5 ms·

The reason I don't like the safe analogy is that it is something physical, which the courts have repeatedly said is fair game. They can compel you to open a saf

The reason I don't like the safe analogy is that it is something physical, which the courts have repeatedly said is fair game. They can compel you to open a safe, they can not compel you to turn over a password. Something you have vs something you know. Which is why I also added the crypto example. The feds can not force me to decrypt my own crypto, I have 5th amendment protection against that. The 5th does not extend to something you have / are, which is why fingerprints to unlock an iphone can be compelled by the courts but they can't force you to turn over your password.

Osiris30 11y ago
Yes thats the key point - but the physical safe analogy is how the DoJ thinks (or wants to think, and wants the public to think) about the issue. crypto = 5th Amendment. Locked safe analogy = search warrant. Thats their simple messaging. Apple needs to do what they do best - market this brilliantly but simply.
jkyle 11y ago
Well, they can "compel" in the sense that they can demand the owner release it. The owner can refuse and suffer the legal consequences. In such a case, has there ever been a precedent of going to the safe manufacturer and compelling them to break into the safe? Have they ever then required all safe makers to make exploitable safes with master keys?
- lern_too_spel 11y ago
  In the case where the safe maker has special ability to break the existing safe, there is plenty of precedent. Every application of the All Writs Act follows that analogy, including this San Bernardino case.
rayiner 11y ago
> They can compel you to open a safe, they can not compel you to turn over a password. Note that they can, however, force a third party to turn over a password. The privilege against compelled testimony only applies to self-incrimination.
HNaTTY 11y ago
> The feds can not force me to decrypt my own crypto, I have 5th amendment protection against that. That depends on what the gov't knows about what encrypted files you have. In the worst case, they don't need to ask you for your password, they just need you to decrypt your data. In Re Boucher is the most famous case where the government ruled that the 5th amendment couldn't prevent the government from compelling someone to decrypt their data. On the flip side, Wikipedia has this short blurb on it's article on U.S. V Hubbell: "The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hubbell. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects a witness from being compelled to disclose the existence of incriminating documents that the Government is unable to describe with reasonable particularity. The Court also ruled that if the witness produces such documents, pursuant to a grant of immunity, the government may not use them to prepare criminal charges against him."

Osiris30 11y ago

Yes thats the key point - but the physical safe analogy is how the DoJ thinks (or wants to think, and wants the public to think) about the issue. crypto = 5th Amendment. Locked safe analogy = search warrant. Thats their simple messaging. Apple needs to do what they do best - market this brilliantly but simply.

jkyle 11y ago

Well, they can "compel" in the sense that they can demand the owner release it. The owner can refuse and suffer the legal consequences. In such a case, has there ever been a precedent of going to the safe manufacturer and compelling them to break into the safe? Have they ever then required all safe makers to make exploitable safes with master keys?

lern_too_spel 11y ago
In the case where the safe maker has special ability to break the existing safe, there is plenty of precedent. Every application of the All Writs Act follows that analogy, including this San Bernardino case.

rayiner 11y ago

> They can compel you to open a safe, they can not compel you to turn over a password. Note that they can, however, force a third party to turn over a password. The privilege against compelled testimony only applies to self-incrimination.

HNaTTY 11y ago

> The feds can not force me to decrypt my own crypto, I have 5th amendment protection against that. That depends on what the gov't knows about what encrypted files you have. In the worst case, they don't need to ask you for your password, they just need you to decrypt your data. In Re Boucher is the most famous case where the government ruled that the 5th amendment couldn't prevent the government from compelling someone to decrypt their data. On the flip side, Wikipedia has this short blurb on it's article on U.S. V Hubbell: "The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hubbell. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects a witness from being compelled to disclose the existence of incriminating documents that the Government is unable to describe with reasonable particularity. The Court also ruled that if the witness produces such documents, pursuant to a grant of immunity, the government may not use them to prepare criminal charges against him."