4 ms·
I think you're misinterpreting that idea, it's about not granting the police privilege they did not already possess. In this case the police are offering to tra
by _wmd 11y ago
I think you're misinterpreting that idea, it's about not granting the police privilege they did not already possess. In this case the police are offering to trade the privilege of airtight, forensically sound evidence collection in for the chance to grab secrets hiding in RAM. If the machine had no such secrets, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain
- brbsix 11y agoI'm a little confused. So you want to potentially give the police access to additional evidence (via your passwords/decryption keys) in the hopes that they will fuck something up or make a custodial error in the process of recovering it? You have everything to lose by giving them your passwords, even if you are innocent of the charges. You're under no obligation to give them your passwords or empty the contents of your brain in their presence. Why give them the opportunity to find something else? Who knows whether the machine has something they will find interesting. You shouldn't be providing LE with anything like this absent the advice of your attorney. There's too much to lose. I really want to encourage you to read the following: https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights
- MagnumOpus 11y agoNo, he potentially gives the police access to additional evidence (via your passwords/decryption keys) in the hopes that the police don't do what they usually do (and what is in their right to do): confiscate all his electronic equipment and data including all backups of photos, videos, work projects, documents-in-progress, archives etc and not give it back for years.