[lotsofcows]

We don't have anti-incrimination laws. If you go in front of a judge, the judge has the right to all relevant information with which to make a decision. What happened here is that the judge asked for the keys and was refused them. Plain and simple. If you don't trust your judicial system to (eventually) get to the right answer, you've got bigger problems.

[tyrion]

"there can be no doubt that the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure"

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and... (and cite-note 15)

[pbhjpbhj]

Interesting case (http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1996/3.html), thanks for the link.

The case concerns a claim that it was injust to make inferences as to the guilt of the appellant based on their choice to remain silent before the police and court. This appeal under Art.6 ECHR failed (though a claim of preventing access to an attorney succeeded). The court finding that there was no undue inference made, that any inferences as to guilt that had arisen out of the defendants failure to break silence were allowable.

I'm not sure this really helps so much as it seems as it appears to allow the [partial] curtailment of presumption of innocence.

[lotsofcows]

It's interesting that the article conflates right to silence and self-incrimination, I thought they were kept separate. It mentions the exception for encryption but doesn't mention any exception for safe codes which is what my line of thinking was based on. That being said, I can't find a reference to that either...

[gohrt]

> If you don't trust your judicial system to (eventually) get to the right answer, you've got bigger problems.

Of course we don't (completely) trust trust the judicial system. That's the point of half the Bill of Rights, for one.