[gregmac]

Cryptography has existed for over 3000 years [1], steganography [2] has been documented in use over 2000 years ago and it's possible it has been used much longer (the entire point is we wouldn't know).

If encryption is being used to hide "valuable criminal evidence", how is that different from someone hiding evidence by burying it somewhere or simply destroying it?

We don't detain random people and force them to give up locations of bodies they may or may not have buried, and we don't randomly search people's houses and posesssions -- and we shouldn't be doing the same for encrypted data (and this includes requiring backdoors). If there is other evidence to believe a particular person committed a crime, then get a warrant that compels them to give up the location of the body or the encryption key. If they refuse, then depending on the other evidence used for the warrant it might make sense to hold them in contempt.

In my mind, decrypting data to prove your innocence (in the face of other evidence) is vastly different than decrypting your data because law enforcement is on a fishing expedition (no other evidence).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cryptography#Antiqu...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography

[mattnewton]

This- encryption + deletion of the key is basically destroying evidence. Which is already illegal and our justice system already has to deal with. No special casing necessary.

[slg]

Lots of people are bringing up these type of issues, so let me just address them generally. Defaults are important. Yes, it was always possible to build some elaborate booby trapped safe, bury the evidence in the middle of the Mojave Desert, or cook up some home made encryption algorithm to hide evidence. However that wasn't the default. It took elaborate planning and dedication that most people simply didn't have. For example if the average person jotted down an offhanded note, they probably did it in plain English on a regular piece of paper and left it on their desk at home. Now the same note would by default be encrypted on their phone and protected against warrants.

[adamc]

In the same way that private verbal communications are protected by the fifth amendment -- we cannot force people to testify against themselves about possibly incriminating things.

This is a slippery slope.