5 ms·

It is valid, and it is morally reprehensible. In the US, the Fifth Amendment protects us from such travesties.

by ax0n 16y ago

oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago
Assuming your congressman visits you while you are being secretly held in a Syrian prison
gunzler 16y ago
Has there been a case where the Fifth Amendment protected someone from disclosing a password? I'm not sure that giving up your password is analogous to being forced to testify against yourself. Edit: Indeed there has been a case, and so far the Fifth Amendment is holding strong: http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2010/04/passwords-and-5th-amendment-privilege.html http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2010/04/passwords-and-5th-ame...
- praptak 16y ago
  "I'm not sure that giving up your password is analogous to being forced to testify against yourself." This one is tricky. It depends on ones beliefs about the true reasons for the anti-self-incrimination laws. If you believe (as I do) that it is a fundamental right to remain silent whenever it could make your situation worse, then it is indeed analogous. An opposing view is that not being forced to testify against oneself comes from other, more basic reasons. One of the "higher-order" reasons against forced self-incrimination might be that punishment for refusing self-incrimination gives incentive to false self-accusation. This one does not apply to forced revealing of passwords (you cannot falsely self-accuse in this case.)
aplusbi 16y ago
Not necessarily. For example, let's say I have a safe, and I've hidden the key. The police get a warrant to search my safe. I am then legally obligated to allow them to search my safe, which means that I am legally obligated to reveal the location of the key. In the case of the safe, if I refuse they'll just break it open. Strong encryption is not so easily broken so it may not be in my best interest to cooperate (whereas with the safe, it probably is). Personally I think encryption passwords should be protected by the 5th amendment, but I understand the logic in saying it's not.
- sp4rki 16y ago
  In this example your safe is the medium in which the data is stored. If the police get's a warrant to search my safe, they may do so, but when they find a notebook full of enciphered text or a tape with "noise" in it I'm not obligated to provide them with means to decipher them. Hell I could just say I forgot the key, how is anyone going to prove I'm lying? Personally I agree with you. My data is my data, and I should be able to do whatever I want with it.
  - aplusbi 16y ago
    The medium verses transformation is a really interesting argument. I wonder how the law will see it when that day comes. I have a feeling that the transformation argument may fall pray to the "color of bits" problem but perhaps not. I think it may even come down the choice of algorithm - if I use a publicly available encryption algorithm then it might be considered a medium, whereas if I invent my own language maybe it won't. As for the forgotten key, that's another argument. There is probably a burden of proof somewhere in there (and probably more on the side of the prosecution). If, for example, the police knew you accessed the contents of the hard drive last week, it would be pretty difficult to claim you forgot your key.
    - sp4rki 16y ago
      If the law sees it as anything other than what it is, a separation between what my data is and the fact that it belongs to me, in contrast to where it is stored, it will probably open a a big ass can of worms. Might as well change the name of the USA to North Korean States of America. My opinion: If I write a poem in a notebook (hard drive) using a cipher (encryption) for which only I know the key, the law is able to take my notebook as evidence and process it as they see fit for their investigation, but the data is still mine, it's my set of bits which I'm entitled to not share with anyone unless it's my desire. I'd even say that to force me to share my data is equal to torturing me to get information from me. In both cases the law would be forcing me to reveal something against my consent, which is a violation of my rights however you look at it. YMMV of course.

It is valid, and it is morally reprehensible. In the US, the Fifth Amendment protects us from such travesties.

by ax0n 16y ago

It is valid, and it is morally reprehensible. In the US, the Fifth Amendment protects us from such travesties.

oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago

Assuming your congressman visits you while you are being secretly held in a Syrian prison

gunzler 16y ago

Has there been a case where the Fifth Amendment protected someone from disclosing a password? I'm not sure that giving up your password is analogous to being forced to testify against yourself. Edit: Indeed there has been a case, and so far the Fifth Amendment is holding strong: http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2010/04/passwords-and-5th-amendment-privilege.html http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2010/04/passwords-and-5th-ame...

praptak 16y ago
"I'm not sure that giving up your password is analogous to being forced to testify against yourself." This one is tricky. It depends on ones beliefs about the true reasons for the anti-self-incrimination laws. If you believe (as I do) that it is a fundamental right to remain silent whenever it could make your situation worse, then it is indeed analogous. An opposing view is that not being forced to testify against oneself comes from other, more basic reasons. One of the "higher-order" reasons against forced self-incrimination might be that punishment for refusing self-incrimination gives incentive to false self-accusation. This one does not apply to forced revealing of passwords (you cannot falsely self-accuse in this case.)

aplusbi 16y ago

Not necessarily. For example, let's say I have a safe, and I've hidden the key. The police get a warrant to search my safe. I am then legally obligated to allow them to search my safe, which means that I am legally obligated to reveal the location of the key. In the case of the safe, if I refuse they'll just break it open. Strong encryption is not so easily broken so it may not be in my best interest to cooperate (whereas with the safe, it probably is). Personally I think encryption passwords should be protected by the 5th amendment, but I understand the logic in saying it's not.

sp4rki 16y ago
In this example your safe is the medium in which the data is stored. If the police get's a warrant to search my safe, they may do so, but when they find a notebook full of enciphered text or a tape with "noise" in it I'm not obligated to provide them with means to decipher them. Hell I could just say I forgot the key, how is anyone going to prove I'm lying? Personally I agree with you. My data is my data, and I should be able to do whatever I want with it.
- aplusbi 16y ago
  The medium verses transformation is a really interesting argument. I wonder how the law will see it when that day comes. I have a feeling that the transformation argument may fall pray to the "color of bits" problem but perhaps not. I think it may even come down the choice of algorithm - if I use a publicly available encryption algorithm then it might be considered a medium, whereas if I invent my own language maybe it won't. As for the forgotten key, that's another argument. There is probably a burden of proof somewhere in there (and probably more on the side of the prosecution). If, for example, the police knew you accessed the contents of the hard drive last week, it would be pretty difficult to claim you forgot your key.
  - sp4rki 16y ago
    If the law sees it as anything other than what it is, a separation between what my data is and the fact that it belongs to me, in contrast to where it is stored, it will probably open a a big ass can of worms. Might as well change the name of the USA to North Korean States of America. My opinion: If I write a poem in a notebook (hard drive) using a cipher (encryption) for which only I know the key, the law is able to take my notebook as evidence and process it as they see fit for their investigation, but the data is still mine, it's my set of bits which I'm entitled to not share with anyone unless it's my desire. I'd even say that to force me to share my data is equal to torturing me to get information from me. In both cases the law would be forcing me to reveal something against my consent, which is a violation of my rights however you look at it. YMMV of course.