Alleged crime.
And this is braindead simple application of the Fifth Amendment. The courts are a joke.
And this is braindead simple application of the Fifth Amendment. The courts are a joke.
Courts have come to different conclusions on both questions. Experts disagree on both questions. Even the precursor question (is requiring a defendant to provide the combination for a safe subject to the 5th Amendment?) is unsettled.
The court in this case came down on the side of treating the decryption key as a testimonial act, but avoided dealing with the 5th Amendment issues.
(2) is obviously false. You can't get to it without testimony, though, so too bad. This is the intention of the 5th.
The court avoided the 5th Amendment issues because, again, the courts are a joke.
(2) is not obviously false, because you're conflating two separate things: the encryption key and the contents of the encrypted device. Using the analogy of a locked safe: a picture taken by the defendant, for example, would be testimonial, but a picture taken by a third party would not. There's no way to know without actually reviewing the contents.
If you have a simplistic understanding of the law, it's easy to make black and white statements. But the law is not deterministic code, and has never worked that way.
So, whatever they have to do with the analogies, this decision cannot go the way the prosecutor wants it to.
This is incorrect. The judge could not have found Rawls in contempt if the judge was not satisfied that he intentionally failed to comply with the password disclosure order.
The defendant was charged with child pornography offenses.
But there is a real concrete fact that the government wants to be able to imprison someone indefinitely, without a jury trial, for claiming not to know something when there is certainly a reasonable doubt about them knowing it.
The defendant was claiming to forget the encryption key to a device because it allegedly contained a massive trove of photos that would likely get him locked away in prison for life. Said device was one he had owned and used for years, including shortly before he was arrested and the device confiscated (based on testimony of his sister). It's not reasonable to believe that he just conveniently forgot his encryption key as soon as he was arrested, especially when forgetting the key was beneficial to him in the underlying proceeding.
However, it is very easy to imagine a situation where someone LEGITIMATELY cannot decrypt the device.
Yes, but this isn't that situation. And this ruling benefits that hypothetical person.
this decision cannot go the way the prosecutor wants it to.
We agree on that, but it didn't need to. The prosecution already had a strong case against him on the underlying criminal charges. They got what they wanted -- a deterrent to others trying to do the same thing just to avoid jail time.