More decryption cases working their way up the chain of the courts.

[SavannahMann]

The question is actually pretty simple. Are you required to provide a password or key to unlock digital devices? My answer is no. And I’m going to tell you why I think that, and why I believe that the Courts must agree with me.

The argument is simple, the Prosecution has a right to the evidence they know exists. Well, yes. But there are limits. For example, let’s say that I have squirreled away evidence of crimes in my home and on my property. The police show up with a Search Warrant. My obligation is obvious. I am to stand back and allow the police to search. I am under no obligation, moral, or legal, to walk them through the house and point out the evidence they are looking for. It is incumbent on them to find it.

Being paranoid, I used a personal code for all the documents. One I came up with, and only I know how to decrypt the messages I wrote. Again, I am not responsible for making the evidence into a form for them to understand. If the Police miss it in the search because they did not dig up the yard, that is not my problem either. However, Digital devices are treated differently all too often. Court orders to provide the key to unlock the phone, or decrypt the hard drive. This appears to be a violation of the Fifth Amendment to me.

Court: Teen’s driving killed someone, but he can’t be forced to give up passcode

Let’s say I have a safe in my house. It’s a big safe, with a sturdy door and a very good locking system. You as a cop order me to open the safe. I refuse. You have the warrant, finding it is your problem, and if you don’t that’s good for me. How is forcing me to open the safe, or walk the cops around and point to the evidence they “know” exists different than forcing me to unlock a phone, or decrypt a hard drive?

Getting the evidence is the problem for the prosecution. Making sense of the evidence is also a problem for the Prosecution. It is not the responsibility of any defendant to do so. If the cops have a warrant for the phone, and they have physical possession of it, there is nothing more the Defendant is responsible for.

I believe the Court must side with the defense in this issue, and there can be no exceptions. If I choose not to cooperate with the prosecution against me, that is my right under the Fifth Amendment. It is not a complex question. Either we are a nation that believes in what is written in the Constitution, or we are not. There can be no exceptions.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The question is actually pretty simple. Are you required to provide a password or key to unlock digital devices? My answer is no. And I’m going to tell you why I think that, and why I believe that the Courts must agree with me.

The argument is simple, the Prosecution has a right to the evidence they know exists. Well, yes. But there are limits. For example, let’s say that I have squirreled away evidence of crimes in my home and on my property. The police show up with a Search Warrant. My obligation is obvious. I am to stand back and allow the police to search. I am under no obligation, moral, or legal, to walk them through the house and point out the evidence they are looking for. It is incumbent on them to find it.

Being paranoid, I used a personal code for all the documents. One I came up with, and only I know how to decrypt the messages I wrote. Again, I am not responsible for making the evidence into a form for them to understand. If the Police miss it in the search because they did not dig up the yard, that is not my problem either. However, Digital devices are treated differently all too often. Court orders to provide the key to unlock the phone, or decrypt the hard drive. This appears to be a violation of the Fifth Amendment to me.

Court: Teen’s driving killed someone, but he can’t be forced to give up passcode

Let’s say I have a safe in my house. It’s a big safe, with a sturdy door and a very good locking system. You as a cop order me to open the safe. I refuse. You have the warrant, finding it is your problem, and if you don’t that’s good for me. How is forcing me to open the safe, or walk the cops around and point to the evidence they “know” exists different than forcing me to unlock a phone, or decrypt a hard drive?

Getting the evidence is the problem for the prosecution. Making sense of the evidence is also a problem for the Prosecution. It is not the responsibility of any defendant to do so. If the cops have a warrant for the phone, and they have physical possession of it, there is nothing more the Defendant is responsible for.

I believe the Court must side with the defense in this issue, and there can be no exceptions. If I choose not to cooperate with the prosecution against me, that is my right under the Fifth Amendment. It is not a complex question. Either we are a nation that believes in what is written in the Constitution, or we are not. There can be no exceptions.

I agree with that.