4 ms·

Your analogy actually supports not giving up a password: if you pretend to lose your keys, it's not illegal to avoid helping the cops find them.

Barrin92 4y ago
I'm not convinced that's true because I feel like I'm getting hit with obstruction next, also depending on the country in question of course. But the important point is this isn't about self-incrimination. If you accept that a search of property can be ordered then that implies that authority can compel you to actually see the search through. In the physical world the police would just break your lock. Can't do that with encryption, but that's not a legal argument. If someone was screaming in a trunk and cars had unbreakable locks, that wouldn't be a justification to not compel the driver to open it.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  > If you accept that a search of property can be ordered then that implies that authority can compel you to actually see the search through. Except, it doesn't. If police present a warrant at your door they can't force you to help them open the bank vault in your basement. > If someone was screaming in a trunk and cars had unbreakable locks, that wouldn't be a justification to not compel the driver to open it. Now you've moved the goalposts from "search and seizure" to "crime actively in progress". These things are not the same, ethically or legally.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Oh yes they can force you to see a search through. I had a federal search warrant executed where a judge explicitly gave permission for medical personnel to "internally search" my body. They're unable to do that without your cooperation.
  - tremon 4y ago
    they can't force you to help them open the bank vault in your basement. They can if that vault is explicitly mentioned in the warrant.
PeterisP 4y ago
"if you pretend to lose your keys, it's not illegal to avoid helping the cops find them." I would be careful with that assertion - that likely depends on the jurisdiction, but I'm quite convinced that this would be obstruction of justice. It may be hard to prove that you're doing that, but if they manage to do that, it would actually be a crime - once you're aware that there's a criminal proceeding, actually disposing of these keys so that cops wouldn't access the evidence would be obstruction of justice, and so would be intentionally asserting to the cops that you don't have the physical keys if you actually do have them (the right to remain silent does not protect making false statements). For example, there's quite a lot of precedent for obstruction of justice by hiding a gun that was being sought by an investigation; I seem to recall reading about a case where the actual murder could not be proven in court but the likely culprit was convicted for obstruction of justice by throwing the murder weapon into the river which was captured by cameras. However, I would say that you are quite likely to get away with this - just not because it's legal but rather because the circumstances making the difference between fair play and felony may be very hard to prove and prosecution might not bother unless they want to make a point by doing that.

Barrin92 4y ago

I'm not convinced that's true because I feel like I'm getting hit with obstruction next, also depending on the country in question of course. But the important point is this isn't about self-incrimination. If you accept that a search of property can be ordered then that implies that authority can compel you to actually see the search through. In the physical world the police would just break your lock. Can't do that with encryption, but that's not a legal argument. If someone was screaming in a trunk and cars had unbreakable locks, that wouldn't be a justification to not compel the driver to open it.

crooked-v 4y ago
> If you accept that a search of property can be ordered then that implies that authority can compel you to actually see the search through. Except, it doesn't. If police present a warrant at your door they can't force you to help them open the bank vault in your basement. > If someone was screaming in a trunk and cars had unbreakable locks, that wouldn't be a justification to not compel the driver to open it. Now you've moved the goalposts from "search and seizure" to "crime actively in progress". These things are not the same, ethically or legally.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Oh yes they can force you to see a search through. I had a federal search warrant executed where a judge explicitly gave permission for medical personnel to "internally search" my body. They're unable to do that without your cooperation.
- tremon 4y ago
  they can't force you to help them open the bank vault in your basement. They can if that vault is explicitly mentioned in the warrant.

PeterisP 4y ago

"if you pretend to lose your keys, it's not illegal to avoid helping the cops find them." I would be careful with that assertion - that likely depends on the jurisdiction, but I'm quite convinced that this would be obstruction of justice. It may be hard to prove that you're doing that, but if they manage to do that, it would actually be a crime - once you're aware that there's a criminal proceeding, actually disposing of these keys so that cops wouldn't access the evidence would be obstruction of justice, and so would be intentionally asserting to the cops that you don't have the physical keys if you actually do have them (the right to remain silent does not protect making false statements). For example, there's quite a lot of precedent for obstruction of justice by hiding a gun that was being sought by an investigation; I seem to recall reading about a case where the actual murder could not be proven in court but the likely culprit was convicted for obstruction of justice by throwing the murder weapon into the river which was captured by cameras. However, I would say that you are quite likely to get away with this - just not because it's legal but rather because the circumstances making the difference between fair play and felony may be very hard to prove and prosecution might not bother unless they want to make a point by doing that.