5 ms·

Passwords are keys. Providing a key to your safe is not self incrimination. The 5th is unquestionably specific to self incriminating testimony.

bcgraham 8y ago
Providing the combination to your safe seems like a closer analogy, and I believe it is protected from compulsion by the Fifth Amendment.
- ams6110 8y ago
  A safe can always be opened by force. An encrypted file cannot, assuming a suitably complex password.
  - philjohn 8y ago
    Until you get to an encrypted file that has such a complex password it would take all of the energy and longer than the heat death of the universe to compute, it's just that you can't open it by force within a suitable timeframe.
    - DuskStar 8y ago
      An encrypted file cannot, given P!=NP (and a host of other assumptions, but P!=NP is the foundation), be decrypted. So require proof that the file is not decryptable by other means before you can compel entering a password ;)
  - cvwright 8y ago
    So citizens are being asked to give up fundamental freedoms because law enforcement is failing to do its job?
- TheCondor 8y ago
  does the fifth guarantee some universal concept of mental privacy or does it prevent that information from being used in court? You can’t take the fifth before a grand jury. I think there is a certain presumption that the actors are gentlemen that the law assumes. If you feel really strongly about that sort of privacy, you’d be well served to not find yourself in a criminal court trial. There is both ambiguity and case law here.
- NoblePublius 8y ago
  It’s not
CodesInChaos 8y ago
It is self incrimination, just a form the US constitution might not protect against.
Spooky23 8y ago
Not providing a key not in your possession is not a crime. If I have a locked container that belongs to my dad, don’t have the key or combo because he is incapacitated, am I a criminal for not giving the police they key and combo? The police can have a reasonable suspicion that something is in that box, why should that make me a criminal?
- ams6110 8y ago
  The full argument in TFA, however, is the scenario in which it can be proven that you do have a key.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    The nuance is that a password is something I know, not something that I have. How can it be proven that I know something at a given point in time? The law enforcement argument is "That is ridiculous, the suspect entered the password 50x a day until we seized the device". (And they are probably correct) But justice is supposed to be about "beyond a reasonable doubt". As a juror, I couldn't convict someone of a crime because he asserted that he does not remember a fact.

bcgraham 8y ago

Providing the combination to your safe seems like a closer analogy, and I believe it is protected from compulsion by the Fifth Amendment.

ams6110 8y ago
A safe can always be opened by force. An encrypted file cannot, assuming a suitably complex password.
- philjohn 8y ago
  Until you get to an encrypted file that has such a complex password it would take all of the energy and longer than the heat death of the universe to compute, it's just that you can't open it by force within a suitable timeframe.
  - DuskStar 8y ago
    An encrypted file cannot, given P!=NP (and a host of other assumptions, but P!=NP is the foundation), be decrypted. So require proof that the file is not decryptable by other means before you can compel entering a password ;)
- cvwright 8y ago
  So citizens are being asked to give up fundamental freedoms because law enforcement is failing to do its job?
TheCondor 8y ago
does the fifth guarantee some universal concept of mental privacy or does it prevent that information from being used in court? You can’t take the fifth before a grand jury. I think there is a certain presumption that the actors are gentlemen that the law assumes. If you feel really strongly about that sort of privacy, you’d be well served to not find yourself in a criminal court trial. There is both ambiguity and case law here.
NoblePublius 8y ago
It’s not

CodesInChaos 8y ago

It is self incrimination, just a form the US constitution might not protect against.

Spooky23 8y ago

Not providing a key not in your possession is not a crime. If I have a locked container that belongs to my dad, don’t have the key or combo because he is incapacitated, am I a criminal for not giving the police they key and combo? The police can have a reasonable suspicion that something is in that box, why should that make me a criminal?

ams6110 8y ago
The full argument in TFA, however, is the scenario in which it can be proven that you do have a key.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  The nuance is that a password is something I know, not something that I have. How can it be proven that I know something at a given point in time? The law enforcement argument is "That is ridiculous, the suspect entered the password 50x a day until we seized the device". (And they are probably correct) But justice is supposed to be about "beyond a reasonable doubt". As a juror, I couldn't convict someone of a crime because he asserted that he does not remember a fact.