4 ms·
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 importan
by 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 agoOh 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 agothey 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.