2 ms·

>it's really no different than papers in a safe in a person's house. That's a really bad analogy. Those papers actually exist. Without the key the unencrypted

>it's really no different than papers in a safe in a person's house. That's a really bad analogy. Those papers actually exist. Without the key the unencrypted data is just a bunch of random nonsense. It does not exist in any real form. A better analogy is the case where the papers might exist, but are hidden. Can a court compel someone to help the police look for evidence that can be used to incriminate them?

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> That's a really bad analogy. Those papers actually exist. Without the key the unencrypted data is just a bunch of random nonsense. It does not exist in any real form. Um, no, I don't agree with that at all. The point of encryption is that the files are perfectly, 100% recoverable, but only with the key. Your version is like saying, without the combination of the safe, the papers inside don't exist in any readable form.
- upofadown 11y ago
  >Your version is like saying, without the combination of the safe, the papers inside don't exist in any readable form. That's just restating your analogy again without addressing my contention about random seeming data.
- derefr 11y ago
  There is no fact of the matter, for the recoverability of what someone believes to be encrypted files. The state has one subjective belief—that the files are real, but encrypted. You might have a different belief—e.g. that the files never existed, and your disk contains random data with a disk-encryption header prepended. The concern is that you can be held in contempt for what the government believes to be true—that real data is there, under encryption, which you are not revealing—without that necessarily having any connection to reality. By analogy: the government can compel me to open a safe, but it shouldn't be able to compel me to open something that—for all examinable intents and purposes—is a block of concrete with the facade of a safe door attached. I could certainly be held in contempt for refusing to open something that has been proved to be a safe; but holding me in contempt for refusing to open a concrete block, because they believe I have some magic power to turn it into a safe, is Kafkaesque.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

> That's a really bad analogy. Those papers actually exist. Without the key the unencrypted data is just a bunch of random nonsense. It does not exist in any real form. Um, no, I don't agree with that at all. The point of encryption is that the files are perfectly, 100% recoverable, but only with the key. Your version is like saying, without the combination of the safe, the papers inside don't exist in any readable form.

upofadown 11y ago
>Your version is like saying, without the combination of the safe, the papers inside don't exist in any readable form. That's just restating your analogy again without addressing my contention about random seeming data.
derefr 11y ago
There is no fact of the matter, for the recoverability of what someone believes to be encrypted files. The state has one subjective belief—that the files are real, but encrypted. You might have a different belief—e.g. that the files never existed, and your disk contains random data with a disk-encryption header prepended. The concern is that you can be held in contempt for what the government believes to be true—that real data is there, under encryption, which you are not revealing—without that necessarily having any connection to reality. By analogy: the government can compel me to open a safe, but it shouldn't be able to compel me to open something that—for all examinable intents and purposes—is a block of concrete with the facade of a safe door attached. I could certainly be held in contempt for refusing to open something that has been proved to be a safe; but holding me in contempt for refusing to open a concrete block, because they believe I have some magic power to turn it into a safe, is Kafkaesque.