3 ms·

But they are not asking him to testify, admit guilt, or anything like that. They aren't even asking him to tell them the password, just to enter the password to

But they are not asking him to testify, admit guilt, or anything like that. They aren't even asking him to tell them the password, just to enter the password to decrypt. This is more like expecting access to your house when a search warrant is provided. EDIT: To be clear, it's not that I feel he should necessarily be compelled, but rather that a fifth amendment defense is weak in this case, since it's not a testimony at all, but rather revealing already existing material (as opposed to compelling the defendant to write a confession).

dopamean 9y ago
This may be a dumb question but I want to make sure I'm getting everything here... they have a warrant to search the hard drive?
- stinkytaco 9y ago
  Yes, there is a court order compelling him to unlock the drives. The really questionable thing here is that they haven't charged him with any crimes, even contempt. That shows there may be a desire to establish some precedent in this case. EDIT: Scratch that, you can hold someone in jail as long as they are in contempt of court, apparently.
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> They aren't even asking him to tell them the password, just to enter the password to decrypt. How are you distinguishing one from the other? What makes compelling someone to speak the password aloud different from compelling them to type it with a keyboard?
- stinkytaco 9y ago
  Well, the government has made a distinction for physical security [1]. So it's probably not too much of a jump to make. That case is probably the closest case law to this one we have, though the facts aren't quite the same (the police didn't have as much evidence for what might be on the phone in that case). [1]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/court-rules-against-man-who-was-forced-to-fingerprint-unlock-his-phone/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/court-rules-agai... EDIT: Worth pointing out that line in that case is really "physical evidence" vs. "knowledge". The court argues that the fingerprint unlocking the smartphone is closer to a blood sample than a testimony. However, I could definitely see a court seeing this as "it's ok to make someone unlock" because they didn't just collect the physical evidence, but made him take the action of unlocking the phone.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    The obvious difference is that fingerprints aren't testimony. They aren't in your mind, they're on your hand.
AlexCoventry 9y ago
How can they validate that he's provided an accurately decrypted hard drive, without the password?

dopamean 9y ago

This may be a dumb question but I want to make sure I'm getting everything here... they have a warrant to search the hard drive?

stinkytaco 9y ago
Yes, there is a court order compelling him to unlock the drives. The really questionable thing here is that they haven't charged him with any crimes, even contempt. That shows there may be a desire to establish some precedent in this case. EDIT: Scratch that, you can hold someone in jail as long as they are in contempt of court, apparently.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> They aren't even asking him to tell them the password, just to enter the password to decrypt. How are you distinguishing one from the other? What makes compelling someone to speak the password aloud different from compelling them to type it with a keyboard?

stinkytaco 9y ago
Well, the government has made a distinction for physical security [1]. So it's probably not too much of a jump to make. That case is probably the closest case law to this one we have, though the facts aren't quite the same (the police didn't have as much evidence for what might be on the phone in that case). [1]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/court-rules-against-man-who-was-forced-to-fingerprint-unlock-his-phone/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/court-rules-agai... EDIT: Worth pointing out that line in that case is really "physical evidence" vs. "knowledge". The court argues that the fingerprint unlocking the smartphone is closer to a blood sample than a testimony. However, I could definitely see a court seeing this as "it's ok to make someone unlock" because they didn't just collect the physical evidence, but made him take the action of unlocking the phone.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  The obvious difference is that fingerprints aren't testimony. They aren't in your mind, they're on your hand.

AlexCoventry 9y ago

How can they validate that he's provided an accurately decrypted hard drive, without the password?