3 ms·

> As an actual sidestep, you could be legally obliged to provide your password to a third-party computer I don't understand how this is a sidestep: could you e

• Jerrrry 2y ago
  There are legal arguments that providing a passphrase to an unbiased, unconnected, unrelated and compartmentalized computer to facilitate decryption is not a violation of the accused's 5th amendment rights if the court is sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the encrypted partition contains evidence. The derived decryption key would be analogous to a lockbox key/written instructions to further evidence, and therefore be fair for seizure. In that particular case, even the accused acknowledge the existence of the evidence; whether this is the nuance that allows compulsion via force is the crux of the matter.
  • Repulsion9513 2y ago
    The case you're referencing has nothing to do with how the password is provided and rather with the fact that the existence of the evidence was a foregone conclusion. (Of course, if it was really a foregone conclusion then the question remains why they needed access to that evidence)
    • Jerrrry 2y ago
      It doesn't negate, innately, that the action is literally compelling the defendant to incriminate himself with his own actions/words, not his bio-metrics. If the crux is literally that his compulsion is moot to the establishment of the evidence, then it both begs the question you had mentioned - why is it needed - and raises the obvious comparison of a murderer who has confessed to his crimes being compelled to divulge the location of a body. In that comparative example, the location could contain more incriminating evidence. So I guess make your passwords incriminating or make sure you have multiple domains/spans of crimes all unrelated in the same virtual place.