On 04/26/2011 08:43 PM, Tod Hansmann wrote: > On 4/26/2011 8:38 PM, Alan Young wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 17:23, Henry Paul<he...@paulfam.com> wrote: >>> Perhaps the police would not be able to break the encryption, but what >>> is to stop them from simply obtaining a court order to compel you to >>> unlock the drive for them? >> Short of torture and/or truth serum, how would they compel me to >> divulge the password? > I agree. Even if they had reason to believe there would be > incriminating evidence on said drive, wouldn't this fall under pleading > the fifth? Also, if you just refuse, and they lack any other evidence, > their case goes away, even if you aren't cooperative. I wonder if > they'd throw that under a different charge or something, though. > Probably a lot of ways around this one. Legal tricksies and all. > > -Tod Hansmann > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ Maybe I don't have a proper understanding of the 5th Amendment, but my understanding is it is to protect you from providing self-incriminating testimony, not self-incriminating evidence. Maybe it's the digital vs. tangible argument again perhaps, but in a murder trial I doubt you would be able to deny an order to hand over blood-soaked clothes under the protection of the 5th.
--Henry /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
