4 ms·

The fact that police can't access your data without your permission is a technical reason, not a legal reason. Warrants say the police can search your home. Eve

by wfo 10y ago

The fact that police can't access your data without your permission is a technical reason, not a legal reason. Warrants say the police can search your home. Everything in your home. The data on the machines in your home. If a police officer knocks on your door and presents a valid warrant and you say "good luck, I've booby trapped my home as a fortress with shotguns and explosives and I refuse to disable them" you will be locked in jail until you do. Police don't have to deal with your bullshit when a judge orders you to do something and you refuse to comply. They just lock you in jail until you do what they say. And no, none of your examples are appropriate. If the police could prove you had a grocery list had all of the items used in a crime and could tie you to it, went to a judge, got a warrant, and ordered you to turn over that list, you'd have to do it. If it's encrypted in some scheme you have to show them the real data. It's not the cops' job to work their way around every weird little obstacle you put in their way when they have a lawful order requiring you to hand over information. In your scenario, if they had a warrant for your grocery list or XMPP server data, you wouldn't be "jailed indefinitely", you'd be jailed until you complied with a lawful order to turn over the data you possess. I don't know where you got the idea you'd be jailed indefinitely because of the content of the chats, that one came out of nowhere. If they discuss crimes you've committed you'd be jailed for those crimes, not indefinitely. After you turn over the logs. If you refuse you're breaking the law. If you don't have access, you can go ahead and try to prove that to the judge, or convince the judge you forgot your password. But the police can provide evidence to suggest you DO have access, you are just willfully refusing to give it up. Like, e.g. logs of you accessing it successfully, recently. Yes there are legitimate reasons people encrypt things. I encrypt everything, all the time, just for the sake of doing it. I use Tor for my fairly mundane browsing all the time because I value my privacy. But encryption does not mean "I never have to give anything to the authorities, under any circumstances, no matter what, and there can't ever be any consequences for me if I refuse when they go through proper channels and ask". Encryption does not mean you don't have to comply with the law.

braveo 10y ago
> The fact that police can't access your data without your permission is a technical reason, not a legal reason. Warrants say the police can search your home. Everything in your home. The data on the machines in your home. If a police officer knocks on your door and presents a valid warrant and you say "good luck, I've booby trapped my home as a fortress with shotguns and explosives and I refuse to disable them" you will be locked in jail until you do. Police don't have to deal with your bullshit when a judge orders you to do something and you refuse to comply. They just lock you in jail until you do what they say. When you start using such bullshit, outlandish arguments, you've lost the point. > In your scenario, if they had a warrant for your grocery list or XMPP server data, you wouldn't be "jailed indefinitely", you'd be jailed until you complied with a lawful order to turn over the data you possess. They have the data. What they don't have is an ability to interpret the data, but they most definitely have been given the data. If that's really your measuring stick, then they need to let this guy go because they have the data in their possession. What next, we're going to jail someone indefinitely (oh I'm sorry, not indefinitely, just "until they comply"...) because they refuse to read off their grocery list, which they wrote down in french because the police can't find someone else to read it for them? no, fuck that, it's all splitting hairs. "We don't want him to give us the password, just force him to unlock it for us, so it's totally not the same thing!". Right... Oh also.... you're wrong about the warrant point. http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/search-anywhere-with-warrant.htm http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_... > Actually, the police might not be able to search anywhere just because they have a search warrant, there is a requirement that a warrant describe specifically the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Although it is possible that a warrant will give police a general license to search anywhere in a home, it is also possible that the search might be limited to specific areas in the home. Maybe you live in a different country, but in the US it's typically understood that a warrant is meant to be specific to avoid the issue with police getting a warrant to look for a stolen bike and going through your toilet looking for hidden drugs.

by wfo 10y ago

braveo 10y ago

> The fact that police can't access your data without your permission is a technical reason, not a legal reason. Warrants say the police can search your home. Everything in your home. The data on the machines in your home. If a police officer knocks on your door and presents a valid warrant and you say "good luck, I've booby trapped my home as a fortress with shotguns and explosives and I refuse to disable them" you will be locked in jail until you do. Police don't have to deal with your bullshit when a judge orders you to do something and you refuse to comply. They just lock you in jail until you do what they say. When you start using such bullshit, outlandish arguments, you've lost the point. > In your scenario, if they had a warrant for your grocery list or XMPP server data, you wouldn't be "jailed indefinitely", you'd be jailed until you complied with a lawful order to turn over the data you possess. They have the data. What they don't have is an ability to interpret the data, but they most definitely have been given the data. If that's really your measuring stick, then they need to let this guy go because they have the data in their possession. What next, we're going to jail someone indefinitely (oh I'm sorry, not indefinitely, just "until they comply"...) because they refuse to read off their grocery list, which they wrote down in french because the police can't find someone else to read it for them? no, fuck that, it's all splitting hairs. "We don't want him to give us the password, just force him to unlock it for us, so it's totally not the same thing!". Right... Oh also.... you're wrong about the warrant point. http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/search-anywhere-with-warrant.htm http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_... > Actually, the police might not be able to search anywhere just because they have a search warrant, there is a requirement that a warrant describe specifically the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Although it is possible that a warrant will give police a general license to search anywhere in a home, it is also possible that the search might be limited to specific areas in the home. Maybe you live in a different country, but in the US it's typically understood that a warrant is meant to be specific to avoid the issue with police getting a warrant to look for a stolen bike and going through your toilet looking for hidden drugs.