people borrowing my wireless

Hiding SSID confuses newbies because you have to manually configure the network and is pointless if you make heavy use of the wi-fi since they will be able to sniff it from the air any time you are using the network. I hide mine, it's better on than off, but it's not very important so long as you are using WPA2 so if your wireless seems "broken" with it on just turn it off again.

MAC address filtering is a bit pointless but since it's there might as well use it, I would. If you find it too confusing though, just ignore it

The important one we all agree is the WPA/WPA2 encryption. If you have the option between AES and TKIP choose AES because TKIP is not as secure.

I'm pretty sure that in ALL cases involving child pornography ALL PC's etc, are taken away for specialist examination.

The router may be part of the stuff taken away so that it's logs can be inspected.


I think Hipokondriak has been getting confused between his broadband contract and the law.

mattylad said:

I'm pretty sure that in ALL cases involving child pornography ALL PC's etc, are taken away for specialist examination.

Click to expand...

You'd think so, except the link I posted above has hundreds of people convicted, in what appears to be wrongly convicted, cause fraudsters stole their credit cards and used it to buy sick porn. Many of them are dead too in what appears to be suicides.

We are all just guessing anyway none of us (I think) is lawyers, that should be a new section on diynot, lawyering!!!

I have a friend that worked on operation ore, as a plod, and he had the onus task of imaging and scanning the hard drives of the suspects who's credit card details had been passed on by the Americans.

To the best of my knowledge the photographic evidence was required as well as the c/c tip offs.

There is however a very long backlog, so sadly some innocent people might have committed suicide whilst awaiting an outcome.

By the same token some guilty people got off as they had degaussing machines built into door frames.

The burden of proof still remains with the police- unfortuately though- mud sticks and seemingly in the eyes of too many- there is no smoke without fire!!!!

opps said:

By the same token some guilty people got off as they had degaussing machines built into door frames.

Click to expand...

Bet that wouldn't work a second time!

I can think of easier ways to destroy all the data on a hard drive, Degaussing machine in the door frames Well I do admire the ingenuity. Would have been easier to just build a NAS with a deniable encryption system I'd have thought but hey, that's straight out of James Bond, just so they can view sick porn, I mean honestly.... some people really need to get lives...

opps said:

To the best of my knowledge the photographic evidence was required as well as the c/c tip offs.

Click to expand...

I do recall some sort of BBC documentary about a guy who was definitely innocent convicted on that Ore thing, it was when I first became interested in it and started using it as a talking point about legal cock-ups, so I don't see how it could be both true, what the documentary said and that that photo evidence was needed? Wish I could find the link but maybe you or your friend know of it.

mickeymouse said:

opps said:

By the same token some guilty people got off as they had degaussing machines built into door frames.

Click to expand...

Bet that wouldn't work a second time!

I can think of easier ways to destroy all the data on a hard drive, Degaussing machine in the door frames Well I do admire the ingenuity. Would have been easier to just build a NAS with a deniable encryption system I'd have thought but hey, that's straight out of James Bond, just so they can view sick porn, I mean honestly.... some people really need to get lives...

Click to expand...

Failing to give up encryption keys is an offence in itself. BTW most travelling business men dont realise that most of the(healthy) porn that they "aquire" on their laptops probably falls foul of several laws as they travel around europe. I for one only discovered recently that the proper stuff can only be purchased face to face in stores, rather than via distance selling.

With regard to the evidence- it might well be the case that earlier levels of evidence were less slack. Or that people were "coerced" into admitting guilt.

I am inclined to think that most of the (ongoing) convictions are (still) from the c/c lists passed on years ago rather than being "clever" cyber detection. Its a funding thing.

mickeymouse said:

Failing to give up encryption keys is an offence in itself.

Click to expand...

Deniable encryption is encryption you can't prove exists, the normal way of doing this is using a crypto program that creates one set of data that can be decrypted with multiple keys to reveal different data sets, it's impossible to tell how many keys there are therefore the criminal can give the law enforcers an encryption key which reveals say, a gay porn collection and the crook is supposedly straight and while they may suspect there are others, it's impossible to tell, so the criminal can keep the blueprints of parliament or whatever it is that's so naughty hidden.

There are other ways to do it too which would lead law enforcement to not even suspect there is encrypted data, a sort of home brew stenography but maybe it's wise not to tell people how to do that! For sure, I disagree with the law which requires one to reveal encryption keys but I don't think I should become the criminal advice line either...

mickeymouse said:

mickeymouse said:

Failing to give up encryption keys is an offence in itself.

Click to expand...

Deniable encryption is encryption you can't prove exists, the normal way of doing this is using a crypto program that creates one set of data that can be decrypted with multiple keys to reveal different data sets, it's impossible to tell how many keys there are therefore the criminal can give the law enforcers an encryption key which reveals say, a gay porn collection and the crook is supposedly straight and while they may suspect there are others, it's impossible to tell, so the criminal can keep the blueprints of parliament or whatever it is that's so naughty hidden.

There are other ways to do it too which would lead law enforcement to not even suspect there is encrypted data, a sort of home brew stenography but maybe it's wise not to tell people how to do that! For sure, I disagree with the law which requires one to reveal encryption keys but I don't think I should become the criminal advice line either...

Click to expand...

Would the file size not be a give away? eg 10x1meg images and a total file size of 1gb.

Additionally would the decrypted images not be "cached" when viewed?

The worry with deniable encryption is that if you give me what i think is a legit encrypted file I could ultimately be in pocession of illegal content.

Not an area I know much about but I do remember reading recently about ram ghosting which looks equally scary

I too agree that I am not comfortable with having to give up keys...

opps said:

Would the file size not be a give away? eg 10x1meg images and a total file size of 1gb.

Click to expand...

It's normally done with partitions not files, you'd put say 4GB of garbage on there it's reasonable you'd encrypt (embarrassing, financial, whatever), make the partition say 200 GB and have your hidden data of which there is say 100 GB in the rest of it. So long as you update the 4GB "red herring" frequently then you simply haven't used the rest of the space yet

opps said:

Additionally would the decrypted images not be "cached" when viewed?

Click to expand...

You would have an operating system within the "hidden" naughty data (I see you are continuing the porn theme, but it's applicable to any data which is verboten) too so while it may be cached, it would be cached only within the hidden partition. Another way is to use an operating system and programs for which the specs, history, etc are readily available (ex. one of the free unices like a Linux or BSD) and only use the data in a fashion which doesn't leave trails.

opps said:

The worry with deniable encryption is that if you give me what i think is a legit encrypted file I could ultimately be in pocession of illegal content.

Click to expand...

It's normally done with partitions, as above, but if someone was to do this to you, yes that could happen, however it would only be a problem if it was done maliciously because nobody would know the illicit content existed, including you, and unless you annoy the US president and he decides to ask the American nation to donate CPU cycles to running brute forces/collisions against the file, nobody else with todays technology will either.

opps said:

Not an area I know much about but I do remember reading recently about ram ghosting which looks equally scary

Click to expand...

"Police, Police, Stay where you are!".

Criminal presses off button, or has dead/arrested man switch to remotely deactivate machine

opps said:

I too agree that I am not comfortable with having to give up keys...

Click to expand...

It's one step too far towards thought crime IMHO.