4 ms·
It wouldn't be misrepresentation if it were true though. Which then raises the question of where the onus lies regarding proof. I suppose ultimately the US ca
by benj111 7y ago
It wouldn't be misrepresentation if it were true though.
Which then raises the question of where the onus lies regarding proof.
I suppose ultimately the US can deny access to whomever they please, so you have to jump through whatever hoops they please.
- gambiting 7y agoUS(and UK, and many other countries) can already ask you to provide password for an encrypted file and jail you if you refuse. The thing is, there is no way to prove that a file is indeed encrypted, or just a collection of random bits - in fact they can just say you used stenography to hide something in a completely normal .jpg file, and you need to provide them with means to decode that. You cannot prove that it doesn't exist, all it takes is their expert saying that "we can prove beyond resonable doubt that the file is encrypted" and you are screwed.
- swarnie_ 7y ago> all it takes is their expert saying that "we can prove beyond resonable doubt that the file is encrypted" and you are screwed. I'm pretty sure this wouldn't fly in the UK, wouldn't the expert need to demonstrate to a Jury and the defence council how he "proved beyond reasonable doubt" so the proof could be refuted? In fact it might not work in the US. I remember a pedo trial collapsing because the feds were unwilling to explain in open court how they tracked people via the dark web.