[grouseway]

The tech solution might be giving partial keys to someone in another legal jurisdiction.

e.g. I send a partial key to my cousin and grandmother which live in another country. When crossing borders I then logout and cannot log back in without their part of the key. A local judge will not be able to compel someone in another country to cooperate - and my grandmother's local judge will not be able to compel her since the request is being made in another country.

Kind of hokey - but maybe it works?

[kingbirdy]

That only works if you have a grandma in a non-extraditing country

[obstinate]

And if you don't mind being held indefinitely for contempt of court.

[daxorid]

That's more or less the point of the GGP's suggestion. Contempt is generally brought in cases where you have the ability to comply, but choose not to.

If you do not have even the ability to comply, justifying contempt becomes increasingly difficult.

[BearGoesChirp]

Are we expecting a government that violates their own rules to not violate their own rules in a different area? Let's see how fast your grandma will give up the password when it is the only way to get you out of lockup at a torture center (using my definition of torture, not any of the horrible biased ones different governments use).

[obstinate]

If your mom overseas has the password, you do have the ability to comply. Ask you mom for the password. She gives it to you. You comply.

Here's another example that might make this more clear. Let's say I embezzle a million dollars from my employer, and they sue me to get it back. (Let's just pretend that I avoid criminal charges for simplicity.) When they win and I tell them, "I can't comply, I gave it to my cousin in France to hold on to," what do you think the judge does? I'll tell you what the judge does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick (This only applies to the U.S.. I suppose in the U.K. you would do two years and then be released.)

[syrrim]

In the case you linked, the contention was that the judge thought the defendant had access to the money, whereas he said he didn't. If you give the money to another, autonomous, person, and the judge believes that you did, then you should be in the clear. Naturally, you could ask the person for the money, much as you would a bank teller. However, if you had previously instructed the person to ignore such a request, then you would be incapable of retrieving the money. Holding you beyond then would have the goal of using your incarceration to coerce another person, which I'm sure the courts would frown at.

[obstinate]

I am not a judge, but if I were, I imagine I would assume you had been insufficiently sincere in your effort to convince your co-conspirator.

[e12e]

Sure. And you will be held in contempt until you facilitate access.