4 ms·
> since the passcode is not (necessarily) evidence in itself Unless the passcode is a decryption key, in which case the evidence simply does not exist without
by teeray 3y ago
> since the passcode is not (necessarily) evidence in itself
Unless the passcode is a decryption key, in which case the evidence simply does not exist without the passcode. It is indistinguishable from random noise. It’s less like “unlocking a safe,” and more like “instructing nanobots to reassemble a pile of dirt into evidence.”
- photonbucket 3y agoI can't see a judge swallowing that logic, you do have something similar to a metal safe's key and you've refused to provide it
- pdabbadabba 3y agoThis seems like a highly questionable metaphysical argument. The decryption key does exist and, therefore, so does the information. The question is just who has access to that passcode.
- cwillu 3y agoYou might have an argument if there was no authentication/error-detection on the ciphertext, such that many keys would give valid decodings, and more so if it was a simple xor, such that any plain text could be a valid decoding given the appropriate key. But that's not a remotely practical cryptosystem for several reasons.