I'm a sucker for privacy. I want some additional security for some
word documents. Anyone know of some good software to put a password
on a word doc?

chrismcclain077@hotmail.com wrote:

Zip the doc with a password, or there is truecrypt
http://www.truecrypt.org/downloads.php
encrypt the entire drive, or PGP http://gnupg.org/

Zip can't be broken without brute force, PGP can't be read unless you
give your key.
--

Fail
http://upyachka.ru/images/blog/00007923

Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
With Truecrypt you CAN encrypt the entire drive, but you can create
virtual disks of almost any size to store encrypted docs in.

Rôgêr <abuse@your.isp.com> wrote:

I mentioned Truecrypt because the new version was released yesterday.

With the world today where you can be taken to court and thrown in
jail if you don't or won't reveal your key.

If Truecrypt would delete the drive (0 it out, or corrupt it
encrypted) on a keyword, I would go that route.

"AccessData Forensic Toolkit" wouldn't show anything, and nobody's
going to pull much if any useful data.

Ahh the things I go thru to make sure nobody plays the games I have
installed on my computer :]
--

1K project
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/u....html?id=12321

Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
Now you're getting me worried. I guess a batch file seems to be looming
in my future.

G. Morgan wrote:
in a criminal case i think all that is necesary is that they obtain a
warrant for the computer and then attempt to decrypt it themselves,
thereby bypassing the suspect incriminating oneself.
A police officer seldom asks a suspect for the keys to a home or car
when serving a warrant, so why be polite concerning a computer?

Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote in news:t5s4r3puie8uk12l1h121vhkufeegdiuto@
4ax.com:


Listen to me now and hear me later:

If you do not recall you cannot be prosecuted. You might be
harrassed, but you *cannot* be prosecuted for what you do not
recall. This is why USAG Albutthead Gonzalez, and almost any
lawyer or politician will go "I do not recall" and hold that
position without any fear of prosecution. Ridicule and perhaps
a little dégringolade of credibility, but all that might be
overcome... ehh? I can not recall who told me that, but
it works very efficiently and omnibus.

Until they start pulling your fingernails out with pliers
and nailing your nutsack to wooden chairs - then you lie,
but you can cite the wounds as duress and unless you give
up the info, you're home safe. Make sure you've got a
bonus clause in your contract before you let it go that
far however.

Word.

--

My name is Bucky Breeder and I approve this message!

Who says crime does not pay?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/27dn86

chrismcclain077@hotmail.com wrote:
Why stop with your word docs?

www.truecrypt.org

"contributed" in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:

Ignore the previous responds, though those guys meant to help you. It is
NOT possible to fully protect your documents. The only secure way is:
save your documents on a USB stick, then destroy your harddisk (I really
mean destroy it with some metal shredder) You can then use the USB stick
in any other computer to read the files, but you'll need to destroy the
HD of that computer (I really mean destroy it with some metal shredder)
afterwards to make sure no data is left. Bottom line is that all data on
every harddisk can be recovered. Impossible when the harddisk has been
crushed in 100000 pieces.

Now you just have to be sure nobody has access to your USB stick.

--
Your mother was a rebellious cafeteria lady who ran a bogus university in
shopping centres.

Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:

I like the bit about Plausible Deniability If US presidents can do it
so can I.

--
---
zaax

G. Morgan wrote:
nsa is capable of.
the only concievable way to get around it is to install something that
explodes the computer after 3 unsuccesful tries ("call me Bond...")

catchme <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:

In the Armed service, on top of each safe or anything of importance a
Thermite grenade sits; to burn it up if it's about to be compromised
(over run).
http://how2dostuff.blogspot.com/2006...-thermite.html


--

Dimwits
http://my.break.com/content/view.aspx?ContentID=451653

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:06:59 +0000, G. Morgan wrote:

For one thing, the UK does not now, nor ever has had, a written
constitution.

For another, a jury will be directed by a judge to infer guilt if a
defendant refuses to fully answer any questions from counsel during a
trial.

If you try to 'take the fifth' on this side of the pond, you'll be off to
jail in no time at all :-)

--
Liverpool. European City Of Culture 2008
http://www.liverpool08.com

G. Morgan wrote:

Not anymore.
The law that broke it was a law on speeding. The owner of any vehicle
caught speeding by a speed camera is required by law to name the
driver even if that driver is him/herself. Failure to do so gets an
automatic fine and penalty points on the licence of the owner


--

catchme wrote:


Because they can't break encryption with what resources they have.
Nothing polite about it. either hand over your password or go to
prison

See what has been happening in this freedom loving land
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/civil-...es/attacks.htm
--

richard wrote:

What you really need to do is encrypt the file or folder
http://www.axantum.com/AxCrypt/



--

Aardvark wrote:
from which derived all of the 'Colonies'' Constitutions.
Though many sections have been repealed or amended- despite the preamble
stating "it is our will, that this shall be in force forever,.....and
that no document shall supercede this."

What stands out as important in UK history, is that the Magna Carta was
a drawing of Powers between Church and State-
the Church stating to the King, that if your authority comes from God as
'defender of the faith', then you are beholden to the Church at its bidding.
the King acknowledged this, but demanded the creation of a third body-
the State (the Government of the People)....because after all, the
Church all too frequently claimed to represent the People, but quite
inadequately. Therefore a body was needed to give the Public a voice.
There is yet some provision where even now if the circumstances were
dire enough, and the Church placed in a position to support rather than
prevent it- the Crown may once again take absolute Authority.

With the Crown, the Church and the State vying for Authority, there is
hardly any thought actually given towards Democratic tenets such as a
'fair trial' (they are not too far off in ideology from the medievial
attitudes of 'trial by ordeal').