4 ms·

” In Canada and the US, refusing to provide a PIN/password is protected as part of the right to avoid incriminating yourself. In France, they've criminalized th

” In Canada and the US, refusing to provide a PIN/password is protected as part of the right to avoid incriminating yourself. In France, they've criminalized this part of the right to remain silent.”

p0w3n3d 1y ago
Does it mean they do not respect democratic values in France?
- immibis 1y ago
  Depends, did the people vote for it?
- sebtron 1y ago
  If by "democratic values" you mean US and Canadian law, they don't.
- exe34 1y ago
  Could you say a few words on what you think democracy is?
  - p0w3n3d 1y ago
    democratic values maybe more, because that's what I said. I'd say that every person is equal in law, every one can defend themselves and is not punished for not incriminating themselves. You know, I live in Poland, where up to 1989 when you were captured by police (which was called militia back then) they would beat the shit out of you or nag your family unless you incriminate yourself. And these were not democratic values. Basically the ruling system was authoritarian at that time. And I can see some similarities here between Poland pre 1989 and France nowadays. -- EDIT -- Chat Control which was accepted by France is also really good connection to those times when your packages were being opened in the post office, if you were suspected by the one-party government. Also there was a time that all the phone calls were eavesdropped by security service.
    - exe34 1y ago
      I don't like chat control unless it opens up all government communications to the public at the same time - but to compare chat control with the secret police beating up your family seems a bit over the top.
NitpickLawyer 1y ago
> refusing to provide a PIN/password is protected In theory. In practice there's a case where a defendant is being held in contempt (jailed) for years now, for refusing to provide her encryption passwords. At that point both the 5th and the idea of contempt are busted.
- andsoitis 1y ago
  > In practice there's a case where a defendant is being held in contempt (jailed) for years now, for refusing to provide her encryption passwords. Link to story?
  - happymellon 1y ago
    The only one I know of was this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13629728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13629728 And he was freed after about 4 years. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-to-decrypt-hard-drives-is-free-after-four-years-in-jail/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-...
    - piyuv 1y ago
      > Prosecutors were able to gain access to the laptop, and police say forensic analysis showed Rawls downloading child pornography and saving it to the external hard drives.
      - happymellon 1y ago
        My comment was more about this > In practice there's a case where a defendant is being held in contempt (jailed) for years now They are not still being held due to contempt, they were released. Now if he was convicted then thats different and the correct reason to be imprisoned. > she It was not a she. The ruling showed that you can only be held for 18 months in the US for refusal. They would need to actually charge them with a crime if the government wanted more than that.

p0w3n3d 1y ago

Does it mean they do not respect democratic values in France?

immibis 1y ago
Depends, did the people vote for it?
sebtron 1y ago
If by "democratic values" you mean US and Canadian law, they don't.
exe34 1y ago
Could you say a few words on what you think democracy is?
- p0w3n3d 1y ago
  democratic values maybe more, because that's what I said. I'd say that every person is equal in law, every one can defend themselves and is not punished for not incriminating themselves. You know, I live in Poland, where up to 1989 when you were captured by police (which was called militia back then) they would beat the shit out of you or nag your family unless you incriminate yourself. And these were not democratic values. Basically the ruling system was authoritarian at that time. And I can see some similarities here between Poland pre 1989 and France nowadays. -- EDIT -- Chat Control which was accepted by France is also really good connection to those times when your packages were being opened in the post office, if you were suspected by the one-party government. Also there was a time that all the phone calls were eavesdropped by security service.
  - exe34 1y ago
    I don't like chat control unless it opens up all government communications to the public at the same time - but to compare chat control with the secret police beating up your family seems a bit over the top.

NitpickLawyer 1y ago

> refusing to provide a PIN/password is protected In theory. In practice there's a case where a defendant is being held in contempt (jailed) for years now, for refusing to provide her encryption passwords. At that point both the 5th and the idea of contempt are busted.

andsoitis 1y ago
> In practice there's a case where a defendant is being held in contempt (jailed) for years now, for refusing to provide her encryption passwords. Link to story?
- happymellon 1y ago
  The only one I know of was this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13629728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13629728 And he was freed after about 4 years. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-to-decrypt-hard-drives-is-free-after-four-years-in-jail/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-...
  - piyuv 1y ago
    > Prosecutors were able to gain access to the laptop, and police say forensic analysis showed Rawls downloading child pornography and saving it to the external hard drives.
    - happymellon 1y ago
      My comment was more about this > In practice there's a case where a defendant is being held in contempt (jailed) for years now They are not still being held due to contempt, they were released. Now if he was convicted then thats different and the correct reason to be imprisoned. > she It was not a she. The ruling showed that you can only be held for 18 months in the US for refusal. They would need to actually charge them with a crime if the government wanted more than that.