11–20 of 180 posts
I 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.
A 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.
Courts have come to different conclusions on both questions. Experts disagree on both questions. Even the precursor question (is requiring a defendant to provide the combination for a safe subject to the 5th Amendment?) is unsettled.
The court in this case came down on the side of treating the decryption key as a testimonial act, but avoided dealing with the 5th Amendment issues.
> 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?
Then you have to (a) show why you weren't the one to encrypt the devices or (b) make a 5th Amendment argument about why you don't have to turn over the encryption key during which time you may be incarcerated. "I forgot" is generally not a valid defense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
They don't have to prove that you remember the passphrases. They just have to show that the encrypted devices/partitions/whatever were in your custody at the time of encryption. Then you have to (a) show why you weren't the one to encrypt the devices or (b) make a 5th Amendment argument about why you don't have to turn over the encryption key during which time you may be incarcerated. "I forgot" is generally not a va…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alleged crime. And this is braindead simple application of the Fifth Amendment. The courts are a joke.
This is not braindead simple 5th amendment stuff. Among the unsettled the questions in this case: (1) is providing a decryption key a testimonial act? (2) are the contents of the drives would constitute testimony protected by the 5th Amendment? Courts have come to different conclusions on both questions. Experts disagree on both questions. Even the precursor question (is requiring a defendant to provide the combinati…
(2) is obviously false. You can't get to it without testimony, though, so too bad. This is the intention of the 5th.
The court avoided the 5th Amendment issues because, again, the courts are a joke.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't have to prove that you remember the passphrases. They just have to show that the encrypted devices/partitions/whatever were in your custody at the time of encryption. Then you have to (a) show why you weren't the one to encrypt the devices or (b) make a 5th Amendment argument about why you don't have to turn over the encryption key during which time you may be incarcerated. "I forgot" is generally not a va…
"I encrypted the device but don't have the key" isn't a defense to being compelled to decrypt the device?
edit: I hope every boot-licker that downvotes this comment gets to learn the hard way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't have to prove that you remember the passphrases. They just have to show that the encrypted devices/partitions/whatever were in your custody at the time of encryption. Then you have to (a) show why you weren't the one to encrypt the devices or (b) make a 5th Amendment argument about why you don't have to turn over the encryption key during which time you may be incarcerated. "I forgot" is generally not a va…
"I encrypted the device but don't have the key" isn't a defense to being compelled to decrypt the device?
Try to think about it from the court's point of view. The truth could be:
A. You legitimately forgot.
B. You're lying.
I know which one Occam's Razor favors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't have to prove that you remember the passphrases. They just have to show that the encrypted devices/partitions/whatever were in your custody at the time of encryption. Then you have to (a) show why you weren't the one to encrypt the devices or (b) make a 5th Amendment argument about why you don't have to turn over the encryption key during which time you may be incarcerated. "I forgot" is generally not a va…
"I encrypted the device but don't have the key" isn't a defense to being compelled to decrypt the device?
OTOH, if you were to argue that it's not your device, or that you weren't the person that encrypted it, that's a very different situation.
> 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…
This would seem to imply that if the government has ample evidence that you murdered someone, they can require you to admit to it in court.