[kmonsen]

The legal system does not work like this even though I see it all the time, and a lot from programmers.

You mostly cannot get off on a technicality like this. If they judge believe that a reasonable person thinks there was a human rabbit they can DQ you even if there are other explanations.

Same with all the plausible deniability with passwords etc, the judge can simple not believe you and put you in jail until you remember the password (even if you do not remember it).

[swirepe]

>Same with all the plausible deniability with passwords etc, the judge can simple not believe you and put you in jail until you remember the password (even if you do not remember it).

In America, you can be compelled to surrender something you have, but not something you know.

So the jail you're waiting in while you remember you password is probably in Guantanamo Bay.

[ultrarunner]

If only Guantanamo Bay was the only detention center lacking in accountability.

Even still, race directors have even wider latitude for DQs. In the end I suppose it ultimately comes down to propensity for those in disagreement to riot.

[kmonsen]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-...

So it appears 18 months is max for currently for refusing to decrypt a drive, but it is under active court cases at the moment.

The important thing is that you are wrong, you can clearly be forced to surrender something you know.

Edit: The important part is not that you are wrong, but that the courts can put you in jail for refusing to disclose something you know.

[swirepe]

Thanks for the edit :)