So Much For The Fifth Amendment: Man Jailed For Seven Months For Not Turning Over Password

Tech Dirt ^ | 28 April 2016 | Tim Cushing

[SunkenCiv]

from the FRchives, an old series posted for the Gods, Graves, Glyphs ping list:

1. the 1st Amendment
2. the 2nd Amendment
3. the 3rd Amendment
4. the 4th Amendment
5. the 5th Amendment
6. the 6th Amendment
7. the 7th Amendment
8. the 8th Amendment
9. the 9th Amendment
10. the 10th Amendment
11. the 11th Amendment
12. the 12th Amendment
13. the 13th Amendment
14. the 14th Amendment
15. the 15th Amendment
16. the 16th Amendment
17. the 17th Amendment
18. the 18th Amendment
19. the 19th Amendment
20. the 20th Amendment
21. the 21st Amendment
22. the 22nd Amendment
23. the 23rd Amendment
24. the 24th Amendment
25. the 25th Amendment
26. the 26th Amendment
27. the 27th Amendment

[Pollster1]

I’m with you on this one. No 4th violation as there is a legal warrant. However, being required to supply evidence to the prosecution does seem to violate the 5th.

Even if a clever lawyer can win the argument that it doesn't violate the letter of the 5th, it still violates the spirit of the 5th. Compelling someone to actively assist in their own prosecution is sufficiently distasteful that it should be out of bounds regardless of legalistic quibbling.

[zeugma]

Rather perverse that a man can be jailed for refusing to cooperate with his own prosecution.

I think it illustrates the depth to which our legal systems has fallen pretty well.

[Jmouse007]

They are purposely trying to force him to incriminate himself: "ANYTHING you say can AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW!"

If he is guilty it us up to the prosecution to prove it, "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is not up to the accused to do "the States" job for them. If they want it unlocked... let them do it themselves.

[I want the USA back]

So, he was not jailed for not turning over his password, as the lying headline says.
This is like opening a safe. If the court can order someone to open a safe (search done with warrant), then they can order someone to decrypt data.
He was jailed for not complying with the search warrant (court order).
Headlines should not aim for sensationalism, but for a clear statement of the facts.

[Political Junkie Too]

What happened to his fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination? Let the state find some other way to convict him.

-PJ

[Organic Panic]

To be technical the poor bozo violated his parole.

[monkeybrau]

So the penalty for not complying with the search order is to be jailed forever? Seems disproportionate at first glance.

[Moltke]

How about water-boarding him until he spills the password? It’s not torture, after all... /s?

[JAKraig]

So, he was not jailed for not turning over his password, as the lying headline says.
This is like opening a safe. If the court can order someone to open a safe (search done with warrant), then they can order someone to decrypt data.
He was jailed for not complying with the search warrant (court order).
Headlines should not aim for sensationalism, but for a clear statement of the facts.

_____________________________________________________

Wrong!

Courts have already decided that you don't have to unlock a door or a safe, the prosecution can break the door down with whatever means they want when they have a warrant however. The same is true here, they have the drive(s) let them have at it. If there was a code that you kept your personal notes in could you be required to decrypt it, heavens no, that would be self incrimination. I say he should keep his mouth shut even if he is a pervert. Let the law figure it out.

Our 1st 10 amendments have already been watered down too much.

[BlueMondaySkipper]

In addition to strong encryption, we need devices that you can set up with two passwords. The one that locks the device, and the one that shreds everything immediately, perhaps even physically torching the drive.