Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
1–10 of 180 posts
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#2I wish people would stop linking to Tech Dirt, when there are alternatives (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-...). Tech Dirt is a self-proclaimed rumor mill site, similar to the The Sun.
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#3A surprising but welcome ruling. This case is yet another example of the government using the repugnancy of a crime to attack fundamental rights. It's happened before, it's happening now, and it will happen again.
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#4Idea: write malware that drops random data/encrypted files on the infected devices drive but is otherwise harmless, distribute widely. Bam! Plausible deniability for everyone.
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#5A surprising but welcome ruling. This case is yet another example of the government using the repugnancy of a crime to attack fundamental rights. It's happened before, it's happening now, and it will happen again.
Alleged crime.
And this is braindead simple application of the Fifth Amendment. The courts are a joke.
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#6Idea: write malware that drops random data/encrypted files on the infected devices drive but is otherwise harmless, distribute widely. Bam! Plausible deniability for everyone.
Alternatively, the rule becomes: secure your computer, or end up in jail.
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#7> The Fifth Amendment gives witnesses a right not to testify against themselves. Rawls argued that producing a password for the hard drives would amount to an admission that he owned the hard drives. But the 3rd Circuit rejected that argument. It held that the government already had ample evidence that Rawls owned the hard drives and knew the passwords required to decrypt them. So ordering Rawls to decrypt the drives wouldn't give the government any information it didn't already have. Of course, the contents of the hard drive might incriminate Rawls, but the contents of the hard drive are not considered testimony for Fifth Amendment purposes.
It sounds like this ruling is more against indefinite detention than a ruling that allows you to invoke the 5th before handing over your passwords. The quoted text above [1] tells me that the courts have thus far not recognized any right to keep your data encrypted against the wishes of law enforcement. Maybe it means they can only lock you up for 18 months, but I don't see how this changes things appreciably. I guess if the crime you're accused of carries a sentence worse than 18 months, it might be worthwhile, but who knows...
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-...
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#8According to this article, the court can’t seem to understand why the prosecution is going to such lengths to compel production of password. Is they court willfully ignorant or is the article misleading?
It seems pretty clear the prosecution was trying to use this case to set a precedent that not producing a password means you stay in jail forever. That the accused is all but convicted for child porn makes it easy, from a PR standpoint, for the prosecution to play hardball. If it was a journalist or a whistleblower, amicus curae brief would be stacked to the rafters.
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#9> The Fifth Amendment gives witnesses a right not to testify against themselves. Rawls argued that producing a password for the hard drives would amount to an admission that he owned the hard drives. But the 3rd Circuit rejected that argument. It held that the government already had ample evidence that Rawls owned the hard drives and knew the passwords required to decrypt them. So ordering Rawls to decrypt the drives…
My most important passphrases are very complicated, and I lose the ability to reproduce them from muscle memory (the only place they exist) after a few days of non-use. How can you prove passphrases are remembered?
Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
#10I wish people would stop linking to Tech Dirt, when there are alternatives ( https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-... ). Tech Dirt is a self-proclaimed rumor mill site, similar to the The Sun.
I don’t typically goto TechDirt if I can find an original source (that isn’t hard paywalled or 50% video ads), but in this case, the writing and reporting was fine and the original court doc is included. Also, the Ars story you provide links to the TechDirt story in its opening sentence.