to capture a code machine than try to brute force the code itself. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:They're really going to hate it when... (Score:5, Interesting) by TWX (665546) on Friday November 04, @10:38AM (#13950231) (http://www.blacksatin.net/) What if I don't use a programmed algorithm?The old "manipulate the image in the picture" effect would allow me to hide data in an image, and it could be done to where only modifying the image to specific hue or color adjustments reveals the data. It would be something that someone could memorize, and open files read-only to find, modify in RAM, and never save back to the drive once the message is known. There could be thousands of photos in someone's photo album, and only a few that actually contain data too, so that it's hard to even find the files used, let alone to figure out how they're used.I could also know that certain letters in a text file based on some derivation of a number sequence for position of the letter or word is the message. Anyone that I'm corresponding with could also know the sequence, but if neither party writes it down then it's much harder. It would also work for storage of sensitive data, and be even better security since there'd be only one person who'd know how to recover it.The most effective way to hide something or protect something is to ensure that nothing is ever written down about recovering it, ever. If there's no key to find then it's again down to brute force. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:They're really going to hate it when... (Score:5, Funny) by Verteiron (224042) * on Friday November 04, @10:47AM (#13950326) (http://slashdot.org/) Well, in that case, the USA will ship you off to some country where torture is legal, and CIA operatives will proceed to beat the secrets out of you. Now THAT'S brute force... [ Reply to This | ParentRe:They're really going to hate it when... by Hoi Polloi (Score:3) Friday November 04, @11:00AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by DMNT (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:08AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by 1u3hr (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:09AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by robertjw (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:21AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by operagost (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:31AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by Elias Serge (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:41AM Re:They're really going to hate it when... (Score:5, Insightful) by sconeu (64226) on Friday November 04, @12:15PM (#13951216) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Friday July 29, @12:12PM) The only problem is when there really *is* no code. How can you give someone something that doesn't exist?Example: You're falsely ID'ed by a bad guy, or you're mistaken as a terrorist due to bad luck (see: Paul in 24 Season 4).So you lose all your toes, and have your genitals fried off, because you *CAN'T* give them what they want. This is why torture is useless. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:They're really going to hate it when... by Nogami_Saeko (Score:2) Friday November 04, @04:40PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by iceperson (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:26AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by 0xygen (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:38AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by krakelohm (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:57AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by DavidTC (Score:1) Friday November 04, @12:03PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by DavidTC (Score:1) Friday November 04, @12:10PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by Fred_A (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:44PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by InvalidError (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:54PMNo, torture is useless because by Aexia (Score:3) Friday November 04, @01:15PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by InvalidError (Score:2) Friday November 04, @01:20PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by h4rm0ny (Score:2) Friday November 04, @02:09PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by char1iecha1k (Score:1) Friday November 04, @02:37PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by robertjw (Score:2) Friday November 04, @03:14PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by hunterx11 (Score:2) Friday November 04, @03:38PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by DavidTC (Score:1) Friday November 04, @06:36PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by syphoon (Score:2) Friday November 04, @08:09PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by sconeu (Score:1) Friday November 04, @08:25PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.But it takes far longer. by khasim (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:13AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by operagost (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:27AM Re:They're really going to hate it when... (Score:5, Informative) by Dread_ed (260158) on Friday November 04, @12:50PM (#13951554) (http://slashdot.org/) Torture of the kind that you see on TV dosen't work well.There are other methods that work quite well. For instance: dilating the eyes with drugs, propping the subjects eyes open , and then directing an absurd amount of light into the eyes will break most people down quickly.There are other methods that can gain the subjects acquiesence with very little mess and few lasting marks (on the outside). [ Reply to This | ParentRe:They're really going to hate it when... by farker haiku (Score:1) Friday November 04, @01:47PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by darkmeridian (Score:2) Friday November 04, @02:18PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by squoozer (Score:2) Friday November 04, @06:13PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by Maltheus (Score:1) Friday November 04, @05:53PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by Grym (Score:2) Saturday November 05, @12:50AM3 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:They're really going to hate it when... by killjoe (Score:2) Friday November 04, @02:27PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:They're really going to hate it when... (Score:5, Insightful) by booch (4157) <slashdot@@@craigbuchek...com> on Friday November 04, @11:18AM (#13950665) (http://craigbuchek.com/) Great. A post suggesting using torture as a legitimate method of data extraction gets a Funny rating. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:They're really going to hate it when... by networkBoy (Score:3) Friday November 04, @11:29AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by pasword *** (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:32AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by Verteiron (Score:1) Friday November 04, @12:30PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by bataras (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:52PMfunny? by wzzzzrd (Score:1) Friday November 04, @12:04PMNot the CIA by not_a_product_id (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:43PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:They're really going to hate it when... by AKAImBatman (Score:2) Friday November 04, @10:50AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by Antifuse (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:03AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by Hoi Polloi (Score:3) Friday November 04, @11:03AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by Fred_A (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:48PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by Danga (Score:1) Friday November 04, @09:46PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by h4rm0ny (Score:2) Friday November 04, @02:17PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by Lord Kano (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:26AM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:They're really going to hate it when... by Syberghost (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:28AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by Cerv (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:06PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by TheLink (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:18PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by arminw (Score:2) Friday November 04, @01:56PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by Fizzog (Score:2) Friday November 04, @01:23PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by roman_mir (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:08PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by roman_mir (Score:2) Friday November 04, @02:42PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:They're really going to hate it when... by mpe (Score:2) Friday November 04, @04:09PMRe:Easy by TWX (Score:2) Friday November 04, @06:56PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Re:They're really going to hate it when... (Score:5, Interesting) by Ckwop (707653) <2WKJb6O@ckwop.me.uk> on Friday November 04, @10:40AM (#13950254) (http://www.ckwop.me.uk/) Generally they try to capture a complete computer containing all the algos used for the steganography. That way they don't have to search for a needle in a haystack.It's a bit like the code devices of WWII. It was always easier to capture a code machine than try to brute force the code itself This is actually wrong. Kirchoff's principle applies as equally to steganography as it does to cryptography; even with completly knowledge of the algorithm it should be computationally infeasible to determine a secret message is implanted in the cover text. Secure stegangraphy is truly undetectable. Simon. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:They're really going to hate it when... by AKAImBatman (Score:1) Friday November 04, @10:53AM Re:They're really going to hate it when... (Score:5, Informative) by cortana (588495) <sam@@@robots...org...uk> on Friday November 04, @11:17AM (#13950662) (http://robots.org.uk/) Then you don't know much about cryptogrphy! Do you think DES, RSA, AES, and so on are insecure because the algorithms used are public knowledge? No, the security of a good cipher lies revolves around maintaining the secrecy of the key.Let us consider hiding some data in an image. Assuming the use of decent steganography techniques, then without knowledge of the key used when hiding the data, it is impossible to know that they are hidden in the image in the first place, let alone retrive them.If this is not so then an attacker would be able to knock up a quick shell script that scanned every file on the system to detect hidden data--thus making the use of steganography pointless in the first place! [ Reply to This | Parent Re:They're really going to hate it when... (Score:4, Informative) by AKAImBatman (238306) * on Friday November 04, @11:52AM (#13950996) (http://akaimbatman.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday September 30, @07:23AM) Then you don't know much about cryptogrphy! Oh, but I do. Except in Steganography, the extraction algo *IS* the key. Now you can use encryption above and beyond the steganography, but that doesn't make the message any more secure than if you'd sent the encrypted message by itself.The whole intent of using steganography is to obscure the fact that the message was sent. Once that line of defense is down, you're on to more traditional lines of defense.If this is not so then an attacker would be able to knock up a quick shell script that scanned every file on the system to detect hidden data--thus making the use of steganography pointless in the first place!As another fellow pointed out, you can already do that. There are a variety of methods that can be used to detect its use. The key is that there's no way to tell *which* image might be carrying a message among all the images floating around the internet. Now if I capture your computer and find images of cute kittens, I'll start looking for signs that this machine was engaged in steganography. However, if I'm looking at random postings to alt.binaries.cute.kittens, I'm going to have a hard time sorting through the sheer amount of data to find what I'm looking for. For all I know, it may not even exist! That is the *real* quandry that steganography poses. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:They're really going to hate it when... by DavidTC (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:26PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by BKX (Score:1) Friday November 04, @10:35PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:They're really going to hate it when... by Cryptacool (Score:1) Friday November 04, @06:31PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by fliplap (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:21AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by AKAImBatman (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:33AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by DavidTC (Score:1) Friday November 04, @12:43PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by fliplap (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:58PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by AKAImBatman (Score:2) Friday November 04, @01:07PMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by angst_ridden_hipster (Score:2) Friday November 04, @01:43PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:They're really going to hate it when... by ultranova (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:23AMRe:They're really going to hate it when... by AKAImBatman (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:58AM