On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 04:42:52PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > > Unfortunately most of us do. Including the US, UK and the Dutch are > > aklso pushing for such laws. > > Speaking only for the U.S., this is not the case.
Dream on. > The United States Constitution protects an individual's right not to > testify against themselves. If the production of a passphrase would > have any kind of testimonial value, then such production cannot be > ordered. The only time production of a passphrase is permitted is when > it lacks any testimonial value. There are quite a few ways police and prosecutors can coerce a suspect to hand over his encryption key(s). Dangling the prospect of a lighter sentence under the poor bugger's nose, or conversely, threatening to come down hard, perhaps going for a death penalty. The surrender of a suspect's keys would be "voluntary" and therefore constitutional. Even if the role production serves is testimonial, if it's voluntary, and the statement the poor sod is required to sign will so state, it's constitutional (I think). Don't forget, even non-testimonial key surrender can be used to build a body of evidence. DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer and the above is opinion only. > Many people look at one particular case and say, "hey, production was > required in that case, clearly the U.S. can compel you to produce!", or > "production wasn't required in that case, clearly the U.S. can't compel > you to produce!" The reality is different. You need to look at the > role the production serves. Testimonial in nature? Nope, forbidden. > Non-testimonial? Yep, permitted. -- Bob Holtzman Giant intergalactic brain-sucking hyperbacteria came to Earth to rape our women and create a race of mindless zombies. Look! It's working!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users