Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 180 posts

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#41

Post by belorn »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #29
thaumasiotes wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

They can't require you to personally admit to it, but if they know about a notebook where you wrote it they can require you to give up the notebook. (The rule makes more sense if you think about it in terms of financial crimes; it'd be hard to ever prosecute someone for fraud if they didn't have to give up their books.)

Using the same logic, they could subpoena the grave that the body is buried in as the existence of such grave is a forgone conclusion (a shovel and dirt found in the car, a hole in the ground must exist) and thus would not be a testimony. The accused in that case is also a witness in that they witnessed the grave where the body rest. If they lead the police to a different hole then analyze of the dirt can prove contempt of the court.

The rule make very little sense. I would not bet in favor of it continuing for long. The whole idea that the prosecutor is only asking for the container and not the content was extremity transparent to begin with, and judges who have rejected that argument have said just that. In that case the conclusion the judges made is that a request for the container (ie the unencrypted device) is the same as a request for the information itself, and thus should be seen as such.

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#42

Post by hnick »

nordsieck wrote: post #18
solveit wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I encrypted the device but don't have the key" isn't a defense to being compelled to decrypt the device?

> "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.

Encrypting a device to securely wipe it is not unheard of. Similar to running dd over it, but more noise to hopefully remove any lingering magnetic patterns. In such a case there's no need to retain the key.

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#44

Post by nneonneo »

tylorr wrote: post #38

If your password itself was an admission of guilt then would that count as testimony and protected under the Fifth Amendment?

If you pleaded the fifth on your password, the court might be able to compel you to enter the password such that they don’t get the password but do get the data.

The next question is, if doing so immediately decrypts a file (e.g. a text file) which is a direct admission of guilt, can you plead the fifth against the decryption process itself, esp. if the government isn’t already aware that such a “guilt declaration” exists?

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#45

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

belorn wrote: post #41
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't require you to personally admit to it, but if they know about a notebook where you wrote it they can require you to give up the notebook. (The rule makes more sense if you think about it in terms of financial crimes; it'd be hard to ever prosecute someone for fraud if they didn't have to give up their books.)

Using the same logic, they could subpoena the grave that the body is buried in as the existence of such grave is a forgone conclusion (a shovel and dirt found in the car, a hole in the ground must exist) and thus would not be a testimony. The accused in that case is also a witness in that they witnessed the grave where the body rest. If they lead the police to a different hole then analyze of the dirt can prove conte…

There's no pretense that the prosecutor isn't asking for the content. Of course they are. It's just not a Fifth Amendment violation for the government to look at content you've written, even if that content incriminates you.

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#46

Post by baddox »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #29
thaumasiotes wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

They can't require you to personally admit to it, but if they know about a notebook where you wrote it they can require you to give up the notebook. (The rule makes more sense if you think about it in terms of financial crimes; it'd be hard to ever prosecute someone for fraud if they didn't have to give up their books.)

> it'd be hard to ever prosecute someone for fraud if they didn't have to give up their books.

I'm pretty sure it's relatively simple for police to break into offices and take financial records. I would imagine it happens relatively often, because simply asking a suspect to give up their books seems more likely to result in them attempting to hide or destroy their books.

The reason police and prosecutors don't like encryption is because they can't use violence to acquire what they want, at least directly. They need new (or at least specifically-clarified) laws about what they can do to you to make you decrypt your data.

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#47

Post by LanceH »

incompatible wrote: post #36
LanceH wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they start applying these standards to politicians, then I'll be ok with it trickling down the people.

It's really a different situation. The ruling party is basically above the law in the US, thanks to presidential pardons and control of the impeachment process.

Sure. It's a false hypothesis, so it will never happen, and I can consistently say that I'll never be ok with this being applied to the people.

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#48

Post by [deleted] »

belorn wrote: post #41
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't require you to personally admit to it, but if they know about a notebook where you wrote it they can require you to give up the notebook. (The rule makes more sense if you think about it in terms of financial crimes; it'd be hard to ever prosecute someone for fraud if they didn't have to give up their books.)

Using the same logic, they could subpoena the grave that the body is buried in as the existence of such grave is a forgone conclusion (a shovel and dirt found in the car, a hole in the ground must exist) and thus would not be a testimony. The accused in that case is also a witness in that they witnessed the grave where the body rest. If they lead the police to a different hole then analyze of the dirt can prove conte…

[deleted]

Re: Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt

#50

Post by specialbat »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #29
thaumasiotes wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

They can't require you to personally admit to it, but if they know about a notebook where you wrote it they can require you to give up the notebook. (The rule makes more sense if you think about it in terms of financial crimes; it'd be hard to ever prosecute someone for fraud if they didn't have to give up their books.)

How do they know you didn't lose or destroy the notebook?
Post reply on HN