3 ms·
I think it's more that they have a right to seek it without interference after the fact. You can not be compelled to disclose the evidence that would be used ag
by microcolonel 7y ago
I think it's more that they have a right to seek it without interference after the fact. You can not be compelled to disclose the evidence that would be used against you, or any information required to obtain it (and thus constitute a disclosure).
If Facebook/WhatsApp's system was built to put them in a position to incriminate you after the fact, then probably the kind of criminal who would use it is the kind you'd convict by other means.
That leaves you with the choice of whether or not to incriminate yourself.
- ethbro 7y agoThis is definitely the more cogent point, and I expect why the FBI et al. are harping on this point with their PR and legal efforts. In a world where my provider encrypts, the more ironclad self-incrimination protection does not apply. And there are various loopholes to pressure the provider to enable bulk collection. In a world of e2e everywhere, the participants must be targeted, and they have the benefit of the 5th amendment.
- zaphirplane 7y agoAssuming you are talking from a US point of view, https://www.newsweek.com/court-rules-defendant-must-disclose-phone-password-police-prosecution-first-ruling-its-kind-1466112 https://www.newsweek.com/court-rules-defendant-must-disclose... suggests that a person can be completed to provide passwords that unlock incriminating evidence If you are talking globally each country has its laws or no laws on the matter (as you’d expect there are also contradictory court rulings within a country/ state ) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law