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

61–70 of 180 posts

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

#61

Post by ship_it »

acchow wrote: post #55
ereyes01 wrote: post #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…

It's complicated - the guy claimed he forgot his password. So what does the law do at that point?

Yes, I'm wondering about the law regulation in such cases too

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

#63

Post by belorn »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #45
belorn wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Asking an accused to provide that content directly is tantamount to testimony, as the Eleventh Circuit concluded. To quote: "the decryption and production would be tantamount to testimony by Doe of his knowledge of the existence and location of potentially incriminating files; of his possession, control, and access to the encrypted portions of the drives; and of his capability to decrypt the files."

It all comes down to the duck test. Is the request for the decrypted container similar as asking directly for the content to be written down by the accused, or spoken about in the form of a testimony? Does it has the same purpose and the same result?

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

#64

Post by throwaway17_17 »

baddox wrote: post #46
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.)

> 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 e…

I would say that police use ‘violence’ to acquire what they want all the time and the de-encryption of data is potentially no different. It would be a foolish mistake to ignore the State’s monopoly on force. While there is certainly a difference between the threat of violence and the application of violence, it is more the general ability of the State to utilize force for those aims society has agreed are within the State’s remit. While it may not be ‘violence’ per se, detention and deprivation of freedom are certainly applications of force and said detention is often preceded by actual violence to secure an individual for that detention. I am certain that periods of detention are enough to make a decent percentage of even the most principled individuals turn over their data. It is clear game theory, if I can be held for multiple rounds of incarcerations while keeping the data, but I can reasonably expect some determinate sentence from something in the data, is the trade-off worth it? Law enforcement doesn’t need the clarity of law, individuals need clarity of law to restrict those officers.

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

#65

Post by throwaway17_17 »

wahern wrote: post #51
tsimionescu wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP's point was that, if the bar for the 5th amendment is that you may be required to provide testify against yourself as long as the government already knows the piece you are required to testify about, it's not clear how that wouldn't apply to you being required to admit your guilt when the government has sufficient evidence that you are guilty. I'd also note that giving the government your books is required by…

Generally speaking, any non-testimonial evidence entered into court must be backed by a witness testifying to the nature, content (e.g. literally reciting the incriminating parts), and origins of the evidence. And that person has to have had a proper relationship to the evidence to do so, which is usually the person with the most direct and close relationship to an item or act. For example, if you want to enter verba…

I have a very strong suspicion that most of the Circuit courts are not going to follow this analysis. Based on the continual erosion of individual applicability of the 4-6 amendments, I would say the more like argument and opinions will focus on distinguishing these types of cases (forced decryption) from testimonial precedent. They will then proceed to, or try to, align the context with the clearly allowable compelling of DNA, fingerprints, physical appearance and other visual identifiers.

I don’t particularly like that train of thought, but given (for example) the higher court’s willingness for the sentence “I want a lawyer, dawg” to be a request for canine companionship and not one asserting a 6th amendment right to counsel, I don’t think I’m wrong.

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

#66

Post by favorited »

jessaustin wrote: post #54
anonsivalley652 wrote: post #13

A minor miracle, while Chelsea Manning still rots in Alexandria City Jail for not cooperating with the political persecution of Assange.

It's so great, that Obama "commuted her sentence". Clearly that was a meaningful action that significantly affected something.

He commuted her sentence for a different crime. He didn't give her a pass to commit contempt going forward.

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

#67

Post by throwaway17_17 »

joering2 wrote: post #53
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.)

Which of course is not how justice works, at least in USA. Here you are innocent until proven otherwise. Mere decline to produce a notebook (with or without evidence of crime in it) is in no way shape or form an admission of guilt or a proof of itself good enough to find you guilty. Look no further than the most important case of modern history - impeachment of Donald J. Trump. During Senate hearing Mr. Trump’s lawye…

As a semi-counter-point: 1) the argument, made by every criminal defense attorney in trial ever, that a jury can not infer anything from a defendant’s exercise of his/her 5th amendment right to remain silent is basically pointless. Juries, and individual jurors in the vast majority, do not buy it, they don’t accept it as the law in their minds, and they certainly factor it into deliberations;

I in no way want the following to appear that I have an opinion as to anything regarding Trump’s anything, but

2) Trump was acquitted because of the way the US impeachment process is set up, if I am sure of anything, it is the fact that no votes to acquit where based in any way on Seklow’s arguments about presumption based on the 5th amendment.

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

#68

Post by ajross »

baddox wrote: post #46
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.)

> 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 e…

> attempting to hide or destroy their books

This is precisely why "Obstruction of Justice" is a criminal offense with severe penalties available. The question then becomes: is deliberately encrypting and refusing to provide access to those books obstruction?

I know the folks here would argue otherwise, but IMHO it's not at all a clear argument legally. The original reasoning behind the fifth amendment was that without that protection the government would be tempted to use coercive tactics to induce a false confession. It's designed to prevent the torture of accused witches, not to be a literal get-out-of-jail-free card for crypto nuts.

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

#69

Post by joering2 »

throwaway17_17 wrote: post #67
joering2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which of course is not how justice works, at least in USA. Here you are innocent until proven otherwise. Mere decline to produce a notebook (with or without evidence of crime in it) is in no way shape or form an admission of guilt or a proof of itself good enough to find you guilty. Look no further than the most important case of modern history - impeachment of Donald J. Trump. During Senate hearing Mr. Trump’s lawye…

As a semi-counter-point: 1) the argument, made by every criminal defense attorney in trial ever, that a jury can not infer anything from a defendant’s exercise of his/her 5th amendment right to remain silent is basically pointless. Juries, and individual jurors in the vast majority, do not buy it, they don’t accept it as the law in their minds, and they certainly factor it into deliberations; I in no way want the fol…

Politicans who found Mr. Trump not guilty have stated its in part because of lack of evidence otherwise. Everyone welcome to keep downvoting, but I will remain certain in USA you are innocent until proven guilty. You don’t have to prove your innocence. And many cases - even the big ones like Casey Anthony, OJ, Zimmerman, now Weinstein - prove that fifth amandment works.

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

#70

Post by throwaway17_17 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #19
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?

No, they can hold you in contempt for up to 18 months in federal court, or indefinitely in many state courts. 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.

Just to clarify, and your comment framed the apparent misunderstanding in the thread perfectly:

This ruling only says that the confinement period for contempt of court, where the court has order an individual to de-encrypt some data, is too long if it is more than 18 continuous months. This does not mean that after serving that sentence and upon subsequent release, that further refusal after another court order and hearing can not result in another sentence for contempt.

Post reply on HN