Aussie Xbox Leaker Reportedly Won't Open His Laptop For Police

There's trouble at every turn for SuperDaE (aka Dylan Wheeler): the Aussie at the centre of the alleged theft of an Xbox Durango Development Kit before the premiere of the new console a few months ago. Now he's being accused by police of refusing to comply with police to decrypt his MacBook, but he's refuting the claims right now.

SuperDaE has been sitting in his apartment for months now, waiting the results of the multi-jurisdictional investigation by the Western Australian Police Service and the FBI in the US over his ownership of the Xbox Durango development console from Microsoft. Before police raided his home, Henry had spent a spell talking to serious characters from Microsoft HQ about his attempted sale of the Durango development kits on eBay.

Now he's been formally charged by the WA Police for charges not relating to his alleged Durango activity, and it's now emerging that a reportedly encrypted laptop is at the centre of fresh troubles.

The Data Access Order from the West Australian Police states that SuperDaE had been asked when his laptop was seized to unlock the 15-inch MacBook Pro, but replied that he had forgotten the password as they changed often.

The police are alleging that SuperDaE refused to elaborate further on the composition of the password, but he claims that there was no such encryption on the device:

https://twitter.com/superDaE/status/361751144453795840

Here's the full Data Access Order that SuperDaE posted on Twitter earlier today.

What do you think of all this?


Comments

    Why the heck did he try to sell it on ebay again? -.-

      I suspect the same reason people tag things, for the bragging rights, and to impress idiots.

    I love how the report makes sure to mention that the Macbook has Retina Display

    Last edited 29/07/13 7:08 pm

      Hahaha that was rather funny.

      I was wondering about that. They list the serial number, so why bother with such extraneous details? I can understand the "it's a 15" Macbook Pro Laptop" for easy identification, but why is the display relevant?

      Retina display.. the most overhyped non-feature ever!

        Speak for yourself, I love all my screens being like glossy magazine print instead of high res Minecraft.

      He's automatically got zero credibility as an 'e-thug' or 'hacker' or whatever. Anyone that's using a MacBook to hack really needs to be spoken to.

    #&$% THA POLICE

    凸 (`0´)凸

      I choose to believe that the censored word there is 'help' :-)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Kf4kyQabwQ

    I think that Dylan WHEELER (or whoever is responsible for censoring that Order) is not too bright. "The order required WHEELER". GG Dylan WHEELER...

      I know. I couldn't stop giggling at the censorship fail :-)

      That is how these forms need to be processed and written... idiot

    Why would you censor the guys last name, only to refer to him by his last name through the rest of the report, uncensored???

    Anyway, I don't agree that he should have to supply the password, especially if there is evidence there that could incriminate him. A basic concept of our criminal law is the right to remain silent, they're basically asking him to break this.

      Unfortunately the Cybercrimes Act is pretty unclear when it comes to providing access to a system. It only says that the person commits a crime if they fail to comply with a request or Order, with a penalty of 6 months jail. By him saying he "forgot" because it changes frequently is a pretty shady defence. To anyone else it's just stalling the inevitable. I suppose if anyone want to commit illegal computer-based shenanigans, drive encryption is the way to go.

        I'd imagine that the principle that you don't have to say anything which would incriminate you is different to an order to produce or whatever it is.

        Either way you'd think the cops would be able to get in with or without his help.

          "Please step out of the vehicle."
          "You can't make me!"
          "Actually I can. But I have to ask you first. You're coming out of the vehicle one way or another, but if you don't do it when I ask, I have another thing on the list of things I can charge you with. The prosecutor likes having a long list of things to charge with and while it's more effort for me, I'm warming to the idea of hurting you in the line of duty, so I'm good either way."
          "...K, I'm getting out."

            As it should be!

            Last edited 30/07/13 11:26 am

      You're thinking American laws, where they have the 5th amendment. No such right exists over here.

        It's a part of english common law, which is the basis for our law.

          You are thinking of the right to not have to present testimony in court if it may incriminate yourself. And here in Australia, a Judge can still find you in contempt of court for refusing to do so.

      so you think criminals should be allowed to withhold evidence that shows them guilty? I can understand respecting a persons privacy, and making sure the law doesn't invade that, but why the hell should incrimination be a valid defense?

      "sorry officer, I can't show you my laptop because it proves I broke the law, and the law says that if it proves I broke the law that I don't have to show it to you", I can't be the only one that sees how stupid that is.

        So @zoridium_jackl, please tell me when you stopped killing children.

          i don't recall ever killing children, so I'm not sure what you mean...

            You didn't answer the question, you must be guilty.

              your question wasn't ever explained...

              and I did answer, by responding that I never started killing children, or are you incapable of drawing the appropriate conclusion from that answer?

              either way, I don't see the relevance of the question...

                I don't see that as a valid answer as I asked "When" and you did not specify that. If you have to provide a valid answer you would be in trouble.

                Either way, there are several other reasons why you shouldn't answer, even if you have nothing to hide.
                This has some good points.
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

                  i said I never started, if you can't draw the obvious conclusion, which is that you can't stop doing something you never started, then you're thicker then I thought.

                  also, you seem to have entirely missed my point, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to withhold information, just that withholding it BECAUSE it proves your guilt is stupid and there shouldn't be a law specifically for that, being able to withhold it because it's in your best legal interests? fine, being able to withhold it because you are actually guilty of committing the crime? stupid.

        It isn't the job of the accused to provide evidence against them.

        Once charged (or I believe made aware of an investigation) they can be penalised for destroying evidence, but they shouldn't be expected to do the prosecution's job.

        We really need a Bill of Rights in this country....

          no it's not their job, but using the fact that you're guilty and have evidence that proves it as a reason why you shouldn't need to give them that evidence is stupid, it's like saying you can't be proven guilty because you are guilty.

    "when asked to provide some of those passwords" and requiring insight into the process for standard composition of the password sound like the beginnings of a conspiracy that ends with someone attempting to access any passworded services he may use, including that alleged FTP cache.

    GL to the prosecutor on that one. If there is even a slight doubt as to whether he could have genuinely forgotten the password, the case has to be kicked out of court. The order requires him to provide the specific password for that device, not possible passwords which he may have used which could in fact be irrelevant to that device. If they wanted to successfully prosecute the case, the order needed to be served within days of the seizure, not months afterwards.

    Last edited 29/07/13 6:47 pm

      That's not the order itself. That's the details of what he's being charged with, in this case, failing to comply with the data access order, which was served on May 27th (that's right out of the first paragraph).

        The seizure took place in mid-February however, meaning sufficient time could feasibly have passed between the seizure and the issuing of the order that he could have genuinely forgotten the password. You cannot convict someone of failing to comply with an order if there is reasonable evidence that they were not able to comply with the order in the first place as of the date of issue. And you can bet your arse that is the line the defense lawyer will take.

    I love how the police are pressing a case against him while claiming to have not have a victim...

    Unless he is using a firmware password it is extremely easy to get around this.

    If this was America, you can bet there'd be a lot more of a kerfuffle. This is playing out a lot like the Jeffrey Feldman case. (He was brought up on Child Porn charges, but would not decrypt his hard drive due to the Fifth Amendment. The police tried to force him to decrypt it but the courts stayed the order and put the kibosh on further attempts)

    Oh look, I think I found his Linked In (LinkedIn?) page:

    (redacted, see below)

    I wonder if his employer knows about his hobbies...

    Last edited 30/07/13 12:21 am

      Perhaps you should remove the link to this innocent person?

        And since the actual person in question hasn't been proven guilty in a court of law, forbear from posting any more links.

    Who are the top 5 hackers of all time? Think about it: Dylan, Dylan, Dylan, Dylan & Dylan, because he codes hot fiyah.

    There was also a much earlier hacking related case referred to by Kevin Mitnick in his book "Art of Intrusion" (Wiley, 2005) where a hacker was given the same order in the US. He laughed in their faces, said no and due to 100+ character password and reportedly true military level 256 bit encryption the authorities had to let him go after they figured out they didn't have the resources and time to crack it.
    People with the expertise for using top notch encryption and getting up to computer shenanigans have worked out it's safer to say no and get a slap on the wrist than say yes and spend 30 years in prison.
    In the US the Federal Court of Appeals have recently ruled that the authorities can only require someone to decrypt a computer if law enforcement can prove they know precisely whats on it. Not just vague evidence of shenanigans.

    Well, I hope he knows what he is doing, but I'm getting the impression that he doesn't. Shouldn't he be talking over this with his lawyer?

    Considering how over the top the US is when it comes to foreign crime, I'm surprised he isn't already in guantanimo bay.

      He would have been if the Howard government was still in power.

    WHEELER and O'HEHIR are two awesome cop names...

    there is nothing the police can do, all he has to say is that he forgot and they cant do anything else. if they new how to break the encryption they would have already done it and have not needed to ask him for access. this whole saga seems to me like big american companies using money to get their way

      The order says "WHEELER didn't want to tell police the password but offered to enter the password himself during the search warrant"...... so clearly he knew what the password was.

      Sounds like a pretty solid prosecution case to me....

    You guys need to stop posting articles about this kid.

    Why doesn't he post the child porn one?

    Perhaps they could not get a windows pc to talk to it?

    'Henry had spent a spell talking to serious characters from Microsoft HQ'

    Who the heck is 'Henry', there's no mention in the article?

    What kind of idiot would possibly hand over evidence that might incriminate him? Smart move says tell them to go away.

    Don't EVER talk to the police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

    I get it, his nickname is"Dylan 'Detective O'HEHIR' Wheeler". Weird as nickname but a tad funny...

    Im guessing the censored stuff after maybe is "I offered to enter the passwords myself as a matter of courtesy. I tried to enter a couple, but it seems they didnt work. It's taken too long. If I enter another incorrect one, it will erase everything. EVERYTHING. Neither of us want that now do we? The problem is Detective O'HEHIR, that now I really have forgotten the passwords. They are pretty complicated as they are comprised of randomly ordered 27 letters, numbers and symbols. Twenty seven Detective O'HEHIR. Twenty seven. Also they change every week. Could you remember that? Huh? Could you? No? Well then maybe, just MAYBE I am not obstructing your investigation like you think. Stop asking me stupid questions Detective O"HEHIER. I'm not going to tell you the passwords or enter them for you because I cant. Ok. I CANT Reiterating the composition to me aint gonna help. AT ALL. I've forgotten it. So get off my case. Oh and just for the record maybe puck you"

    I know a couple people who use password-tracking sites that generate and store incredibly complex passwords for them, which they could never remember on their own. I know one of them once lost access to one of the unique codes they needed due to a hard-drive crash, and they were freaked out that they were unable to access their shit forever. Luckily, I had a copy of something they'd sent while the service was malfunctioning, and they could do a restore from that identifying information, but without it, they'd have been screwed.

    I'm no expert on how all that stuff works, but to be able to lose an unmemorable highly-secure password seems like a pretty easy thing to do if you've been careful but someone has gone and fucked up all your shit.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now