4 ms·

Isn't destroying evidence obstruction of justice?

chacham15 14y ago
It depends on the intent. If you create the system explicitly to destroy evidence if the police are looking for it then yes. If, instead, you create a "safe" that as an anti-tamper measure destroys the contents, then no (BUT IANAL).
- drakeandrews 14y ago
  In the UK, that would qualify as destruction of evidence 9/10 times. Source: Looked into doing something similar to protect confidential information and sought legal advice first.
6d0debc071 14y ago
I don't know, though I believe so. Burning your keys seems the most likely to count (unless done by some automated mechanism). The time thing I'm not so sure would count though. A) Are the encrypted files actually evidence of an offence -- without decrypting them how can that argument be made? B) Do you encryption keys count as evidence if the passwords in your head don't, and if the passwords in your head do count as evidence then how can not handing them over not count as obstruction of justice? C) Is there a more general case that can be made such as you don't have the requisite mens rea to be guilty? I believe the terms go something like: "Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsified, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under Title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." If you just have a general commitment that you're not going to turn something over if under duress, does that count? And, if you can't do it and actually are guilty, is obstruction going to get you a lesser penalty anyway? I imagine this is why encryption doesn't count as obstruction, since you have a general commitment that your stuff be difficult to read by anyone, rather than a specific grudge with the police. By way of mitigating your risk, you might even be able to tell the police, in recorded interview, that you needed access to a computer in the next - whatever time period - to preserve the evidence that will prove your innocence. I doubt some low-level investigator, who probably doesn't understand the first thing about computers, is going to get you access to a computer in a reasonable time-frame, so by the time they've decided one way or the other it will be too late. I don't know how interview recordings work out in terms of evidence that the defence has access to though. # It's really something I suspect you'd have to talk to a local lawyer about if you wanted a reasonable answer.

It depends on the intent. If you create the system explicitly to destroy evidence if the police are looking for it then yes. If, instead, you create a "safe" that as an anti-tamper measure destroys the contents, then no (BUT IANAL).

drakeandrews 14y ago
In the UK, that would qualify as destruction of evidence 9/10 times. Source: Looked into doing something similar to protect confidential information and sought legal advice first.

6d0debc071 14y ago

I don't know, though I believe so. Burning your keys seems the most likely to count (unless done by some automated mechanism). The time thing I'm not so sure would count though. A) Are the encrypted files actually evidence of an offence -- without decrypting them how can that argument be made? B) Do you encryption keys count as evidence if the passwords in your head don't, and if the passwords in your head do count as evidence then how can not handing them over not count as obstruction of justice? C) Is there a more general case that can be made such as you don't have the requisite mens rea to be guilty? I believe the terms go something like: "Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsified, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under Title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." If you just have a general commitment that you're not going to turn something over if under duress, does that count? And, if you can't do it and actually are guilty, is obstruction going to get you a lesser penalty anyway? I imagine this is why encryption doesn't count as obstruction, since you have a general commitment that your stuff be difficult to read by anyone, rather than a specific grudge with the police. By way of mitigating your risk, you might even be able to tell the police, in recorded interview, that you needed access to a computer in the next - whatever time period - to preserve the evidence that will prove your innocence. I doubt some low-level investigator, who probably doesn't understand the first thing about computers, is going to get you access to a computer in a reasonable time-frame, so by the time they've decided one way or the other it will be too late. I don't know how interview recordings work out in terms of evidence that the defence has access to though. # It's really something I suspect you'd have to talk to a local lawyer about if you wanted a reasonable answer.