4 ms·

Although I have feelings about how I would like the case to be decided, I suspect that it will be precedence in 10 years to be forced to hand over passwords. I

by akama 13y ago

Although I have feelings about how I would like the case to be decided, I suspect that it will be precedence in 10 years to be forced to hand over passwords. I see the similarities that it has with a safe, the only difference being that you can memorize the key. You are not actually admitting to wrongdoing when saying the key, so it might not even be covered under the fifth amendment.

300bps 13y ago
With a safe, the government can defeat the protecion by cutting or drilling into it. The proper analogy is that the government is welcome to get a warrant and attempt to break the protection provided by encryption. Since the defendant in a criminal case has an absolute right to remain silent they cannot force them to speak or otherwise convey any information that might incriminate them. If the government cannot break the encryption then that is an unfortunate side effect of preserving people's rights.
- rayiner 13y ago
  1) With a warrant the government doesn't have to break the safe--the court can compel you to hand over a key. 2) In the U.S., there is no "absolute right to remain silent." The 5th amendment says: "No person shall be... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This is a somewhat narrower protection. For example, someone can be compelled to give authorization to a third party to search property of the defendant in the possession of the third party. How the 5th applies to encrypted volumes is still up in the air. On one hand, reciting a key could be seen as testimonial speech. On the other hand, it could be seen as analogous to handing over the key to a safe, which is not considered testimonial speech subject to the 5th amendment.
- josscrowcroft 13y ago
  Blackstone said "It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted." I'd say that applies..

by akama 13y ago

300bps 13y ago

With a safe, the government can defeat the protecion by cutting or drilling into it. The proper analogy is that the government is welcome to get a warrant and attempt to break the protection provided by encryption. Since the defendant in a criminal case has an absolute right to remain silent they cannot force them to speak or otherwise convey any information that might incriminate them. If the government cannot break the encryption then that is an unfortunate side effect of preserving people's rights.

rayiner 13y ago
1) With a warrant the government doesn't have to break the safe--the court can compel you to hand over a key. 2) In the U.S., there is no "absolute right to remain silent." The 5th amendment says: "No person shall be... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This is a somewhat narrower protection. For example, someone can be compelled to give authorization to a third party to search property of the defendant in the possession of the third party. How the 5th applies to encrypted volumes is still up in the air. On one hand, reciting a key could be seen as testimonial speech. On the other hand, it could be seen as analogous to handing over the key to a safe, which is not considered testimonial speech subject to the 5th amendment.
josscrowcroft 13y ago
Blackstone said "It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted." I'd say that applies..