10 ms·

It might cost you personally, but not always. Sometimes you have to drive crazy things to the point of lunacy that is their logical conclusion, to make a point.

by yason 11y ago

It might cost you personally, but not always. Sometimes you have to drive crazy things to the point of lunacy that is their logical conclusion, to make a point. The case of encryption heavily underlines the nature of information itself which also lends to the nature of intellectual property, the idea where bits have colors. This is all uncharted territory so far for the general society. (The laws of information are crystal clear as interpreted by the hacker mindset but it's not at all crystal clear whether the society at large ever wants to accept the hacker mindset.) Demanding encryption keys is followed by dozens of logical consequences that are anything but obvious for the uninitiated. Several have been mentioned in this discussion already. For example, how to prove random data isn't an encrypted blob? What are the liabilities of carrying random data? What if you did encrypt it but with a throwaway password which you obviously don't remember? How can bits possibly be so dangerous to warrant jailtime for you unless you choose to reveal them? But if you store the same information in your head, you're not required to reveal it. Then how is storing the passphrase in your head any different from storing all the information in your head, albeit easier?

cm2187 11y ago
And we can push the argument to the absurd. I can draw a little symbol on a post it, and that little symbol may mean something to me, it's a form of cipher. Now can the court force me to tell them what this little symbol means, should I really go to jail if I don't? The other thing is that although the 5th amendment is an American concept, I suppose there must be a provision against self incrimination in UK law. I can't be forced to testify against myself. In France I know this how it works, a defendant is entitled to lie or refuse to answer at his own trial. If we follow that logic I don't see how one can force someone to speak a password.
- caf 11y ago
  Yes, the privilege against self-incrimination is part of the English common law (originally the defendant could not testify at all in common law courts!).
sjy 11y ago
> For example, how to prove random data isn't an encrypted blob? It is for the prosecution to prove that the random data is actually encrypted (or more accurately, to prove that you possess the 'key' to some electronic data). > What if you did encrypt it but with a throwaway password which you obviously don't remember? It is for the prosecution to disprove your sworn statement to this effect. > How can bits possibly be so dangerous to warrant jailtime for you unless you choose to reveal them? There could be reasonable grounds for believing that the bits are being used to encrypt child pornography, or some other serious crime.

by yason 11y ago

cm2187 11y ago

And we can push the argument to the absurd. I can draw a little symbol on a post it, and that little symbol may mean something to me, it's a form of cipher. Now can the court force me to tell them what this little symbol means, should I really go to jail if I don't? The other thing is that although the 5th amendment is an American concept, I suppose there must be a provision against self incrimination in UK law. I can't be forced to testify against myself. In France I know this how it works, a defendant is entitled to lie or refuse to answer at his own trial. If we follow that logic I don't see how one can force someone to speak a password.

caf 11y ago
Yes, the privilege against self-incrimination is part of the English common law (originally the defendant could not testify at all in common law courts!).

sjy 11y ago

> For example, how to prove random data isn't an encrypted blob? It is for the prosecution to prove that the random data is actually encrypted (or more accurately, to prove that you possess the 'key' to some electronic data). > What if you did encrypt it but with a throwaway password which you obviously don't remember? It is for the prosecution to disprove your sworn statement to this effect. > How can bits possibly be so dangerous to warrant jailtime for you unless you choose to reveal them? There could be reasonable grounds for believing that the bits are being used to encrypt child pornography, or some other serious crime.