2 ms·
Except, the law is about "reasonable doubt", and has been dealing with this kind of thing for hundreds of years. This isn't new magic. By a similar argument, a
by CJefferson 11y ago
Except, the law is about "reasonable doubt", and has been dealing with this kind of thing for hundreds of years. This isn't new magic.
By a similar argument, any phrase someone says to someone else might have been code for "kill that guy". Except usually it's not, and unless there is convincing evidence you did mean to kill that guy, you'll be set free.
Conversely, if you have previously agreed a code where "2+2=4" means "kill that guy", and then you say "2+2=4", you can't argue in court that "Oh, I was just saying a true statement of maths, how could that possibly be illegal?"
- jimworm 11y agoYou're talking about reasonable doubt on an order to murder, I'm talking about reasonable doubt on the possession of encrypted data. Strongly encrypted data looks random and the only way to tell the difference is to have the decryption key. So is withholding the key sufficient for reasonable doubt? If it is, the law is useless; if it isn't, any random data is evidence of guilt.
- debacle 11y agoThe law isn't cut and dry. That's a fantasy that a lot of people, especially in tech, seem to have.