[pavelkaroukin]

What if lawyer-based service is created, which allows to automate representation of client including when client need access to data on the his hard drive. Essentially, develop algorithm allowing external OTP authentication.

And this lawyer, representing user, will have in agreement something like this "In case my client is under investigation or incriminated or ..." I will not be allowed to release OTP password.

Of course, this service will be based in country which treat law as a law, not inconvenience.

What I am missing? There are no such countries may be?

[tedunangst]

In my lay opinion, you are treading very close to making the lawyer complicit in the crime, at which point there is no privilege shield.

[pavelkaroukin]

Only if lawyer is USA based this might make him commit a crime. But what if lawyer based in the country where forcing to reveal password is unlawful?

[EchoAbstract]

In the USA it is not legal (in violation of the 5th amendment) for the court to compel you to reveal a password (if your read the brief the Judge says as much). However, if the court can prove by other means that you own the data on a drive, they can compel you to provide them with the unencrypted contents of the drive via a search warrant.

[bluedanieru]

If they can prove it, why do they need you to decrypt it for them?

[savramescu]

They know you stole the car because they've got surveillance video so now they're serving you with a warrant to produce the car so they can also prove physical presence in the vehicle. This is my view of the ruling.

The chick got recorded talking about the documents so they're asking for a readable version.

[tedunangst]

I imagine they would hold you in contempt until you convince the lawyer to provide you with the password. I'd be very careful about entering into such an arrangement. It's basically a conspiracy to withhold evidence.