4 ms·

I realize this story is in the UK, but could it happen in the US or would the 5th amendment protect you? As an American, it seems a bit insane to me for someon

I realize this story is in the UK, but could it happen in the US or would the 5th amendment protect you? As an American, it seems a bit insane to me for someone to be jailed for refusing to help convict himself.

moxiemk1 16y ago
I thought remembered a court precedent in the US that ruled being compelled to divulge encryption keys was equivalent to being compelled to hand over keys to locked places (like a safe), which is historically required. That said, I can't find such an article, so hopefully I'm making it up and we are indeed safe in our minds.
- camiller 16y ago
  I thought that also but then found this from 2008: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2008-02-07-encrypted-laptop-child-porn_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2008-02-07-encr...
- Anechoic 16y ago
  There's United States v. Boucher but case had a couple of wrinkles, including the fact that Boucher had previously cooperated with law enforcement so it was thought that providing a password wasn't self-imcrimination since it wouldn't add to the knowledge of what the authorities already had: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher
- pilom 16y ago
  No legally in the US you are not required to give the keys to the safe, but they can drop your sentence significantly for working with the investigators. For a safe, if you don't give them the key, the get a grinder and hack saw, for an encrypted hard drive in the US they give it to the NSA (though 50 chars would be tough for even them i'd expect).
  - pyre 16y ago
    The NSA doesn't want anyone to know what their capabilities are, but I remember a case where they gave it to a university which threw a cluster at it... edit: 'they' being 'the authorities', not the NSA.
evgen 16y ago
The 5th amendment protects against forced testimony, not against compulsion to provide evidence. You can refuse to testify against yourself, you cannot refuse to comply with a valid search warrant.
- wjy 16y ago
  Testifying is providing information to the court. Decrypting your hard drive is providing information to the court. What's the difference? I would argue that all evidence is really just information. Once again, the old lines dividing one category from another become blurred.
  - evgen 16y ago
    The difference is that testimony is revealing the contents of your brain ("I saw X, I did or did not do Y, I felt Z") and evidence is revealing the contents of your car trunk. Evidence does not have its own opinion of what did or did not happen, evidence does not decide what is or is not the truth. Evidence simply exists; it is for others (giving testimony) to give evidence context and relevance.
    - blahblahblah 16y ago
      The password is among the contents of your brain.
      - lurchpop 16y ago
        damn. that's a really good point, but i still think it'd fall under the 4th. A password is closer to providing a key to a locked door rather than testimony. It would be interesting to know if there was ever a hybrid case where there was a password-protected door with a numeric keypad, and someone refused to give the pw. I'd assume in a case like that, however, the cops would just smash shit out of it.
      - Nelson69 16y ago
        It's not the password they want, it's the evidence in side the "safe" that your password protects. You're compelled to provide access. You could probably make a legitimate case for not actually revealing the password if you provided access for them.

moxiemk1 16y ago

I thought remembered a court precedent in the US that ruled being compelled to divulge encryption keys was equivalent to being compelled to hand over keys to locked places (like a safe), which is historically required. That said, I can't find such an article, so hopefully I'm making it up and we are indeed safe in our minds.

camiller 16y ago
I thought that also but then found this from 2008: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2008-02-07-encrypted-laptop-child-porn_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2008-02-07-encr...
Anechoic 16y ago
There's United States v. Boucher but case had a couple of wrinkles, including the fact that Boucher had previously cooperated with law enforcement so it was thought that providing a password wasn't self-imcrimination since it wouldn't add to the knowledge of what the authorities already had: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher
pilom 16y ago
No legally in the US you are not required to give the keys to the safe, but they can drop your sentence significantly for working with the investigators. For a safe, if you don't give them the key, the get a grinder and hack saw, for an encrypted hard drive in the US they give it to the NSA (though 50 chars would be tough for even them i'd expect).
- pyre 16y ago
  The NSA doesn't want anyone to know what their capabilities are, but I remember a case where they gave it to a university which threw a cluster at it... edit: 'they' being 'the authorities', not the NSA.

evgen 16y ago

The 5th amendment protects against forced testimony, not against compulsion to provide evidence. You can refuse to testify against yourself, you cannot refuse to comply with a valid search warrant.

wjy 16y ago
Testifying is providing information to the court. Decrypting your hard drive is providing information to the court. What's the difference? I would argue that all evidence is really just information. Once again, the old lines dividing one category from another become blurred.
- evgen 16y ago
  The difference is that testimony is revealing the contents of your brain ("I saw X, I did or did not do Y, I felt Z") and evidence is revealing the contents of your car trunk. Evidence does not have its own opinion of what did or did not happen, evidence does not decide what is or is not the truth. Evidence simply exists; it is for others (giving testimony) to give evidence context and relevance.
  - blahblahblah 16y ago
    The password is among the contents of your brain.
    - lurchpop 16y ago
      damn. that's a really good point, but i still think it'd fall under the 4th. A password is closer to providing a key to a locked door rather than testimony. It would be interesting to know if there was ever a hybrid case where there was a password-protected door with a numeric keypad, and someone refused to give the pw. I'd assume in a case like that, however, the cops would just smash shit out of it.
    - Nelson69 16y ago
      It's not the password they want, it's the evidence in side the "safe" that your password protects. You're compelled to provide access. You could probably make a legitimate case for not actually revealing the password if you provided access for them.