4 ms·
To my lay understanding (IANAL) it seems the legal system used to have a strong distinction between "things you have" and "things you know". To the point in the
by Janzert 17y ago
To my lay understanding (IANAL) it seems the legal system used to have a strong distinction between "things you have" and "things you know". To the point in the U.S. where "taking the 5th" is very much in the public consciousness as not having to say anything that could be used against you. A warrant certainly can be used to take the drive with any encrypted material on it, but forcing divulgence of the keys seems like another level entirely.
- tptacek 17y agoSame logic says if you have a safe full of papers --- records of things you know --- you can refuse a search warrant for the contents of your safe. (Yes, that's my point.)
- fatdog789 17y agoNo, you can't. The 5th amendment right to avoid self-incrimination only extends to testimony. A search warrant can compel you to furnish the contents of a safe (as property, it is governed by the 4th amendment -- due process is all that is required, and in this case, the process of getting a search warrant is all that the Constitution requires).
- ErrantX 17y agoim not sure but I think that was his point (only using the reverse argument)
- gamblor956 17y agoI'm pretty sure that you can't refuse a search warrant. Edit: see fatdog's comment for why.
- greendestiny 17y agoThe proper analogy would be refusing to give a combination for a safe, which you can probably do, its not such an issue because they can break the safe open.
- jrockway 17y agoExactly. I think there is actually precedent (in the US) here, but I can't find the reference. I will keep looking.