3 ms·
> This is no different when they have a warrant for files (papers, information) on your encrypted drive (safe) and are asking you to open it by whatever means.
by sdkmvx 15y ago
> This is no different when they have a warrant for files (papers, information) on your encrypted drive (safe) and are asking you to open it by whatever means.
This seems acceptable if they have a warrant for the contents of your safe. If they had a warrant for "evidence" and no knowledge or reason to believe that it was in the safe, could they open it/force you to open it simply because you own the safe. Similarly, if you had a hard drive, could they force decryption without knowing how the contents relate to the case.
Another issue that comes to mind is what happens if a hard drive containing truly random data is found, but the state thinks it contains encrypted data. Could someone be held in contempt for not releasing the (nonexistant) keys. This is probably related to the problem of destroyed keys.
- jpol 15y agoCriminal contempt would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the elements of proving the defendant's failure to provide the encryption key would include (1) showing that the key exists and (2) showing that they key is in the defendant's possession.
- IgorPartola 15y agoOne example would be a witness sees you enter your passphrase and unlock your system, no?
- gte910h 15y agoYou mean a witness testifies they saw you unlock a system that looks a bit like the one they are seeing in front of them at trial? Witness testimony is incredibly unreliable in practice, but courts LOVE that crap. So someone basically could get locked away in contempt forever because someone thinks they saw you unlock a system you can't actually unlock...