4 ms·

Can somebody (in the US) be ordered to aid their own prosecution? In the EU it would be against the European convention on human rights as far as I know. So I'm

by t0mas88 13y ago

Can somebody (in the US) be ordered to aid their own prosecution? In the EU it would be against the European convention on human rights as far as I know. So I'm guessing the US constitution protects suspects in the same way?

danielweber 13y ago
You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself. However, you can be compelled to turn over, say, your company's memos that describe how you were planning to build the orphanage out of plastic explosives.
yebyen 13y ago
Yes, it's called the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution here. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
- t0mas88 13y ago
  Ok, but not being a witness against oneself is not the same as not being forced to aid in prosecution? Because I think not to aid in your own prosecution is broader, allowing the suspect to refuse this court order. Or was this court order unconstitutional?
  - yebyen 13y ago
    I'm not arguing anymore whether it's constitutional or not. I think the argument is that he's already proven to be in possession of Child Porn, so there's no harm to his case in providing the rest of the evidence on the remaining drives. I think that's a despicable argument, as I thought "what would a frame-up look like" and if I was doing that to someone, I would have left the keys hidden conspicuously in an accessible place to one drive that I 0wned while in the process of setting this guy up. Now the remaining drives are automatically suspect. The difference now is that they claim they are not asking for his testimony implicating him, since he's already implicated. I just don't see how things are much different now than they were before. You might be right, about the difference between aiding and being a witness. I'm not even sure, though, how to go about proving that a person is in control of a hard drive, encrypted or not. Unless of course you found a thumb drive on their person with the keys, unprotected by a passphrase, and they can immediately be used to decrypt the drives.
desas 13y ago
In the UK several people have been successfully prosecuted for not handing over their decryption keys.
- t0mas88 13y ago
  On what ground were people prosecuted for not handing over decryption keys? Because handing over keys to incriminating evidence is surely against article 6 of the ECHR? Or was this corporate and/or tax-law? Because in a lot of countries these provisions are only part of criminal law.
  - desas 13y ago
    Alleged terrorism http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/ and Alleged paedophilia http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/06/jail_password_ripa/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/06/jail_password_ripa/

by t0mas88 13y ago

danielweber 13y ago

You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself. However, you can be compelled to turn over, say, your company's memos that describe how you were planning to build the orphanage out of plastic explosives.

yebyen 13y ago

Yes, it's called the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution here. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

t0mas88 13y ago
Ok, but not being a witness against oneself is not the same as not being forced to aid in prosecution? Because I think not to aid in your own prosecution is broader, allowing the suspect to refuse this court order. Or was this court order unconstitutional?
- yebyen 13y ago
  I'm not arguing anymore whether it's constitutional or not. I think the argument is that he's already proven to be in possession of Child Porn, so there's no harm to his case in providing the rest of the evidence on the remaining drives. I think that's a despicable argument, as I thought "what would a frame-up look like" and if I was doing that to someone, I would have left the keys hidden conspicuously in an accessible place to one drive that I 0wned while in the process of setting this guy up. Now the remaining drives are automatically suspect. The difference now is that they claim they are not asking for his testimony implicating him, since he's already implicated. I just don't see how things are much different now than they were before. You might be right, about the difference between aiding and being a witness. I'm not even sure, though, how to go about proving that a person is in control of a hard drive, encrypted or not. Unless of course you found a thumb drive on their person with the keys, unprotected by a passphrase, and they can immediately be used to decrypt the drives.

desas 13y ago

In the UK several people have been successfully prosecuted for not handing over their decryption keys.

t0mas88 13y ago
On what ground were people prosecuted for not handing over decryption keys? Because handing over keys to incriminating evidence is surely against article 6 of the ECHR? Or was this corporate and/or tax-law? Because in a lot of countries these provisions are only part of criminal law.
- desas 13y ago
  Alleged terrorism http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/ and Alleged paedophilia http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/06/jail_password_ripa/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/06/jail_password_ripa/