5 ms·
> What this shows is that encryption does not lock justice out and that it's really no different than papers in a safe in a person's house. If prosecutors have
by Veratyr 11y ago
> What this shows is that encryption does not lock justice out and that it's really no different than papers in a safe in a person's house. If prosecutors have a valid reason to access the information they can go to a judge, get a lawful court order and serve it against the person who owns the safe.
This situation has actually come up before and it was ruled that while a person can be compelled to unlock a box with a physical key, a person cannot be compelled to provide the combination to a safe. [0] goes into a lot of depth on this.
[0] http://www.uclalawreview.org/the-fifth-amendment-encryption-and-the-forgotten-state-interest/ http://www.uclalawreview.org/the-fifth-amendment-encryption-...
- derefr 11y agoA stronger analogy, falling between the two scenarios, would be: presuming the original key for a lock has been destroyed, but you have memorized the particular key-cutting metrics that would be required to produce a working duplicate, could you be compelled to reveal those metrics so such a key could be created?