3 ms·

This is incorrect. The fourth amendment gives people the absolute right against "unreasonable search and seizure". This means the police may be granted access t

This is incorrect. The fourth amendment gives people the absolute right against "unreasonable search and seizure". This means the police may be granted access to search someone's property by a judge, if they are suspected of a crime. It does not give the government the right to find anything, only to search. Furthermore, the fifth amendment grants people the absolute right to not incriminate themselves. So if you know something (information about where the bodies are buried, passwords for decryption of encryption keys, etc.), you have the absolute right to not divulge that knowledge. So the people here have more rights than the government when a crime is being investigated.

IgorPartola 6y ago
Ah you are correct. But let’s make a physical analogy. If I can make an uncrackable safe in which I put evidence of a crime along with lots of other secrets. The police come to my door with a reasonable search warrant. I tell them I have the key to the safe but will not tell them where it is. They know they have absolutely no way to get into my safe without taking about 100 years and $2 billion. What happens next?
- Zak 6y ago
  The law isn't entirely settled on the matter, but some rulings so far suggest that the government can compel the surrender of a physical key, but not the disclosure of a combination.
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    So by that definition since my private key is a lot like a combo to my safe, the government cannot compel me to disclose it? That sound like good news. Also, I guess I am storing all my keys at STL files that get 3D printed and destroyed upon first use. Hello protection from search warrants!
    - shostak 6y ago
      It's the password required to decrypt the secret key that you would not need to disclose. They'll likely end up with the encrypted secret key, but no way to access it. That's because the password is something you know, and divulging it could mean self-incrimination. Courts have ruled, for example, that the police can compel a suspect to put their face or finger up to a phone to unlock it through biometric means, but a suspect cannot be compelled to divulge their PIN. That's why using biometrics, while convenient, is a bad idea.
      - thw0rted 6y ago
        This is also a great example of how you can follow what sounds like logical principles to a completely bonkers end-state. Knowledge is protected but your bodily autonomy is not? Eesh.

IgorPartola 6y ago

Ah you are correct. But let’s make a physical analogy. If I can make an uncrackable safe in which I put evidence of a crime along with lots of other secrets. The police come to my door with a reasonable search warrant. I tell them I have the key to the safe but will not tell them where it is. They know they have absolutely no way to get into my safe without taking about 100 years and $2 billion. What happens next?

Zak 6y ago
The law isn't entirely settled on the matter, but some rulings so far suggest that the government can compel the surrender of a physical key, but not the disclosure of a combination.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  So by that definition since my private key is a lot like a combo to my safe, the government cannot compel me to disclose it? That sound like good news. Also, I guess I am storing all my keys at STL files that get 3D printed and destroyed upon first use. Hello protection from search warrants!
  - shostak 6y ago
    It's the password required to decrypt the secret key that you would not need to disclose. They'll likely end up with the encrypted secret key, but no way to access it. That's because the password is something you know, and divulging it could mean self-incrimination. Courts have ruled, for example, that the police can compel a suspect to put their face or finger up to a phone to unlock it through biometric means, but a suspect cannot be compelled to divulge their PIN. That's why using biometrics, while convenient, is a bad idea.
    - thw0rted 6y ago
      This is also a great example of how you can follow what sounds like logical principles to a completely bonkers end-state. Knowledge is protected but your bodily autonomy is not? Eesh.