U.S. Court Extends Fifth Amendment to Encrypted Data

[cobra_ky]

Well it's relevant as the "Founding Fathers" could not have known that an entire libraries worth of text with moving images proving fault could be stored and encrypted, can't believe i'm arguing whether a bunch of dudes from 1776 predicted hard drive encryption....!

They certainly knew that written documents, which can be equally incriminating, could be encrypted.

No one is arguing that the Founding Fathers predicted modern computing technology. We are arguing that the principle of data encryption is identical to the one the Founding Fathers protected in the Bill of Rights.

 

[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*

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

LOL hardly encryption compared to modern standards

The principle is literally identical.

Except that their encryption is for passing on messages and ours is for hiding information of varying description

uh, their encryption was used to pass messages with hidden information in them.

but only text based information, whereas a hard drive can store more than text

a hard drive can only store binary data, which can be interpreted as text, images, or what have you. In any case, means of encrypting or hiding data, whether visual or textual, has existed for millenia and the Founding Fathers were certainly aware of the methods available to them, as they used them extensively throughout the Revolution.

They are irrelevant nowadays, the world is so different today than it was then, they need to write a new constitution, that's right I said it.

 

[Vivi22]

And once again - I can't comprehend how you can defend actively refusing to aid an investigation.

He's not defending it, he's pointing out it isn't illegal to not cooperate so long as police aren't knocking on the door with a warrant for evidence they believe you possess. I'm surprised such a distinction seems to be slipping past "one of them educated types."

People need to respect the police. 'Never trust a copper' is 70s talk. I like to think we've come past that. If the officer asks 'what's in the box', you open the box. The law enforcement has a job to do. An important job.

What world are you living in these days? Yeah, police have an important job to do. But mistakes do happen, abuses of power are surprisingly common, particularly in America, and not only do you have the right to consult with a lawyer before helping the police, it's a good idea to because anything has the potential to be taken out of context and misconstrued to land yourself or other innocent people in prison. It does happen, and you'd have to have your head in the sand not to realize that.

Well it's relevant as the "Founding Fathers" could not have known that an entire libraries worth of text with moving images proving fault could be stored and encrypted, can't believe i'm arguing whether a bunch of dudes from 1776 predicted hard drive encryption....!

The scale doesn't matter though because the principal is the same regardless of how much content is involved. If someone wanted to they could encode every physical document they ever produced, so again, how is the distinction your trying to make supposed to be relevant just because the potential scale has changed?

 

[AudienceOfOne1]

This is very interesting as it on the one hand its preventing catch 22, but on the other its just going to help pedophiles etc. to not be caught.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

Yay, it's always good to see individual rights finally catch up with technology. A lot like last month when they said planting a GPS on someone's stuff violates the 4th.

 

[Thyunda]

And once again - I can't comprehend how you can defend actively refusing to aid an investigation.

He's not defending it, he's pointing out it isn't illegal to not cooperate so long as police aren't knocking on the door with a warrant for evidence they believe you possess. I'm surprised such a distinction seems to be slipping past "one of them educated types."

People need to respect the police. 'Never trust a copper' is 70s talk. I like to think we've come past that. If the officer asks 'what's in the box', you open the box. The law enforcement has a job to do. An important job.

What world are you living in these days? Yeah, police have an important job to do. But mistakes do happen, abuses of power are surprisingly common, particularly in America, and not only do you have the right to consult with a lawyer before helping the police, it's a good idea to because anything has the potential to be taken out of context and misconstrued to land yourself or other innocent people in prison. It does happen, and you'd have to have your head in the sand not to realize that.

Well it's relevant as the "Founding Fathers" could not have known that an entire libraries worth of text with moving images proving fault could be stored and encrypted, can't believe i'm arguing whether a bunch of dudes from 1776 predicted hard drive encryption....!

The scale doesn't matter though because the principal is the same regardless of how much content is involved. If someone wanted to they could encode every physical document they ever produced, so again, how is the distinction your trying to make supposed to be relevant just because the potential scale has changed?

Now let's not bring in the faults of the legal system here - that's an argument for a larger battlefield. I, personally, despise the fact that you need a lawyer to speak to the law. Or that you can be jailed on a misinterpretation.

But then, I'm not just talking from a legal standpoint. My studies were in social humanities, not in legal. I'm seeing it from a moral and practical standpoint. We've managed to breed a culture of every man for himself, and it's just not right. It's wrong to withhold evidence from the law, no matter who the evidence is against and who is doing the hiding. If he needs to have a lawyer look over the files first, to make sure there's nothing incriminating, I can't see a problem with that. He should be permitted to decrypt the files in privacy at least. But those files need to be decrypted. And that's the end of it.

 

[cobra_ky]

They are irrelevant nowadays, the world is so different today than it was then, they need to write a new constitution, that's right I said it.

Fair enough then. If you want to completely rewrite the foundation of American government, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

They are irrelevant nowadays, the world is so different today than it was then, they need to write a new constitution, that's right I said it.

Fair enough then. If you want to completely rewrite the foundation of American government, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

You wouldn't agree that stating Lobbying to be illegal would help to make bribery clearer? Oh and stopping Corporations from being classified as humans?

 

[Vivi22]

ok then it should be no more protected as a guy who decides to bury his documents instead of shredding them. it is hiding evidence so it cannot be used.

Again, not equivalent. The police have full access to the data, they simply lack the means to read it.

Let's put it another way, if I possess documents which the police confiscate that are written in German, I'm not obligated to translate them for them. If they want to read them, they have to have them translated. Just as if they want to read encrypted data, they have to try and crack it.

decrypting something is not being a witness against yourself. sure the contents might not be great, but you are not testifying to the contents, just the fact that you knew how to decrypt it, just as the person handing over documents is not admitting to anything to do with the contents, just that they knew the location of said documents.

It absolutely is bearing witness as it proves you had access to the data. It may not prove you had sole access, but prosecutors can easily make the argument that someone who took the trouble to encrypt a hard drive is not giving out the password to others, especially if it contained evidence which may indicate criminal activity. By helping them decrypt it you make their case stronger than if they have to access it on their own. How you can argue that isn't equivalent to testimony that incriminates you is beyond me, especially when explaining how to decrypt something essentially is giving testimony.

But those files need to be decrypted. And that's the end of it.

But that's just it, it's the governments job to make the case against a defendant. They don't have to help them do it, and even the act of showing them how to decrypt files can be used against a defendant, whether rightly so or not.

Yes, in an ideal world, I'd like to see criminals go to jail because prosecutors have all of the evidence against them and can build a solid case. But such protections aren't there to protect criminals from prosecution, but potentially innocent suspects from helping the government convict them. Whether you like it or not, a choice has to be made between giving government broad power to investigate and protecting innocent people from abuse of government power and wrongful conviction. Personally, I value the latter more than convicting a few more criminals, or perhaps more accurately, convicting them sooner since most repeat offenders slip up eventually, and particularly when prosecution and punishment play a fairly minor role in actually preventing crime.

 

[cobra_ky]

They are irrelevant nowadays, the world is so different today than it was then, they need to write a new constitution, that's right I said it.

Fair enough then. If you want to completely rewrite the foundation of American government, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

You wouldn't agree that stating Lobbying to be illegal would help to make bribery clearer? Oh and stopping Corporations from being classified as humans?

i think i would agree with both of those things. Neither requires rewriting the Constitution from scratch.

 

[Athinira]

Oh. Wait. Did you want some hastily Googled video from some guy? No, see, I'm one of them educated types.

And so is the guy in the video i linked. Just because he decided to put his knowledge up on YouTube doesn't mean that it's invalid.

For someone who just stated himself as "educated", you don't seem to take well to education. I'll repeat again: Watch the video, it will make you smarter. If you insist on not doing so... well, like i said, you cannot force people to not be stupid, so suit yourself )

And once again - I can't comprehend how you can defend actively refusing to aid an investigation.

Because aiding an investigation might get yourself in trouble. Which you would once again understand if you watched the video.

Your neighbour doesn't hand the tapes over? Because of him, the criminals are not identified. Because of him they can strike again.

You can't prove that the tapes would allow the police the identify the perpetrators.
You can't prove that the criminals would strike again.
You can't prove that it's the neighbors fault that the criminals can strike again. Beyond the two first points i just made, who is to say he is the only one to have caught the criminals? Maybe someone else also saw the criminals, but decided not to speak up about it. Maybe someone even KNOWS the criminals, but decides also to keep quiet.

Case in point: You can't conclusively define the event horizon for the criminals getting caught or walking free )

See, with your attitude, we can't remove the stupid. But with a more...forward-thinking approach, then yes, we CAN.

The only way to remove stupid is to remove free will.

People need to respect the police. 'Never trust a copper' is 70s talk. I like to think we've come past that. If the officer asks 'what's in the box', you open the box. The law enforcement has a job to do. An important job.

I'll repeat again: Watch the damned video. If you don't have the time now to watch the ~27 important minutes, then that's okay. Return to me tomorrow instead when you have watched it.

The police needs to give people a reason to respect them. I respect the cops in Denmark because they don't try to entrap you at every chance you get, and because they aren't allowed to legally lie to you, and don't necessarily try to hook you up on every little nook and cranny of a law that you break (unless you do something to piss them off).

In the United States, it doesn't work like that. I don't mean to say that there aren't nice cops in the US, and I'm sure that most US cops take pride in helping out the citizens, but the point is that US law gives the population absolutely NO reason to trust the police. Talking to the police in the US is ALWAYS a risk, because everything you say can be used against you (but not for you). Again, the video will make you smarter, so watch it. I cannot reiterate this enough.

I agree that law enforcement has a very important job to do, but even so, respect is something that needs to be earned, no matter who you are. And in the US, talking to the cops always carry a higher risk than in other countries. Why do you think defense attorneys always say to their clients that they should NEVER talk to the police? Because it's not worth it. Best case scenario is that nothing happens. Worst case scenario is that you get yourself into trouble. That's why.

Respect is always a two-way street. No-one gets a free-ride, not even the police (and certainly not politicians).

And the Middle East is an excellent example of why religion and state should remain totally separate. That doesn't apply here. We're talking about the fair, democratic, safe-for-all, equality-driven West.

And see, this is where you're wrong again.

If the west is so fair, democratic, safe-for-all and equility-driven, why does the United States only score 7.1 on Transparency Internationals [http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results] 0-10 scale about corruption? )

No country is perfect. Period. There will always be people who abuse power, laws who aren't fair/just/thought through properly, lobbyists who sway politicians. Yes we are miles ahead of the middle-eastern countries where Religion dominates. However, we still have a long way to go.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

They are irrelevant nowadays, the world is so different today than it was then, they need to write a new constitution, that's right I said it.

Fair enough then. If you want to completely rewrite the foundation of American government, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

You wouldn't agree that stating Lobbying to be illegal would help to make bribery clearer? Oh and stopping Corporations from being classified as humans?

i think i would agree with both of those things. Neither requires rewriting the Constitution from scratch.

But there is no reason not to rewrite it from scratch and take away the stigma of "Founding Fathers" writing it. Making it more plausible to change it at any time to constantly align with modern culture

 

[Robert Ewing]

As much as I do love the right to privacy. I think this is a good thing.

>> Has child porn on computer
>> FBI want to look
>> Say no
>> The end.

That can now be totally avoided.

 

[Thyunda]

And the Middle East is an excellent example of why religion and state should remain totally separate. That doesn't apply here. We're talking about the fair, democratic, safe-for-all, equality-driven West.

And see, this is where you're wrong again.

If the west is so fair, democratic, safe-for-all and equility-driven, why does the United States only score 7.1 on Transparency Internationals [http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results] 0-10 scale about corruption? )

No country is perfect. Period. There will always be people who abuse power, laws who aren't fair/just/thought through properly, lobbyists who sway politicians. Yes we are miles ahead of the middle-eastern countries where Religion dominates. However, we still have a long way to go.

I think your sarcasm detectors might be faulty.

 

[cobra_ky]

They are irrelevant nowadays, the world is so different today than it was then, they need to write a new constitution, that's right I said it.

Fair enough then. If you want to completely rewrite the foundation of American government, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

You wouldn't agree that stating Lobbying to be illegal would help to make bribery clearer? Oh and stopping Corporations from being classified as humans?

i think i would agree with both of those things. Neither requires rewriting the Constitution from scratch.

But there is no reason not to rewrite it from scratch and take away the stigma of "Founding Fathers" writing it. Making it more plausible to change it at any time to constantly align with modern culture

It's not like the mechanisms to change it don't exist already. People simply need to be motivated to use them, which you would need to do in order to draft a new constitution anyway.

 

[lapan]

As much as I do love the right to privacy. I think this is a good thing.

>> Has child porn on computer
>> FBI want to look
>> Say no
>> The end.

That can now be totally avoided.

I don't think you actually read the article. It's about encryption being protected under the law, you seem to assume the opposite.

 

[Athinira]

I think your sarcasm detectors might be faulty.

Possibly, it's a long discussion, and I'm headed to work in 15 minutes

 

[Thyunda]

I think your sarcasm detectors might be faulty.

Possibly, it's a long discussion, and I'm headed to work in 15 minutes

In case the sarcasm and the ac.uk college didn't give it away, I'm in fact British, and we make a whole culture of being ashamed of the American government. So don't think I'm trying to justify the convoluted minefield of the legal system over there. Or over here, for that matter.

 

[Kathinka]

and this is news?
where i live (czech republic/germany) it's been like that since forever. they can't make you assist in the investigation against yourself, that would be moronic.