4 ms·

Isn't the grandparent quote stating the opposite of what you've said here?

by mejari 10y ago

cookiecaper 10y ago
Technically, maybe. The court's language is meant to clarify that the accused does not have to disclose his key, he need only unlock his disks. There is no reasonable expectation that this would require a significant effort or testimony on his part. His case hinges on whether he can prove that the work necessary to decrypt the disks, which is understood to mean entering the keys which he remembers, is testimonial self-incrimination and thus illegal under the Fifth Amendment. Believe it or not, most judges are aware of smartasses and are not required to accept "Well, I don't remember, and you can't prove that I do, so ha! You have to let me go now!" The evidence surely indicates that this man used his computer regularly, which necessarily required unlocking his disks, and that means that by all rational conclusions he is, or at least was, capable of complying with the order. Until the court is fully convinced that he is no longer capable of complying, or until the order is dropped, modified, or stayed, Rawls will remain detained for his failure to comply.
- pdpi 10y ago
  > There is no reasonable expectation that this would require a significant effort or testimony on his part. Whether or not this is true is precisely the crux of the matter. Your comment echoes the government's position: Decrypting the hard disk is not equivalent to testimony, and is therefore not protected by the fifth. The defence and EFF's amicus brief argue instead that we live in a world where our phones and computers are effectively an extension of ourselves, and asking to decrypt those is equivalent to forcing you to testify on your most intimate secrets, which is most certainly not kosher.
- type0 10y ago
  > The evidence surely indicates that this man used his computer regularly, which necessarily required unlocking his disks, and that means that by all rational conclusions he is, or at least was, capable of complying with the order. Well that is understandable but what if he burned the passwords just before he got arrested, heck he might even chewed them up and those are long gone. How would they find out? If he is a such dangerous child molester should they go full Sam L.Jackson Unthinkable style on him?

Isn't the grandparent quote stating the opposite of what you've said here?

by mejari 10y ago

Isn't the grandparent quote stating the opposite of what you've said here?

Technically, maybe. The court's language is meant to clarify that the accused does not have to disclose his key, he need only unlock his disks. There is no reasonable expectation that this would require a significant effort or testimony on his part. His case hinges on whether he can prove that the work necessary to decrypt the disks, which is understood to mean entering the keys which he remembers, is testimonial self-incrimination and thus illegal under the Fifth Amendment. Believe it or not, most judges are aware of smartasses and are not required to accept "Well, I don't remember, and you can't prove that I do, so ha! You have to let me go now!" The evidence surely indicates that this man used his computer regularly, which necessarily required unlocking his disks, and that means that by all rational conclusions he is, or at least was, capable of complying with the order. Until the court is fully convinced that he is no longer capable of complying, or until the order is dropped, modified, or stayed, Rawls will remain detained for his failure to comply.

pdpi 10y ago
> There is no reasonable expectation that this would require a significant effort or testimony on his part. Whether or not this is true is precisely the crux of the matter. Your comment echoes the government's position: Decrypting the hard disk is not equivalent to testimony, and is therefore not protected by the fifth. The defence and EFF's amicus brief argue instead that we live in a world where our phones and computers are effectively an extension of ourselves, and asking to decrypt those is equivalent to forcing you to testify on your most intimate secrets, which is most certainly not kosher.
type0 10y ago
> The evidence surely indicates that this man used his computer regularly, which necessarily required unlocking his disks, and that means that by all rational conclusions he is, or at least was, capable of complying with the order. Well that is understandable but what if he burned the passwords just before he got arrested, heck he might even chewed them up and those are long gone. How would they find out? If he is a such dangerous child molester should they go full Sam L.Jackson Unthinkable style on him?