On: "Forensics for Prosecutors" mentions backdoor in TrueCrypt (page 15) [pdf]

[andrewpi]

Wouldn't any backdoor used in a criminal prosecution have to be disclosed to the defense?

[D9u → andrewpi]

Parallel reconstruction...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/uk-dea-irs-idUKBRE9...

[fnordfnordfnord → andrewpi]

Nope, this is what Ginsburg would call an instruction manual for how to defeat the 4th amendment.

  The use of backdoors cannot be detected or proven

  Vendors are legally and commercially prevented from acknowledging their backdoors. Defense will not be able to prove their existence

[_ofdw → andrewpi]

Scroll down a bit; all they have to disclose is that the files "were forensically obtained."

[andrewpi → _ofdw]

I saw that, but I still don't see how that works in a trial. Said evidence will need to be introduced in court. When the witness tries to be cute by giving a vague answer, can't the defense just ask the witness to explain further?

[DannyBee → _ofdw]

This is entirely false. For gods sake, you have to put lab technicians on the stand for cross examination when they test your blood.

For something like this, a report gets written, and the person who wrote it gets cross examined.