4 ms·

That only means you don't have to say anything to the police while you are in custody but have not yet been charged with a crime, and your lawyer is not present

by etha 15y ago

That only means you don't have to say anything to the police while you are in custody but have not yet been charged with a crime, and your lawyer is not present. It's not meant as a blanket protection against having to give testimony.

Canada 15y ago
Yes, it is in fact a blanket protection against having to give testimony.
- maratd 15y ago
  Providing a password is not testimony. You're not testifying to anything.
  - marshray 15y ago
    Then what is it?
    - Nelson69 15y ago
      Providing access to subpoenaed evidence. The evidence is what it is, the court is there to judge it.
  - mikeryan 15y ago
    My understanding is that whether or not providing a password is or is not testimony is not clearly defined. There have in fact been a few instances where judges have determined that providing a password does constitute giving testimony. http://www.easterndistrictblog.com/?p=57 http://www.easterndistrictblog.com/?p=57 and older http://mises.org/Community/blogs/crypto/archive/2007/12/18/court-ruling-protects-encryption-keys-as-a-fifth-amendment-right.aspx http://mises.org/Community/blogs/crypto/archive/2007/12/18/c...
  - itswindy 15y ago
    "Providing a password is not testimony. You're not testifying to anything." Where did you put your ex-wife's body Mr Johnson, we know you killed her? Just point at the map, you do not even have to say anything.
    - sukuriant 15y ago
      More like: "Give us the keys to this safe." and assuming they have a warrant, they can ask for such things.
      - cafebabe 15y ago
        They already have the data. You're not supposted to help them. It's up to the prosecution to build the case against you. You have the right to remain silent, even in court. Because of the lack of detail in the case, I think the guy is in investigative custody and was asked for the key which he interpreted as the cause of his custody.
      - seanp2k 15y ago
        You also are missing the point of TrueCrypt: Plausible Dependability and multiple passwords for different content. It'd be like "Give us the key to this safe that unlocks the incriminating evidence, even though we have absolutely no way of knowing if you're hiding more or giving us the full truth". You could have cat pictures encrypted with passphrase A and incriminating evidence (that stands up to the best forensic analysis currently available) encrypted with passphrase B and they wouldn't know which is which, if they unlocked ALL the data, or what. Truecrypt is AMAZING and anyone holding onto stuff that might get them into trouble (esp. w/ foreign gov'ts) should use it.
MichaelApproved 15y ago
It is blanket protection from testifying during any phase except if you've been given immunity. Then your testimony cannot be used against you and you can be compelled to testify. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Grants_of_immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_S... "If the government gives an individual immunity, then that individual may be compelled to testify. Immunity may be "transactional immunity" or "use immunity"; in the former, the witness is immune from prosecution for offenses related to the testimony; in the latter, the witness may be prosecuted, but his testimony may not be used against him. In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), the Supreme Court held that the government need only grant use immunity to compel testimony. The use immunity, however, must extend not only to the testimony made by the witness, but also to all evidence derived therefrom. This scenario most commonly arises in cases related to organized crime."

by etha 15y ago

Canada 15y ago

Yes, it is in fact a blanket protection against having to give testimony.

maratd 15y ago
Providing a password is not testimony. You're not testifying to anything.
- marshray 15y ago
  Then what is it?
  - Nelson69 15y ago
    Providing access to subpoenaed evidence. The evidence is what it is, the court is there to judge it.
- mikeryan 15y ago
  My understanding is that whether or not providing a password is or is not testimony is not clearly defined. There have in fact been a few instances where judges have determined that providing a password does constitute giving testimony. http://www.easterndistrictblog.com/?p=57 http://www.easterndistrictblog.com/?p=57 and older http://mises.org/Community/blogs/crypto/archive/2007/12/18/court-ruling-protects-encryption-keys-as-a-fifth-amendment-right.aspx http://mises.org/Community/blogs/crypto/archive/2007/12/18/c...
- itswindy 15y ago
  "Providing a password is not testimony. You're not testifying to anything." Where did you put your ex-wife's body Mr Johnson, we know you killed her? Just point at the map, you do not even have to say anything.
  - sukuriant 15y ago
    More like: "Give us the keys to this safe." and assuming they have a warrant, they can ask for such things.
    - cafebabe 15y ago
      They already have the data. You're not supposted to help them. It's up to the prosecution to build the case against you. You have the right to remain silent, even in court. Because of the lack of detail in the case, I think the guy is in investigative custody and was asked for the key which he interpreted as the cause of his custody.
    - seanp2k 15y ago
      You also are missing the point of TrueCrypt: Plausible Dependability and multiple passwords for different content. It'd be like "Give us the key to this safe that unlocks the incriminating evidence, even though we have absolutely no way of knowing if you're hiding more or giving us the full truth". You could have cat pictures encrypted with passphrase A and incriminating evidence (that stands up to the best forensic analysis currently available) encrypted with passphrase B and they wouldn't know which is which, if they unlocked ALL the data, or what. Truecrypt is AMAZING and anyone holding onto stuff that might get them into trouble (esp. w/ foreign gov'ts) should use it.

MichaelApproved 15y ago

It is blanket protection from testifying during any phase except if you've been given immunity. Then your testimony cannot be used against you and you can be compelled to testify. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Grants_of_immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_S... "If the government gives an individual immunity, then that individual may be compelled to testify. Immunity may be "transactional immunity" or "use immunity"; in the former, the witness is immune from prosecution for offenses related to the testimony; in the latter, the witness may be prosecuted, but his testimony may not be used against him. In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), the Supreme Court held that the government need only grant use immunity to compel testimony. The use immunity, however, must extend not only to the testimony made by the witness, but also to all evidence derived therefrom. This scenario most commonly arises in cases related to organized crime."