U.S. Court Extends Fifth Amendment to Encrypted Data

[Strazdas]

while he may be right to hace a choice, he is still hingering and investigation. thats like if a robber is runing though your yard and you wont let police chase you because they cant enter without court order. i though this was an article about SOPA rage and how SOPA would legally put people who encrypt thier internet connection to jail but apparently this is something unrelated, so im raving.

 

[Marcus Thomas]

I consider simply finding the person guilty for not cooperating in that case and ending it right there a perfectly reasonable and civilized alternative.

I consider that to be extremely barbaric. The concept of innocent until proven guilty is pretty timeless.

 

[Athinira]

Again, we're dealing with a situation where by the time the case has gone to court the evidence in question has already been picked up through due search and seizure. The court has the right to that information, and if the person refuses to decrypt it they are impeding the investigation.

There is a difference between "impeding an investigation" and "refusing to help an investigation".

By that logic, not confessing to a crime you have committed, you are also impeding an investigation. You are currently moving from your original argument here (which was that people were hiding behind a technicality, an argument i would dispute, but you still made it) to the point of arguing that people have to prove their own innocence rather than being proven guilty.

It is highly unlikely that something would be deemed relevent and have a person pleading the 5th if it was unaccesible to them to begin with. To be seized it's going to be a computer routinely used by the accused for business puirposes or whatever.

Not really. When a search and seizure is conducted at a property, the police (or whoever is conducting the search) typically takes all material they suspect might be relevant, and then they later sort out what they consider irrelevant. Encrypted content can, at best, make police suspect that something relevant is located there, but being unable to decrypt it makes that a guessing game.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that a person somehow needs an excuse for pleading the 5th. That couldn't be further from the truth. A person doesn't need an "excuse" to plead the 5th. Pleading the 5th doesn't mean you have anything to hide. Like the supreme once court said in a case: "One of the 5th Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speakers own mouth."

In a country where lying the police is a felony (which, may i remind you, can also involve being convicted for telling the police the truth in cases where the police might have evidence suggesting you're lying, even if that evidence is mistaken), you don't need an excuse to exercise your right to silence.

If you have never watched it before, i recommend the YouTube video in the spoiler below. It explains very well why you should pretty much ALWAYS take the 5th if the police approaches you, even if you're innocent as an angel and have nothing to hide. You don't need an excuse to use no words besides "I want a lawyer", and that goes both for talking to the police and keeping silent in court as well.

Spoiler: YouTube video here

I understand your reasoning here, I just happen to disagree with it. My point about the founding fathers is simply that these laws are NOT timeless, and they even said so themselves. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who mentioned the bit about re-doing the constitution every 19 years.

Many of them are timeless. I won't dispute that some of them might be a bit ridiculous by modern standards (the right to having a gun in your home, for example. I'm not one of the anti-gun fanatics, but i do believe that a law permitting people to have a weapon should be a normal law that are easier to change, and not a constitutional law), but several of the amendments (prohibiting slavery, illegal searches etc.) are rather timeless unless you predict that the USA will be the United Dictatorship of America in the near future.

But anyway, returning to the topic at hand, i see no convincing evidence in your argument that the 5th Amendment needs an update.

The examples in the video above (not to mention the THOUSANDS of other cases where testimony of innocent people have sent them to jail for crimes they did not commit because they didn't take the 5th) showcase well enough why the 5th is a basic necessity, and why it still fulfills its purpose. You see, the way the 5th is worded leads me to believe that it wasn't just invented to prevent confessions induced by coercion and torture. The quote from the Supreme Court in my last paragraph shows very well that the courts have a fine understanding of what the Amendment is meant to accomplish.

In the case of encryption, the 5th plays a very specific role, because dealing with encrypted content in court cases (in the way that you want them to deal with it) has some very specific problems. First of all, until decrypted, you cannot prove that the content on the encrypted drive has any relevance to the case. But second, and most importantly of all, you cannot in any way prove that someone (the accused) is capable of decrypting the drive to begin with (until they actually do so).

You cannot prove that they know the password (or knew it at one point, in case they have forgotten) or have access to the keyfile necessary to encrypt the drives or files that are encrypted. You might also not be able to prove that they are (were) the users of the encrypted content. Hell, in some cases you might not be able to prove that they are the owner of the content (even in some cases if they are the owner of the equipment). A person cannot be held in contempt of court if they are unable to comply with a judges order.

You are basically arguing that if a case involves encrypted content, the accused is guilty until they prove themself innocent by decrypting content they might not even be able to decrypt in the first place (because ultimately, any case involving encrypted content IS going to be a guessing game about whether or not the accused can actually decrypt the content). Suffice to say, that isn't in any way an appropriate way for a modern legal system to work.

Also, on the subject of "forgetting the password", i would like to give you a point of reference. As mentioned earlier in this thread, i use TrueCrypt myself. My Password, while not entirely 100% random, consists of upper and lowercase-letters, numbers and special characters and is almost 40 (!!) characters long (to prevent bruteforcing). I use the password around every third day on average, and i have a VERY good memory, which means that I'm unlikely to forget it in a hurry. Should i have my computers seized, however (for whatever reason), and they came to me and wanted me to decrypt my content maybe a year or more after i used that password last time (because court cases take so f*****g long), even i wouldn't be able to guarentee that I'd remember it.

I should mention btw, in this regard, that the 5th Amendment DOES have a special exception that can make it void in the regards to Encryption, and that's the Foregone Conclusion Doctrine that states that the provision of information is not subject to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when the existence and location of information are known to the government, and the act of providing the evidence adds little or nothing to the Governments case. In those exceptions, the government can still compel a suspect to produce the contents of an encrypted drive (and has done so in the past [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Boucher]). In the link provided, the defendant (Sebastian Boucher) had already showed some of the content of the encrypted drive before the court trial to ICE agents and had admitted to possession of the computer, the the Foregone Conclusions denied him the protection of the 5th Amendment. The constitution isn't exactly as "out of time" as you would have us believe )

The differance is you don't care if the criminals get away, largely because your not a victim in a case like this. In my case I tend to side more with the victims and law enforcement. A big part of why is simply because all anti-police paranoia aside, the system just doesn't have the resources to throw everyone in jail, or waste it's time screwing with people on a power trip. It has no active desire to put innocent people in jail for the lulz.

And this is why theory differs so much from reality. In theory, the system has no active desire to put innocent people in jail, yes. In reality, the rules for the system still allows it to happen on a daily basis in the United States. In the US, the police are allowed to lie to you and (verbally) intimidate you into confessing to a crime, whether you did do anything criminal or not, and every day people who don't take the 5th DO confess to crimes they did not commit. Sometimes these are smaller things that results in a fine. Sometimes people go to jail for it.

The system might not have an active desire to let things be that way, but you know what they say: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

In that regard btw, it's great that you side with the "victims" of crime. What about the people that are sent innocently to jail? They aren't "victims" or what? )

In most cases with the 5th Amendment it's dealt with by offering immunity for things unrelated to the crime in question, and that is part of what lets it work. But in a case like a real estate scam you can't provide immunity to that kind of evidence.

And, as the name implies, the immunity is an OFFER. The defendant can still decide to reject it and keep their mouth shut, in which case the prosecution will have to fall back on the remainder of their evidence.

Defendant usually only take up such an offer when the rest of the evidence against them can be considered to weigh heavily in favor of the prosecution, and they by taking the offer can somehow help their case. In the case of encryption, if the prosecution so desperately need to get the content decrypted, then chances are that the rest of their evidence is thin. In that case, the offer is unlikely to be the better decision.

That the prosecution often tries to "cheat" the legal system by offering immunity for revealing the password (but not immunity for the content that the password might be used to decrypt) is also just laughable. THAT, my friend, is the true meaning of hiding behind technicalities (by trying to circumvent the legal rights of the defendant using semantics).

So in short...

I consider simply finding the person guilty for not cooperating in that case and ending it right there a perfectly reasonable and civilized alternative.

...there is a good reason that suspects/defendants are not required to cooperate with the police: Because INNOCENT people have gone to jail for that several times through history for "cooperating" with police.

You can try to twist it any way you like, but history has shown that the ability to deny speaking with or helping the police (if you're a suspect) is a NECESSARY right if the goal of the 'justice' system is to disperse actual justice. The amount of innocents that have been jailed on account of not exercising their rights is staggering, and i see no convincing argument to take those rights away from them. Especially not the 5th. I once again recommend watchin the video above. There are some interesting statistics about how many people have gone to jail for not taking the 5th (especially during earlier times where racism caused black people to be tried en masse for crimes they did not commit, and many went to jail on confessions).

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

An investigation into the unspecified but presumably criminal activities of a Florida man

Oh yes, please do presume he is guilty of something before any conviction of such. What else would a free country have you do!

 

[Therumancer]

I consider simply finding the person guilty for not cooperating in that case and ending it right there a perfectly reasonable and civilized alternative.

I consider that to be extremely barbaric. The concept of innocent until proven guilty is pretty timeless.

Well, not really, actually that's a very western concept.

What's more this has nothing to do with that, this all about the rules of evidence really.

Basically, at this level we're talking about whether or not evidence that has been obtained in an approved search, and which is capable of proving a suspect guilty of crimes they committed, can be used in court if the accused can protect the evidence in such a way that the court cannot access it.

I'm saying that this is a stupid semantic arguement that is directly opposed to the spirit of the law, your saying you don't care. We disagree. But then again it's a touchy subject which is why it's newsworthy.

See, I think the problem is that your anti-goverment to the point where you want every tool and loophole you can use to defend yourself. I'm more concerned with the victims and getting the criminals off the street.

I'll also go so far as to say that I think you and the people like you, are one of the reasons why the country is such a mess right now, and why we have all these bankers and white collar criminals running roughshod over everyone, and things like the Occupy Wall Street Movement. The kind of defense your advocating is exactly how people like that manage to commit crimes and then avoid being held accountable for them due to being able to hire high priced lawyers to make semantic arguements for them. Right now this is exactly the kind of legal wrangling we need to step down on hard.

I can't help but think your tune would change if someone had scammed you out of a house or something, been caught red handed, and then got away with it because they were simply able to afford encryption the goverment can't break. If this stands it's a free pass for anyone who can afford enough digital protection to engage in any kind of scam they want. I have an issue with that.

 

[Therumancer]

[

You can try to twist it any way you like, but history has shown that the ability to deny speaking with or helping the police (if you're a suspect) is a NECESSARY right if the goal of the 'justice' system is to disperse actual justice. The amount of innocents that have been jailed on account of not exercising their rights is staggering, and i see no convincing argument to take those rights away from them. Especially not the 5th. I once again recommend watchin the video above. There are some interesting statistics about how many people have gone to jail for not taking the 5th (especially during earlier times where racism caused black people to be tried en masse for crimes they did not commit, and many went to jail on confessions).

The point you, and others, miss here is that in this case there has already been a safeguard imposed. That is to say that the evidence has been seized legally, a judge has already looked this over, and approved the seizure of that computer and data as relevent within the scope of the search. This is about access, not self incrimination, because the evidence has already been approved and entered, which is why it's a contempt issue. This isn't about testimony but a totally differant section of the legal system.

What's more you, and others, misunderstand the point of the 5th Amendment, that law exists to protect people from being forced to confess to unrelated crimes to give nessicary testimony. It's been twisted into other things, but that's the point. Someone taking the 5th is a sign that the goverment has to weigh offering immunity for whatever the crimes might be, against the potential value of testimony in the case to which they are involved.

Criminals being able to come up, swear an oath, and then refuse to answer questions is itself a manipulation of the intent of the protection, and one of the cases that kind of shows what a huge effect precedent can have on our system. If you think about it, why call anyone to trial for questioning if they can refuse to answer the questions? Kind of stupid, and that's because it wasn't originally supposed to work that way.

The bottom line is we disagree, but it is a contreversial issue for a reason. I'd agree with you, if it wasn't for the requirements to get the computer admitted to begin with, and as this is about evidence that has already been submitted, it's not a matter of violating "innocent until proven guilty" because it's already a matter of record for the proceeding.

Like in the last post I wrote (sorry if I'm snippy, I'm a bit tired), I'll also point out that the last thing we need in this country with all the problems with corperations, banks, and white collar criminals screwing everyone... the behavior that lead to things like occupy Wall Street, is saying that someone who can afford encryption the goverment can't break is basically entitled to get away with their crimes.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

I love that 'The Founding Fathers' knew about computing and encryption when they wrote the constitution!
Any chance your old document could be slightly irrelevant to a modern day problem *Cough*Bible*Cough*

 

[Athinira]

The point you, and others, miss here is that in this case there has already been a safeguard imposed. That is to say that the evidence has been seized legally, a judge has already looked this over, and approved the seizure of that computer and data as relevent within the scope of the search. This is about access, not self incrimination, because the evidence has already been approved and entered, which is why it's a contempt issue. This isn't about testimony but a totally differant section of the legal system.

And again, you miss - or rather, did not read - my points at all.

Even if the computer/encrypted material has been seized legally, you can't:
- Prove that the person from which the computer was seized has knowledge of the content of the equipment or was the one supervising it
- Prove that the person is capable of decrypting the contents

There is no "safeguard" in trying to guess whether or not someone is responsible for encrypted content or is capable of decrypting it. It is what it is: Guessing.

What's more you, and others, misunderstand the point of the 5th Amendment, that law exists to protect people from being forced to confess to unrelated crimes to give nessicary testimony. It's been twisted into other things, but that's the point. Someone taking the 5th is a sign that the goverment has to weigh offering immunity for whatever the crimes might be, against the potential value of testimony in the case to which they are involved.

"One of the 5th Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speakers own mouth."

From my last post to you.

The fifth amendment also clearly states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Like i already explained earlier, decrypting encrypted content means that you, as the defendant, admits to knowing of the content and admits to controlling and having previously controlled it. This is the equivalent of self-testimony in a case where the prosecution doesn't have proof of a link between you and the (at the time) unknown content that are encrypted.

I think you might want to consider the option that it's not us that are misunderstanding the 5th Amendment. It's you who are deliberately misinterpreting it, creating your own "idea" of what it's meant to accomplish.

I'll take the Supreme Courts definition over yours, no offense intended.

Criminals being able to come up, swear an oath, and then refuse to answer questions is itself a manipulation of the intent of the protection, and one of the cases that kind of shows what a huge effect precedent can have on our system. If you think about it, why call anyone to trial for questioning if they can refuse to answer the questions? Kind of stupid, and that's because it wasn't originally supposed to work that way.

Because:
- Not everyone refuses to answer questions (even though they can)
- People who lie often still give viable clues away that can be used to prosecute them
- Because having some questions answered is better than no questioned answered. Even if a defendant refuses to answer question X doesn't mean he refuses question Y.
- Because questions (and answers) creates context, and context is important for the jury/judge to get a better idea of the case.

I still see no evidence at all supporting your claim that the 5th Amendment is broken. The version you imagine might be broken, but like i said, that's likely because your idea of the 5th Amendment is off.

Like in the last post I wrote (sorry if I'm snippy, I'm a bit tired), I'll also point out that the last thing we need in this country with all the problems with corperations, banks, and white collar criminals screwing everyone... the behavior that lead to things like occupy Wall Street, is saying that someone who can afford encryption the goverment can't break is basically entitled to get away with their crimes.

Listen, you cannot beat encryption. Ever. Why? Because of deniable encryption, which in truecrypt is know as plausible deniability. What this does is hide an encrypted container within an encrypted container in a way that makes it absolutely 100% impossible to prove it exists (beyond actually decrypting it). You can read more about how it works here [http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/hidden-volume]. It's encryption that is practically impossible to beat short of brute-forcing the password (or torturing it out of someone). The only way to beat it is to outlaw encryption. The government already tried that 50 years ago by classifying encryption as a weapon, imposing restrictions. It didn't work.

Yes i agree it sucks for law-enforcement, but at the end of the day, encryption is just something they will have to live with. It's therefore up to the government to make sure there are safeguards in place that makes it harder for corporations to screw people. Encryption isn't something you can beat, ever.

 

[rapidoud]

Another day I'm thankful I don't live in the US.

To those asking: Truecrypt can be broken but the amount of power required to do it for one individual means they wouldn't even bother Even then you can keep portions of it hidden.

But the fact that now all you have to do is encrypt your HDD and get away with literally anything is a move made by an honest-to-god technology retard

 

[Thyunda]

Well this is just plain silly. What's he got on his hard drive that he doesn't want the FBI to see? He should have been put away for deliberate obstruction of justice. If you're threatened with a jail sentence, and all you have on your hard drive is a couple of embarrassing files, then surely you'd just let the FBI in?
Privacy is overrated when it starts interfering with the justice system.

 

[Athinira]

But the fact that now all you have to do is encrypt your HDD and get away with literally anything is a move made by an honest-to-god technology retard

Why do people keep making this stupid assumption that people can get away with anything?

Listen, people have been prosecuted before computers even existed (and encryption was something everyone could get). While winning a case based on data seized on a suspects computer can be nice, you can't rely on that to win every case for you.

There are other ways to win cases and other evidence to collect which prosecutors can use to sentence a criminal. Seizing computers CAN be useful, but it's not the only tool in the box.

And no, you cannot beat encryption. If the courts could compel people to reveal encryption keys, people would use hidden encryption volumes instead, and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

 

[Athinira]

Well this is just plain silly. What's he got on his hard drive that he doesn't want the FBI to see? He should have been put away for deliberate obstruction of justice. If you're threatened with a jail sentence, and all you have on your hard drive is a couple of embarrassing files, then surely you'd just let the FBI in?

Jesus, more people who doesn't understand how encryption works, nor the law.

First of all, there is a difference between "obstruction of justice" and "refusing to help". Refusing to help police build a case against yourself is not the same as obstruction of justice. You have NO obligation to help them, and giving that helping them is counter-intuitive to your case, why would you?

Second of all, as mentioned in my earlier posts, you cannot beat encryption. Ever. Hidden volumes means that encryption can cheat investigators, and they have no way to prove otherwise.

Privacy is overrated when it starts interfering with the justice system.

The man is innocent until proven guilty. To jail someone for "Obstruction of justice" (even though, as i explained, refusing to decrypt something isn't obstruction of justice), you first have to prove that there are justice to be dispersed in the first place. If the man is innocent (which is the governments job to prove that he isn't, and he isn't obliged to help them), then there is no justice to be dispersed.

Also i almost don't even want to touch terrible your logic is. By that argument, the government should install cameras in EVERY home in the United States so they could spy on us. Then they would be able to solve almost every case of domestic violence, robbery etc. Sounds like a good idea to you? )

 

[Athinira]

i really do not see how unencrypting the info = being a witness against himself.

Decrypting the contents is that same as admitting that you not only had knowledge of the content, but also having control over it/owning it. By decrypting it, you are basically displaying that you are the one responsible for the content of the encrypted container.

 

[Thyunda]

Well this is just plain silly. What's he got on his hard drive that he doesn't want the FBI to see? He should have been put away for deliberate obstruction of justice. If you're threatened with a jail sentence, and all you have on your hard drive is a couple of embarrassing files, then surely you'd just let the FBI in?

Jesus, more people who doesn't understand how encryption works, nor the law.

First of all, there is a difference between "obstruction of justice" and "refusing to help". Refusing to help police build a case against yourself is not the same as obstruction of justice. You have NO obligation to help them, and giving that helping them is counter-intuitive to your case, why would you?

Second of all, as mentioned in my earlier posts, you cannot beat encryption. Ever. Hidden volumes means that encryption can cheat investigators, and they have no way to prove otherwise.

Privacy is overrated when it starts interfering with the justice system.

The man is innocent until proven guilty. To jail someone for "Obstruction of justice" (even though, as i explained, refusing to decrypt something isn't obstruction of justice), you first have to prove that there are justice to be dispersed in the first place. If the man is innocent (which is the governments job to prove that he isn't, and he isn't obliged to help them), then there is no justice to be dispersed.

Also i almost don't even want to touch terrible your logic is. By that argument, the government should install cameras in EVERY home in the United States so they could spy on us. Then they would be able to solve almost every case of domestic violence, robbery etc. Sounds like a good idea to you? )

Slippery slope arguments are objectively invalid. Sorry lad. Or lass. Or other.


There's a huge difference between forcing somebody to build a case against themselves and spying on people, and decrypting some bloody data. And not only that, but an innocent man has no reason to deny them access.

And your...frankly ridiculous extensions to include spying? What if a neighbour has a CCTV camera mounted on their shared property and that camera happened to catch the intruders? Would you say that the neighbour should then hand over the tapes?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Good on them, for once I'm happy to see something intelligent and positive come out of the US! I'm kidding to all our American cousins, but you must admit there's some crazy stuff g'wan on your side of the pond. Well done that judge.

This ruling is a great milestone for the cause of rights to privacy. In the UK, we've had pretty much every right to privacy stripped away systematically and what little is left is being taken by the govmt piece by piece with nary a moan or a whimper from the populace.

Police can stop and search anyone, for any time without reason. They can imprison anyone without reason for up to 42 days. They can insist we hand over any personal information, decryption keys, codes, etc and imprison us for 2 years if we refuse or cannot. They can monitor our communications and not to mention all the useless CCTV and traffic cameras...the former not good enough to be admissible in court, the second there to generate stealth taxes.

But no guns, free healthcare and better education so...

 

[Vivi22]

If you had the same information in safety deposit box a court order will grant access to it, if you do the electronic equivalent why should that have greater legal protection.

The problem here is that you're thinking two things are equivalent when they aren't at all. Storing documents in a safety deposit box instead of under your bed would be the equivalent of storing computer files on a third party server or friends hard drive instead of your own.

The police can gain access to it and there's nothing stopping them. But if the files in that safety deposit box are in code, which is the actual equivalent of computer files being encrypted, you don't have to tell them how to decode it, anymore than you'd have to explain bank transactions on a bank statement to them. They have access to the evidence and it's up to the prosecutors and police to make the case against you. Beyond giving them access to those files when they've proven they have due cause to acquire them and been given a warrant, you are under no obligation to help them do their job.

All you guys going on about this being a victory are simply ignoring the fact that all other methods of storing information and exchanging are legally discoverable why shouldn't encrypted data be also legally discoverable. If you write on piece of paper your plan to rob a bank, that document is capable of being used in evidence against you. If you do the same thing on a computer and encrypt it you cant be touched. Why is it any different?

No one is ignoring that at all, nor is encrypted information something the prosecutors can't legally obtain as a result of this ruling. They can be given access to it, but you don't have to help them decrypt it anymore than you would have to decrypt memo's you wrote in code for them. That's their job.

To address your example, if you write your plan to rob a bank on a piece of paper in code, they can take the piece of paper but it's up to them to decipher it. Just if you encrypt your hard drive, they can take the hard drive and look at any file on it they want, but it's up to them to decrypt it. You wouldn't have to help them in either case.

Hopefully that clarifies things because the problem seems to be that you are treating examples as equivalent which absolutely aren't, and assuming that encrypting files denies prosecutors access to them which isn't the case.

 

[Athinira]

Slippery slope arguments are objectively invalid. Sorry lad. Or lass. Or other.

That's also what they said before Hitler.

Slippery slope arguments work just fine for the simple reasons that they have proven themself to hold true so many times through history. If you could point me to whatever law you have read somewhere that says they are objectively invalid, i would be happy, or is it just some rule you created in your own little fantasy kingdom?

Slippery slope arguments weren't invented for fun. They were invented because slippery slopes happen to be, well, slippery.

There's a huge difference between forcing somebody to build a case against themselves and spying on people, and decrypting some bloody data. And not only that, but an innocent man has no reason to deny them access.

Actually there is. First of all, some people just don't like people looking into their privacy, even if it's the government. In fact, most people don't like it, although many are willing to coorperate if it gets them out of trouble faster. But bottom line is that people consider their private data to be noones business, and many are willing to fight for that right.

Second of all, the United States, as a country, has so many laws that, if you include laws that reference administrative regulations, that even the federal government can't keep track of them anymore. If you let the government into your hard drive, even if they don't find what they're looking for, there could be thousands of little things they would crucify you for instead that you wouldn't know about until they actually charge you. You want an example of how that works, Defense Attourney James Duane explains it perfectly well in this video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc#t=5m16s] (5:17 to 7:38).

In many other countries (including my own, Denmark), this kind of things aren't something you need to fear. But in the United States, the Government are more busy watching you than looking out for you. If you watch the rest of the video above, Duane also explains why even innocent people should never talk to the police. Go watch it, it might be educational for you.

And your...frankly ridiculous extensions to include spying? What if a neighbour has a CCTV camera mounted on their shared property and that camera happened to catch the intruders? Would you say that the neighbour should then hand over the tapes?

The 'justice system' has used spying, including surveillance, wiretaps and GPS trackers for a long time. Given that it was you said that privacy was overrated when it interfered with the justice system, calling me out on being ridiculous is quite ironic. Consider if it isn't your own logic that is at fault here.

In your example, if my neighbor refused to hand over the tapes, i would say that he is an asshole for not helping out his fellow man (and i would laugh if he was their next robbery target), but i can't compel him to give over his own personal tapes. Being an asshole is not illegal, and if he hadn't had that CCTV kamera set up they would never have been caught on tape in the first place. At least he would have given me a CHANCE of getting some evidence for the police, and since i like to stay on good terms with my neighbors, I'm confident i could get him to give me the tapes willingly.

On the other hand, if he refused to give me the tape because I, myself, was often an asshole towards him, then i likely don't deserve them. That's my problem, not his. You reap as you sow.

 

[cobra_ky]

I love that 'The Founding Fathers' knew about computing and encryption when they wrote the constitution!
Any chance your old document could be slightly irrelevant to a modern day problem *Cough*Bible*Cough*

<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_disk>The Founding Fathers DID know about encryption.

 

[Thyunda]

-snip-

So you're trying to tell me that it's somehow acceptable for somebody to aid a criminal's escape simply because the two of you don't get on? In the neighbour example, there is now a gang of potentially dangerous criminals who are out on the streets because he won't hand over the tapes. That's what you call aiding and abetting a known felon. Those tapes would serve to bring those men to justice, and if you deliberately withhold them, you're interfering with the justice system.

Once again. It's not 'the government are spying on me', it's 'I have broken the law'. The law that is in place to protect people. This criminal protection has to stop. It's ridiculous. They didn't bring him in and demand he decrypt his files because he looked shifty, you know. They brought him in because they had reason to believe that he was guilty, and if he holds the key to the evidence, then he is obliged to show it. If he won't show it, he's guilty.

Hey. If he's innocent, he could deconstruct the case against him. But since he won't, the only option is to assume he's guilty.

Oh. And slippery slope arguments are always invalid. First lesson of critical thinking and philosophy. I live in a city where every inch is covered by CCTV. It's also one of the few cities where it's safe to go out alone in the early hours. You're watched 100% while you're outside. But are there CCTV cameras in our houses? Are we spied on? Nope.

Slippery slope arguments are, have always been, and will always be horse shit. Forcing a criminal to decrypt the hard drive with the evidence on is NOT a bad thing. Criminals are the bad guys here, not the police. Bloody youth, with their 'fuck the police' attitudes.

 

[Athinira]

decrypting it is no more admitting you had knowledge of the contents as handing over paper documents. the only thing decrypting it proves is knowledge of how to decrypt it. again he is not being forced to be a witness against himself, just to give over evidence and make it accessible to the investigators, something that happens all the time.

Handing over some paper documents doesn't prove that you own or are responsible for these, only that you were in possession of them at the time (or knew of their location). For example a secretary that hands over papers from her company archive to officials with a search warrant doesn't mean that she is responsible for their content. Anyone can hand over a piece of paper they have physical access to.

Knowledge of how to decrypt a specific encryption container is different. It requires you to know the exact means of decrypting that container, including the encryption software used, as well as the passwords and/or the keyfiles necessary to decrypt it.

Therefore, unless the encrypted content really do belong to someone else than yourself, and you can point out to the court who that person is and why you are in possession of the knowledge necessary to decrypt their content (not to mention that this person can deny your allegations and deny any knowledge of the encrypted content and how to decrypt it), the act of decrypting the content is an admittance that the content is within your power and responsibility, unless - liked mentioned - you can point out that someone else also had access.