News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt. Parent comment

Re:Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely f... by JoeSmithson on Thursday February 13, 2020 @03:04AM (#22316107)
No it's not. The information you provide (the password) is not admitted as evidence in the trial. It's more like being compelled to act as a confidential informant against yourself.

There's no prospect of this being used to bring about a wrongful conviction through coercing a confession.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely f... by adgasf on Thursday February 13, 2020 @07:30AM (#22317204)
If the key is not evidence then how can they prove that they got the incriminating files from the encrypted drive?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely f... by JoeSmithson on Thursday February 13, 2020 @09:04AM (#22317782)
A forensic scientist would testify that they extracted the files from there.

It is exactly the same as when a confidential source gives up an address (for example) the source never gets into evidence.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely f... by CiPHPerCoder on Thursday February 13, 2020 @10:10AM (#22318273)
The whole point of strong encryption is to prevent adversaries (including forensic scientists) from extracting any information without possession of the key.

If the key involves a password that you, a human, have memorized in your squishy pink organ, it's privileged under the Fifth Amendment. (This hasn't been tested in court yet, of course. There's no precedent to fall back on.)

[ Parent | on HN ]