5 ms·

This is astoundingly obvious. > nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, I could see compelled decryption being congruent

by eof 13y ago

This is astoundingly obvious. > nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, I could see compelled decryption being congruent with the constitution if the decrypter is guaranteed immunity--ie, you can be compelled to be a witness against someone else.

betterunix 13y ago
Oh but the courts can find convenient interpretations of the wording. Like, the act of entering a passphrase only proves that you know the passphrase, so unless that knowledge is entered as evidence against you you have not actually witnessed against yourself. Really though, there is a deeper issue here. What if I legitimately forget my passphrase? There is no real way to know whether or not I forgot it; will I be held in contempt of court over my forgetfulness? Will I be accused of perjury? Will I be imprisoned? Might the government accuse me of a crime, point to an encrypted hard drive that I have not used in a year, and then throw me in prison for failing to decrypt it?
- stcredzero 13y ago
  What if I legitimately forget my passphrase? There is no real way to know whether or not I forgot it MRIs might change this.
  - consultant23522 13y ago
    Something, something, xkcd, $5 wrench.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I am not convinced that they could within any foreseeable future. They may be able to prove that the knowledge is in there, or they may be able to prove that you think you are lying, but proving that you are truly able merely unwilling to actually vocalize that data is another matter entirely. Hell, there are disorders that render you unable to vocalize your own name, despite knowing full well what it is and wanting to vocalize it. Who is to say that "It is on the tip of my tongue/fingers, but I can't seem to say/type what it is." does not, under an MRI, appear to be "He knows what it is, but won't say/type it."? I'm sure you could find expert witnesses willing to be paid to argue either way exactly what the MRI is or could be indicating.
    - stcredzero 13y ago
      I am not convinced that they could within any foreseeable future...there are disorders that render you unable to vocalize your own name Seems terribly shortsighted, given the points you are arguing from. If there is a disorder, it seems quite likely that we would eventually be able to detect the disorder.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Psychology today is still struggling with classifying disorders by observable symptoms. We are a long way off from being able to make a wide range of conclusive and specific diagnoses, particularly of subtle phenomenon. Hell, it isn't even clear how many different phenomenon we are currently calling "schizophrenia". We don't know the categories to put people into yet! Regardless, I did say "foreseeable future". There may be developments that catch me by surprise, but going at the current rate and direction we are right now, there is no way in hell MRIs will be able to satisfactorily contradict "I am unable to recall" in a courtroom anytime soon.
        stcredzero 13y ago
        It seems out disagreement is just stems from different shades of "foreseeable." To me, it's a foregone conclusion that scanning technology will one day be able to verify claims that one is "unable to recall," though we can't foresee exactly how and when this will happen.
  - lmm 13y ago
    That would make a dramatic difference to all kinds of criminal trial. Will it be legal for the police to question you while you're under an MRI? I don't think the answer for the special case of a decryption key will be any different from the general case (did you kill X, or whatever).
- PeterisP 13y ago
  There's a great deal of difference 'is there a real way to know X for 100% sure' and 'can a jury&judge be convinced that X is true beyond reasonable doubt'. Depending on all kinds of criteria, most likely including factors such as what is your known relation to that hard drive, your attitudem, how you look and how good is your lawyer, the argument 'I forgot that passphrase' may turn out both ways.

by eof 13y ago

betterunix 13y ago

Oh but the courts can find convenient interpretations of the wording. Like, the act of entering a passphrase only proves that you know the passphrase, so unless that knowledge is entered as evidence against you you have not actually witnessed against yourself. Really though, there is a deeper issue here. What if I legitimately forget my passphrase? There is no real way to know whether or not I forgot it; will I be held in contempt of court over my forgetfulness? Will I be accused of perjury? Will I be imprisoned? Might the government accuse me of a crime, point to an encrypted hard drive that I have not used in a year, and then throw me in prison for failing to decrypt it?

stcredzero 13y ago
What if I legitimately forget my passphrase? There is no real way to know whether or not I forgot it MRIs might change this.
- consultant23522 13y ago
  Something, something, xkcd, $5 wrench.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I am not convinced that they could within any foreseeable future. They may be able to prove that the knowledge is in there, or they may be able to prove that you think you are lying, but proving that you are truly able merely unwilling to actually vocalize that data is another matter entirely. Hell, there are disorders that render you unable to vocalize your own name, despite knowing full well what it is and wanting to vocalize it. Who is to say that "It is on the tip of my tongue/fingers, but I can't seem to say/type what it is." does not, under an MRI, appear to be "He knows what it is, but won't say/type it."? I'm sure you could find expert witnesses willing to be paid to argue either way exactly what the MRI is or could be indicating.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    I am not convinced that they could within any foreseeable future...there are disorders that render you unable to vocalize your own name Seems terribly shortsighted, given the points you are arguing from. If there is a disorder, it seems quite likely that we would eventually be able to detect the disorder.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Psychology today is still struggling with classifying disorders by observable symptoms. We are a long way off from being able to make a wide range of conclusive and specific diagnoses, particularly of subtle phenomenon. Hell, it isn't even clear how many different phenomenon we are currently calling "schizophrenia". We don't know the categories to put people into yet! Regardless, I did say "foreseeable future". There may be developments that catch me by surprise, but going at the current rate and direction we are right now, there is no way in hell MRIs will be able to satisfactorily contradict "I am unable to recall" in a courtroom anytime soon.
      - stcredzero 13y ago
        It seems out disagreement is just stems from different shades of "foreseeable." To me, it's a foregone conclusion that scanning technology will one day be able to verify claims that one is "unable to recall," though we can't foresee exactly how and when this will happen.
- lmm 13y ago
  That would make a dramatic difference to all kinds of criminal trial. Will it be legal for the police to question you while you're under an MRI? I don't think the answer for the special case of a decryption key will be any different from the general case (did you kill X, or whatever).
PeterisP 13y ago
There's a great deal of difference 'is there a real way to know X for 100% sure' and 'can a jury&judge be convinced that X is true beyond reasonable doubt'. Depending on all kinds of criteria, most likely including factors such as what is your known relation to that hard drive, your attitudem, how you look and how good is your lawyer, the argument 'I forgot that passphrase' may turn out both ways.