4 ms·

Typically the 5th amendment argument applies to handing over passwords that are only in your head, not keys that are written down. The government can force you

Typically the 5th amendment argument applies to handing over passwords that are only in your head, not keys that are written down. The government can force you to turn over data you have. The case for not turning over passwords for bitcoin wallets is probably stronger than for true crypt volumes. If they arrest you with an encrypted volume on your laptop, they know its your's. The only question is what it is. In a lot of cases, the government knows what it is, they just need to be able to prove it. Courts call this a forgone conclusion and can compel you do use your decryption password( but not tell it to the cops).[0] On the other hand, handing over bitcoin keys maybe the only way they can learn which bitcoins are yours. This is,arguably, not a forgone conclusion at all. And again, you are not just giving them access to the data, you are effectively being compelled to testify that it is your data. [0]http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/03/encrypted_files_child_pornography_and_the_fifth_amendment_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/0...

sliverstorm 13y ago
handing over bitcoin keys maybe the only way they can learn which bitcoins are yours Mmm, good point. Although considering bitcoin is a public network, they could have linked a certain address to you already, ala "follow the money"
- kevinpet 13y ago
  And the inquisitors may have already proven that you are a witch, so what's a little harm in torturing you to confess. They may have evidence that this is your wallet, but by supplying them with the password, you are testifying that it is your wallet. "An act is testimonial when the act entails implicit statements of fact, such as admitting that evidence exists, is authentic, or is within a suspect's control." "By entering the password Boucher would be disclosing the fact that he knows the password and has control over the files on drive Z." Compelling Ulbricht to unlock the wallet would be compelling him to testify that the wallet is his. You may think this is a silly chain of reasoning, but I'm sure you will forgive me if I will continue to side with existing federal precedent. http://www.volokh.com/files/Boucher.pdf http://www.volokh.com/files/Boucher.pdf
  - anologwintermut 13y ago
    Ultimately, Burcher was orderd to decrypt his drive because the government both knew it was his and knew part of what was on it.[0] In Ulbricht's case there is a compelling argument that the bitcoin's contained in the wallet on his computer(assuming it was on his computer and not the server) are his. The question is what does the government know about those coins. Clearly, if they know Ulbricht's bitcoin id/public key, then they can look up his transactions in the block chain. If they don't, I'm not sure what they could possibly know. Of course, given Ulbricht's apparently atrocious OPSEC, it seems likely his password is Ludwig von Mises and the FBI won't need his help at all. [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Boucher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Boucher
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  So in the case of bitcoins ran through a laundry such as what Silk Road ran, they might have almost no idea who's money you have. ( though if Silk Road was dumb enough to just launder money used on its site, it's all drug money, so that's moot).

sliverstorm 13y ago

handing over bitcoin keys maybe the only way they can learn which bitcoins are yours Mmm, good point. Although considering bitcoin is a public network, they could have linked a certain address to you already, ala "follow the money"

kevinpet 13y ago
And the inquisitors may have already proven that you are a witch, so what's a little harm in torturing you to confess. They may have evidence that this is your wallet, but by supplying them with the password, you are testifying that it is your wallet. "An act is testimonial when the act entails implicit statements of fact, such as admitting that evidence exists, is authentic, or is within a suspect's control." "By entering the password Boucher would be disclosing the fact that he knows the password and has control over the files on drive Z." Compelling Ulbricht to unlock the wallet would be compelling him to testify that the wallet is his. You may think this is a silly chain of reasoning, but I'm sure you will forgive me if I will continue to side with existing federal precedent. http://www.volokh.com/files/Boucher.pdf http://www.volokh.com/files/Boucher.pdf
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  Ultimately, Burcher was orderd to decrypt his drive because the government both knew it was his and knew part of what was on it.[0] In Ulbricht's case there is a compelling argument that the bitcoin's contained in the wallet on his computer(assuming it was on his computer and not the server) are his. The question is what does the government know about those coins. Clearly, if they know Ulbricht's bitcoin id/public key, then they can look up his transactions in the block chain. If they don't, I'm not sure what they could possibly know. Of course, given Ulbricht's apparently atrocious OPSEC, it seems likely his password is Ludwig von Mises and the FBI won't need his help at all. [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Boucher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Boucher
anologwintermut 13y ago
So in the case of bitcoins ran through a laundry such as what Silk Road ran, they might have almost no idea who's money you have. ( though if Silk Road was dumb enough to just launder money used on its site, it's all drug money, so that's moot).