tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17244445.post115241081584398980..comments2023-09-09T01:52:56.947-07:00Comments on Noveling Notes: More thoughts and questionsWayzgoosehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02732121654746019162noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17244445.post-1152510855681932062006-07-09T22:54:00.000-07:002006-07-09T22:54:00.000-07:0042: the tattoos are hexadecimal representations of...42: the tattoos are hexadecimal representations of each person's half of either a decryption key, account number, or whatever is most plot-appropriate. Only, the halves aren't first half/last half. Each half is the length of the entire key, but they are XOR'ed together to form the whole key. Together they contain all the information about the key, but apart, they are absolutely no use whatsoever.<BR/><BR/>44. It totally depends on how hard you're willing to work at hiding your shit, how much difficulty you're willing to endure in order to access your shit, and how much you're willing to spend (either in terms of your own time or in $$). On the lazy/cheap end, you'd use a freeware PGP-based file encryptor, relying on high-bit-length RSA encryption. Which, honestly, would be a reasonable bitch to crack. On the high end, you'd layer many different encryption/obfuscation methods on top of one another, and probably pay some hotshot CS grad student to write you a custom file system driver which implemented all that stuff in order to create an ultra-secure lockbox on a separate disk (or partition). Being realistic, though, these days it's reasonably easy to encrypt something with a strong enough key that Dag would basically be dead in the water. I think your most plausible tack is to have Simon using some sort of tricks which he thinks are secure, but which (he not being an expert) are really not very secure at all. Like, for example, encrypting plain text files with XOR... :)<BR/><BR/>45. If it was merely erased/reformatted with the operating system's native tools, then your chances are excellent. Most such tools don't bother to erase the actual data blocks on the disk, they just erase the file system's organizational blocks, leaving the data present but essentially un-indexed. Tedious to find stuff on such a disk, but far, far from impossible. If the disk were erased with a better tool (e.g. one that repeatedly writes random data to every block on the disk) then (contrary to what you see on Alias all the time) I think Dag's screwed again.<BR/><BR/>52: Oe time thing. If he does it regularly, that calls into question Dag's state of mind, his degree of desire to keep living, and why he bothers to do stuff like run a business.<BR/><BR/>53: <BR/>http://www.mrsci.com/Pulmonology/Lung_volumes.php<BR/>says that average adult lung capacity is about six liters (which is a lot more than I'd have guessed), but I'll bet that in drowning situations one would instictively stop inhaling once the water hit the lungs and you'd get a lot less than that in there.<BR/><BR/>55. As seldom as possible. Personal bias--I just don't dig plot points that hinge on what animals do/don't do.<BR/><BR/>56. His kitchen? Anyplace else is too far.<BR/><BR/>57. Jimmy Hoffa. Sorry, couldn't resist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17244445.post-1152479746042790302006-07-09T14:15:00.000-07:002006-07-09T14:15:00.000-07:0041. Wow, good question.To my knowledge: Private fo...41. <BR/><BR/>Wow, good question.<BR/><BR/>To my knowledge: <BR/>Private forensics experts have no legal OBLIGATION to report evidence of other crimes they stumble across while doing their job. However, 4th amendment restrictions generally do not apply to them. They are free to provide police with the information if they choose, and the police can respond accordingly. That evidence will be admissable in a court of law, EXCEPT if the computer search was illegal (i.e., no valid warrant + computer owner had a reasonable expectation of privacy). <BR/><BR/>As far as search warrants go: courts are split as to how broad computer searches can be. Some courts hold that a right to search one specific part of a computer hard drive entitles a searcher to search the ENTIRE hard drive. Other courts hold that a search should be only as narrow as the specific part of the hard drive where the information is believed to reside. The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this yet, to my knowledge.<BR/><BR/>I hope this helps somewhat...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com