3 ms·

Let's say I have a hard drive full of illegal material, the police suspect it and have enough evidence to obtain a warrant, should I not then be obligated to sh

Let's say I have a hard drive full of illegal material, the police suspect it and have enough evidence to obtain a warrant, should I not then be obligated to show the contents of the hard drive? Much like a warrant for a home or business premises, why should it not be enforceable for digital things too?

lutorm 16y ago
But if you've written notes in your notebook that are comprehensible only to you, should you be compelled to explain to the authorities what they mean?
- oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago
  That was one of the jokes with the original wording. To cover encrypted, as well as enciphered, text it said something like "any clear text that has a hidden meaning". Which immediately made most of literature and theology illegal. You couldn't posses a poem or a bible unless you could explain to the police any hidden symbolism! Pictures of the police kicking down doors and shouting "you're nicked - now explain what the poet really meant by a host of yellow daffodils"
- patio11 16y ago
  This is talking about the Color of Bits, to quote a famous article on the subject of computer programmers discussing law about computers. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php Computer programmers think, aha, I can apply an arbitrary algorithmic translation to input A and get output B, and applying the law to B would be absurd, so therefore applying the law to A is also absurd. What they fail to realize is that bits have color -- a type of metadata that law algorithms can see and operate on which your computer algorithms are ignorant of. You think that encrypted contents of a computer harddrive is a logically equivalent operation to writing things in a form only comprehensible to oneself. This is only true if you're Colorblind.
  - mindslight 16y ago
    > You think that encrypted contents of a computer harddrive is a logically equivalent operation to writing things in a form only comprehensible to oneself. This entirely depends on whether you view your computer as an extension of your personal consciousness or as being an external service that you're interacting with. I'd rather a society where computers act as individuals' agents, rather than people being at the mercy of the computers.
  - ovi256 16y ago
    This color is what normal people call intention. Big file that is storing your n-th computed prime : innocuous. Big file that is storing pirated movie, even if called "n-th prime" : not OK.
gst 16y ago
"Much like a warrant for a home or business premises, why should it not be enforceable for digital things too?" In most (democratic) countries you do not have to cooperate with the police if they have a warrant. So they are allowed to search your house, they are allowed to break your lock/door, but you are not obligated to give them the key to your house. It's already the same with digital things: The police can get a warrant and is then allowed to try to crack my password. But I'm not obligated to give them the key.
- aplusbi 16y ago
  I'm not so sure that's true. I'm pretty sure that not allowing the police to search your house (given that they have a search warrant) is at the very least considered obstruction of justice (in the US). The difference is in the consequences of refusal. For a home search, it's usually in your best interest to open the door because it's really easy for the police to break it down. For an encrypted hard drive, it's nearly impossible to retrieve the data if you refuse to decrypt it.
oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago
Because it's more like the police being given a warrant for you to tell them everything you know. In most countries the police don't get a search warrant for your head - except where you are wearing an orange jumpsuit and having water poured down your throat.
- btilly 16y ago
  having water poured down your throat. If you're referring to waterboarding, the water goes in your nose and sinuses, not your throat. And the amount of water used is very small. The aim is not to drown the person. It is to trigger the drowning reflex. Which happens very fast when you are unable to move. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58 for a demonstration of how exactly it is done and what it looks like.
  - oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago
    In that case then my point about the difference between searching your property and searching your mind is totally refuted.

lutorm 16y ago

But if you've written notes in your notebook that are comprehensible only to you, should you be compelled to explain to the authorities what they mean?

oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago
That was one of the jokes with the original wording. To cover encrypted, as well as enciphered, text it said something like "any clear text that has a hidden meaning". Which immediately made most of literature and theology illegal. You couldn't posses a poem or a bible unless you could explain to the police any hidden symbolism! Pictures of the police kicking down doors and shouting "you're nicked - now explain what the poet really meant by a host of yellow daffodils"
patio11 16y ago
This is talking about the Color of Bits, to quote a famous article on the subject of computer programmers discussing law about computers. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php Computer programmers think, aha, I can apply an arbitrary algorithmic translation to input A and get output B, and applying the law to B would be absurd, so therefore applying the law to A is also absurd. What they fail to realize is that bits have color -- a type of metadata that law algorithms can see and operate on which your computer algorithms are ignorant of. You think that encrypted contents of a computer harddrive is a logically equivalent operation to writing things in a form only comprehensible to oneself. This is only true if you're Colorblind.
- mindslight 16y ago
  > You think that encrypted contents of a computer harddrive is a logically equivalent operation to writing things in a form only comprehensible to oneself. This entirely depends on whether you view your computer as an extension of your personal consciousness or as being an external service that you're interacting with. I'd rather a society where computers act as individuals' agents, rather than people being at the mercy of the computers.
- ovi256 16y ago
  This color is what normal people call intention. Big file that is storing your n-th computed prime : innocuous. Big file that is storing pirated movie, even if called "n-th prime" : not OK.

gst 16y ago

"Much like a warrant for a home or business premises, why should it not be enforceable for digital things too?" In most (democratic) countries you do not have to cooperate with the police if they have a warrant. So they are allowed to search your house, they are allowed to break your lock/door, but you are not obligated to give them the key to your house. It's already the same with digital things: The police can get a warrant and is then allowed to try to crack my password. But I'm not obligated to give them the key.

aplusbi 16y ago
I'm not so sure that's true. I'm pretty sure that not allowing the police to search your house (given that they have a search warrant) is at the very least considered obstruction of justice (in the US). The difference is in the consequences of refusal. For a home search, it's usually in your best interest to open the door because it's really easy for the police to break it down. For an encrypted hard drive, it's nearly impossible to retrieve the data if you refuse to decrypt it.

oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago

Because it's more like the police being given a warrant for you to tell them everything you know. In most countries the police don't get a search warrant for your head - except where you are wearing an orange jumpsuit and having water poured down your throat.

btilly 16y ago
having water poured down your throat. If you're referring to waterboarding, the water goes in your nose and sinuses, not your throat. And the amount of water used is very small. The aim is not to drown the person. It is to trigger the drowning reflex. Which happens very fast when you are unable to move. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58 for a demonstration of how exactly it is done and what it looks like.
- oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago
  In that case then my point about the difference between searching your property and searching your mind is totally refuted.