Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JoeSmithson 2322 days ago
No it's not. The information you provide (the password) is not admitted as evidence in the trial. It's more like being compelled to act as a confidential informant against yourself.

There's no prospect of this being used to bring about a wrongful conviction through coercing a confession.
1 comments
adgasf 2321 days ago
If the key is not evidence then how can they prove that they got the incriminating files from the encrypted drive?
link
JoeSmithson 2321 days ago
A forensic scientist would testify that they extracted the files from there.

It is exactly the same as when a confidential source gives up an address (for example) the source never gets into evidence.

link
CiPHPerCoder 2321 days ago
The whole point of strong encryption is to prevent adversaries (including forensic scientists) from extracting any information without possession of the key.

If the key involves a password that you, a human, have memorized in your squishy pink organ, it's privileged under the Fifth Amendment. (This hasn't been tested in court yet, of course. There's no precedent to fall back on.)

link