4 ms·

I agree, forcing people to testify to provide their keys is probably where our system will get stuck on this for good. That's a bad line to cross, and I don't t

by txru 7y ago

I agree, forcing people to testify to provide their keys is probably where our system will get stuck on this for good. That's a bad line to cross, and I don't think we'll cross it if we remain a lawful country. I say this below, though, when people refuse to serve access to a lawful warrant, there are now multiple cases where people will be held in contempt of court essentially indefinitely, likely for life. The court is certain that the information necessary to convict them exists, but is being vexatiously withdrawn by the suspect. I don't really think that's a good end. I think holding people in contempt that long is a system failure. What do we do about that? Just release people when they hide evidence that they can still have full access to once they're released? I think it's been easier to do this stuff since the founding of the government, but our government does have certain powers, lawfully enacted by the wills of all of the states for the betterment of society. If some of those powers can't reasonably be enforced, and other, less lawful, more coercive powers arise in their absence, I think everyone loses.

sailfast 7y ago
Perhaps we need to address the definition and scope of lawful warrants in this case. Not a lawyer (clearly) but there is a big gap between "requesting data (that may be gibberish bytes when encrypted" ("here's the hard drive, officer!") and being provided that data, vs. requesting data that also requires decryption using something only known to the person being served." This seems like a pretty clear distinction to me that could be argued in court. But, as I said... not a lawyer.
soulofmischief 7y ago
We have to adapt our laws to reality; not the other way around. The reality is that even compelling me to produce a hard drive is backed by State violence. So we must accept that a certain amount of State violence is necessary to keep the peace. Think of a schoolyard Bully going unchecked; it takes someone standing up to them and enforcing the threat of future violence in order to end the actual occurrence of violence. But there is a clear legal framework here: I don't have to produce any materials to the State without a warrant acquired by due process (and not parallel construction). This is my protection from unwarranted search and seizure as outlined by the US Bill of Rights. However, I don't have to tell you where it is. I can't prevent you from taking it, but I have the right to not have to testify. Because the enforcement for my testimony comes from State violence, and we learned from the Dark Ages what happens when we allow the government the power to extract information with force. It would be quite ironic if, in our quest for not "going dark", we enter the Digital Dark Ages.

by txru 7y ago

sailfast 7y ago

Perhaps we need to address the definition and scope of lawful warrants in this case. Not a lawyer (clearly) but there is a big gap between "requesting data (that may be gibberish bytes when encrypted" ("here's the hard drive, officer!") and being provided that data, vs. requesting data that also requires decryption using something only known to the person being served." This seems like a pretty clear distinction to me that could be argued in court. But, as I said... not a lawyer.

soulofmischief 7y ago

We have to adapt our laws to reality; not the other way around. The reality is that even compelling me to produce a hard drive is backed by State violence. So we must accept that a certain amount of State violence is necessary to keep the peace. Think of a schoolyard Bully going unchecked; it takes someone standing up to them and enforcing the threat of future violence in order to end the actual occurrence of violence. But there is a clear legal framework here: I don't have to produce any materials to the State without a warrant acquired by due process (and not parallel construction). This is my protection from unwarranted search and seizure as outlined by the US Bill of Rights. However, I don't have to tell you where it is. I can't prevent you from taking it, but I have the right to not have to testify. Because the enforcement for my testimony comes from State violence, and we learned from the Dark Ages what happens when we allow the government the power to extract information with force. It would be quite ironic if, in our quest for not "going dark", we enter the Digital Dark Ages.