4 ms·
IANAL ( Edit to include a reference for my opinions[1] ) The general argument for forcing someone to turn over the key to a door once compelled by the court is
by d0ne 15y ago
IANAL ( Edit to include a reference for my opinions[1] )
The general argument for forcing someone to turn over the key to a door once compelled by the court is that it is commonly known there are other reasonable means by which to access the content the door protects that do not require the key:
1) Locksmith
2) Break the door down
3) Use a different door if one exist
These are reasonable methods as neither of them take a considerable amount of time, in many cases a reasonably consistent amount of time between unique cases, and are methods that are readily available in all markets and jurisdictions. This makes the case that the contents behind the door can be accessed through various methods, some of which do not require my involvement, therefor my not turning over the key is only nominally delaying the inevitable.
In the case of an encryption key that protects data, which once protected is only in the possession of the individual who also posses the key, this is very different IMHO.
It is very different for this simple reason:
If proper procedures have been followed, and certain encryption methods have been utilized, there is no reasonably consistent method for acquiring the original data other than information I posses in my mind.
I say reasonably consistent because if you had limitless resources and limitless time you could try every possible combination and at some point gain access. That is, however, unless the mechanism that relays the encryption key is not designed in a way as to destroy the data after N failed attempts.
In either case, no court can be reasonably certain of the time it would take to access the original data or if they would ever gain access at all. This directly conflicts with my right to a speedy trial and certainly conflicts with my right not to incriminate myself as I'm the only one who can provide access within a reasonable amount of time.
[1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9834495-38.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9834495-38.html
- OzzyB 15y agoRight, so the Government's demand of my encryption key to unlock the contents of my "digital brain" is no less different than the Government forcing me to take some truth serum to force me to reveal something I don't wish too... because it would incriminate me. And as far as I'm concerned, the 5th protects me from incriminating myself.
- nodata 15y agoI think this was discussed here the other day (can't find the link, sorry). The thinking went something like this: a passphrase is equivalent to a combination wall safe and not to a lock with key: one requires a physical thing to open it, the other requires something within your head. The something within your head is equivalent to testimony.
- aplusbi 15y agoThe thing is, the court can compel you to open the safe. You don't have to reveal the combination but you do have to open it (or face contempt charges). This is pretty much the same thing they are demanding from her - we don't want your password, we want access to your hard drive.
- d0ne 15y agoHowever, in the case of a safe there exist other reasonable methods to access its content such as a safe cracker or breaking open the door. As I stated in my comment above, in the case of properly encrypted data where exactly one person possesses the key this is not the same.
- aplusbi 15y agoTechnically it's not the same thing. Whether or not it is legally different is an entirely different matter - one that has not yet been resolved. If the court decides that encryption is like a safe then, regardless of how impossible it is to open the safe without a key, the court can coerce you into decrypting your HD. However, if the court decides that encryption is like a secret language that only you can translate (a more accurate representation of encryption, in my opinion) then they will likely rule that they cannot coerce you into decrypting the data.