4 ms·

I thought that US courts could very much compel you to do this if it wasn’t in dispute that you are in control of the money, no? You aren’t providing evidence

by rosndo 5y ago

I thought that US courts could very much compel you to do this if it wasn’t in dispute that you are in control of the money, no? You aren’t providing evidence against yourself if there’s no dispute about whether or not you control the money. Also apparently US federal courts can imprison you for up to 18 months for refusing to decrypt your hard drives https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-to-decrypt-hard-drives-is-free-after-four-years-in-jail/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-...

dane-pgp 5y ago
My (non-expert) understanding is that US courts could compel you to decrypt hidden evidence if they could convince a judge that the evidence existed. A cop can also seize physical money or property if they suspect it is involved in a crime. This is different, though. I don't think that a US cop has ever "seized" the contents of someone's mind, and I don't believe that a bitcoin wallet can be considered hidden evidence, because the contents are on a public ledger. I suppose you could argue that by handing over the private key, the suspect has confirmed that they own the wallet, but they could also sign a message using the private key, or, less technologically, just make a hand-signed written statement that they own the wallet with the specified address.
- rosndo 5y ago
  But if the question isn’t about whether or not the suspect has the key, they’ll just be held in contempt for not complying with the court order to hand over the funds? How the seed phrase is stored and accessed is irrelevant in such a situation. The court order is “hand over the money”, which is hardly an unusual one. > I don't think that a US cop has ever "seized" the contents of someone's mind, and I don't believe that a bitcoin wallet can be considered hidden evidence, because the contents are on a public ledger I don’t think this is different from ordering someone to hand over the money in their foreign bank account, such a situation is likely to also involve passwords stored in one’s mind.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > The court order is “hand over the money”, which is hardly an unusual one. I admit I haven't read the court order, but that sounds surprising. A more proportionate demand would be "don't move the money" (while the court decides who it should belong to), and I don't see how the government benefits from having the money in escrow, unless they fear the user is a flight risk, in which case they should have jailed him too. If the money is actually being permanently forfeited because it has been proven to be part of a crime (rather than just potentially being used in the future to support a crime) then I would expect not just a court order but some sort of verdict proving the existence of the crime.
    - rosndo 5y ago
      > I don't see how the government benefits from having the money in escrow How do you think the government would deal with a pile of cash? > unless they fear the user is a flight risk, in which case they should have jailed him too. It’s possible that the government has cause to seize the money without anyone having committed a crime worthy of a custodial sentence. Perhaps he’s only a credible flight risk while in possession of 1M+ USD worth of cryptocurrency? Arresting someone when you could instead just take possession of their money seems downright cruel.

by rosndo 5y ago

dane-pgp 5y ago

My (non-expert) understanding is that US courts could compel you to decrypt hidden evidence if they could convince a judge that the evidence existed. A cop can also seize physical money or property if they suspect it is involved in a crime. This is different, though. I don't think that a US cop has ever "seized" the contents of someone's mind, and I don't believe that a bitcoin wallet can be considered hidden evidence, because the contents are on a public ledger. I suppose you could argue that by handing over the private key, the suspect has confirmed that they own the wallet, but they could also sign a message using the private key, or, less technologically, just make a hand-signed written statement that they own the wallet with the specified address.

rosndo 5y ago
But if the question isn’t about whether or not the suspect has the key, they’ll just be held in contempt for not complying with the court order to hand over the funds? How the seed phrase is stored and accessed is irrelevant in such a situation. The court order is “hand over the money”, which is hardly an unusual one. > I don't think that a US cop has ever "seized" the contents of someone's mind, and I don't believe that a bitcoin wallet can be considered hidden evidence, because the contents are on a public ledger I don’t think this is different from ordering someone to hand over the money in their foreign bank account, such a situation is likely to also involve passwords stored in one’s mind.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > The court order is “hand over the money”, which is hardly an unusual one. I admit I haven't read the court order, but that sounds surprising. A more proportionate demand would be "don't move the money" (while the court decides who it should belong to), and I don't see how the government benefits from having the money in escrow, unless they fear the user is a flight risk, in which case they should have jailed him too. If the money is actually being permanently forfeited because it has been proven to be part of a crime (rather than just potentially being used in the future to support a crime) then I would expect not just a court order but some sort of verdict proving the existence of the crime.
  - rosndo 5y ago
    > I don't see how the government benefits from having the money in escrow How do you think the government would deal with a pile of cash? > unless they fear the user is a flight risk, in which case they should have jailed him too. It’s possible that the government has cause to seize the money without anyone having committed a crime worthy of a custodial sentence. Perhaps he’s only a credible flight risk while in possession of 1M+ USD worth of cryptocurrency? Arresting someone when you could instead just take possession of their money seems downright cruel.