3 ms·

This interpretation of the right to remain silent frightens me. The example I was always given to point out the need of such a right is the police saying, "Alr

This interpretation of the right to remain silent frightens me. The example I was always given to point out the need of such a right is the police saying, "Alright, show us where you buried the body." And if they can "prove" that you buried the body but you cannot actually take them there because you didn't bury the body then you go to prison forever. The government should not have the power to go on a fishing expedition through my device. If the government can already prove that something illegal is on my device, then they do not need that thing in order to convict me of a crime. It is just superfluous to compel me to do things and it is dangerous.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wolfgke 8y ago
> The example I was always given to point out the need of such a right is the police saying, "Alright, show us where you buried the body." And if they can "prove" that you buried the body but you cannot actually take them there because you didn't bury the body then you go to prison forever. I often say that Franz Kafka was not a littérateur, but a crown witness (he indeed studied law).
ben0x539 8y ago
I really sympathize with the desire to have my computing device extremely protected against scrutiny because I like to think of it as an extension of my own memory and cognitive ability etc and don't want to worry about maintaining an airgap between in-brain capacity and external capacity for liability reasons. However I am not very optimistic that this line of argument is going to fly. Why do you need to search my car for illegal drugs if you can't already prove that I have them? Why do you need insight into my finances if you can't already prove that I am evading taxes? As long as we, in principle, give the legal system a mandate to investigate crimes, there is always going to be a point where arguments around reasonable suspicions are going to prevail against privacy concerns. Ultimately I don't think it's realistic to hope to create a comfortable relationship with a malevolent judicial establishment by adding some hoop or other for them to jump through before they get to fuck you over.
- Zak 8y ago
  > Why do you need to search my car for illegal drugs if you can't already prove that I have them? Why do you need insight into my finances if you can't already prove that I am evading taxes? The law already imposes those requirements, in theory. A warrant should only be issued, according to the US Constitution, if evidence is presented to a judge that it's more likely than not the search authorized by the warrant will find evidence of a crime. That usually means a non-consensual search is only allowed when there's already significant evidence of guilt. If that sounds like a fairly high standard, you're right. It was intended to be. If it sounds like a higher standard than is often used in practice... well, you may be right about that too.
  - ben0x539 8y ago
    Yeah, so I think that imposing similar requirements for compelled decryption is not the way forward. There is limited use in instituting high standards if you fundamentally can't trust the people interpreting those standards.
    - Zak 8y ago
      I'd like to see more work on systems with plausible deniability. Many legal jurisdictions already have compelled decryption
- sandworm101 8y ago
  Because there are other ways to get decryption keys. Old fashioned "over the shoulder" techniques still work: cameras, informants, even spyware. They just require effort. This is really about cops wanting easy and ready access rather than committing to oldschool detective work. It is akin to cops wanting to measure a car's speed by directly accessing the data from it's speedometer. That may be far easier than hiding in a bush with a radar gun, but so is the price of constitutional rights.
  - ben0x539 8y ago
    Do we really rather want to end up in a world where the government is in the business of undermining computer security at large to get its spyware everywhere it wants it? I mean, but do we want this to be a thing the legal system does openly as part of its mandate? I'm also not sure if I want the government installing cameras in all public spaces so they can, uh, catch speeding cars and definitely do nothing else, maybe uploading car telemetry when you're on public roads is an okay price to avoid that.
dnautics 8y ago
If it gets really bad then security products where there are (n) keys, several that decrypt to a relatively blank slate and one that decrypts to your real data can be used by the truly clever.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> And if they can "prove" that you buried the body but you cannot actually take them there because you didn't bury the body then you go to prison forever. Not only that, it assumes you know something you may not. There is video of you digging a hole, that doesn't mean you know where it is. Someone else was driving while you were sleeping, or it was some time ago and you don't remember. What happens if you legitimately can't remember your password? And it becomes a method of punishing anyone arbitrarily. Just keep asking questions until you find one they don't know the answer to, then throw them in jail indefinitely for not answering it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

wolfgke 8y ago

> The example I was always given to point out the need of such a right is the police saying, "Alright, show us where you buried the body." And if they can "prove" that you buried the body but you cannot actually take them there because you didn't bury the body then you go to prison forever. I often say that Franz Kafka was not a littérateur, but a crown witness (he indeed studied law).

ben0x539 8y ago

I really sympathize with the desire to have my computing device extremely protected against scrutiny because I like to think of it as an extension of my own memory and cognitive ability etc and don't want to worry about maintaining an airgap between in-brain capacity and external capacity for liability reasons. However I am not very optimistic that this line of argument is going to fly. Why do you need to search my car for illegal drugs if you can't already prove that I have them? Why do you need insight into my finances if you can't already prove that I am evading taxes? As long as we, in principle, give the legal system a mandate to investigate crimes, there is always going to be a point where arguments around reasonable suspicions are going to prevail against privacy concerns. Ultimately I don't think it's realistic to hope to create a comfortable relationship with a malevolent judicial establishment by adding some hoop or other for them to jump through before they get to fuck you over.

Zak 8y ago
> Why do you need to search my car for illegal drugs if you can't already prove that I have them? Why do you need insight into my finances if you can't already prove that I am evading taxes? The law already imposes those requirements, in theory. A warrant should only be issued, according to the US Constitution, if evidence is presented to a judge that it's more likely than not the search authorized by the warrant will find evidence of a crime. That usually means a non-consensual search is only allowed when there's already significant evidence of guilt. If that sounds like a fairly high standard, you're right. It was intended to be. If it sounds like a higher standard than is often used in practice... well, you may be right about that too.
- ben0x539 8y ago
  Yeah, so I think that imposing similar requirements for compelled decryption is not the way forward. There is limited use in instituting high standards if you fundamentally can't trust the people interpreting those standards.
  - Zak 8y ago
    I'd like to see more work on systems with plausible deniability. Many legal jurisdictions already have compelled decryption
sandworm101 8y ago
Because there are other ways to get decryption keys. Old fashioned "over the shoulder" techniques still work: cameras, informants, even spyware. They just require effort. This is really about cops wanting easy and ready access rather than committing to oldschool detective work. It is akin to cops wanting to measure a car's speed by directly accessing the data from it's speedometer. That may be far easier than hiding in a bush with a radar gun, but so is the price of constitutional rights.
- ben0x539 8y ago
  Do we really rather want to end up in a world where the government is in the business of undermining computer security at large to get its spyware everywhere it wants it? I mean, but do we want this to be a thing the legal system does openly as part of its mandate? I'm also not sure if I want the government installing cameras in all public spaces so they can, uh, catch speeding cars and definitely do nothing else, maybe uploading car telemetry when you're on public roads is an okay price to avoid that.

dnautics 8y ago

If it gets really bad then security products where there are (n) keys, several that decrypt to a relatively blank slate and one that decrypts to your real data can be used by the truly clever.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> And if they can "prove" that you buried the body but you cannot actually take them there because you didn't bury the body then you go to prison forever. Not only that, it assumes you know something you may not. There is video of you digging a hole, that doesn't mean you know where it is. Someone else was driving while you were sleeping, or it was some time ago and you don't remember. What happens if you legitimately can't remember your password? And it becomes a method of punishing anyone arbitrarily. Just keep asking questions until you find one they don't know the answer to, then throw them in jail indefinitely for not answering it.