5 ms·
This. In the U.S. at least, the 5th amendment gives you the right not to incriminate yourself. A search warrant doesn't change that. Not all authentication m
by sbuttgereit 10y ago
This. In the U.S. at least, the 5th amendment gives you the right not to incriminate yourself. A search warrant doesn't change that.
Not all authentication methods are equal it appears. Fingerprint, facial recognition, other bio-metrics aren't considered the same as if you need to "speak" your password to someone. In other words, they can make you scan your finger or look into a camera, but they can't force you to tell them your password.
- loup-vaillant 10y agoHow about forcing you to type the password, behind a Mantle of Power if need be, such that they can decrypt the disk, without ever knowing the password?
- dTal 10y agoAs I understand it, in the US at least this is indeed the line. Same goes for combination vs keyed locks: you can't be forced to self-incriminate by sharing information, but you can be held in contempt for withholding evidence. I imagine it gets murky around things like SSH keys, which are technically a kind of password, but too big for a human to remember - and therefore must be "instantiated" in a physical device somewhere.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago> I imagine it gets murky around things like SSH keys, which are technically a kind of password, but too big for a human to remember - and therefore must be "instantiated" in a physical device somewhere. A likely interpretation might be: an SSH key without a keyphrase is like a physical key, and you must hand it over, while a key with a keyphrase is like a combination lock, where you must hand it over but you are not required to state the keyphrase.
- pyromine 10y agoSimple password that you can remember encrypting your SSH key, know they can't compel you to give the password unlocking the key.
- Nrsolis 10y agoThe way the law works here in the USA is that anything that requires you to disclose the contents of your mind (a passphrase, an explanation of where you were, your name) cannot be compelled because the fifth amendment precludes the use of that information to convict you. Things that you ARE (such as fingerprints, DNA, hair color, photo, sample) can be compelled by a court order (e.g. a warrant) because they aren't the contents of your mind but physical aspects of your existence. That's why the use of a strong passphrase that isn't tied to a biometric is important if you're worried about this sort of thing.
- Jarwain 10y agoCan't the police/a warrant compel you to open a combination safe? That would be a case of you disclosing a passphrase/something in your mind, but contrary to your assertion.
- Nrsolis 10y agoNope. They can certainly open the safe. They just can't compel you to TESTIFY to something. The contents of your mind are sacrosanct. If they can compel you to divulge a combination, then they can also discern that you had access to that safe by virtue of possession of the combination. Not allowed by our laws.
- paulddraper 10y agoYes, there is a distinction in US law between acquiring physical and "mental" evidence. The former can be forced (e.g. I must provide my safe key) and the latter cannot (e.g. I don't have to reveal my password). The line gets blurry: keyed lock vs combination lock, password vs SSH key.
- dom0 10y ago> (e.g. I must provide my safe key) Surely you don't need to participate in the activity? They are just allowed to take and use it, I assume?
- paulddraper 10y agoIn the US, you are required to assist in the execution of a warrant (though naturally officers prefer executing it without your participation if possible). You must unlock your door, and you must unlock your safe, if it is within the scope of the warrant. https://www.quora.com/Can-a-search-warrant-compel-me-to-unlock-my-own-safe https://www.quora.com/Can-a-search-warrant-compel-me-to-unlo...
- eximius 10y agoTo be fair, AFAIK, this is only the case in criminal proceedings. In civil proceedings, your failure to comply will be held against you.