Fwd: It's time for PGP to die.
holtzm at cox.net
Tue Aug 19 03:32:34 CEST 2014
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 04:42:52PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > Unfortunately most of us do. Including the US, UK and the Dutch are
> > aklso pushing for such laws.
> Speaking only for the U.S., this is not the case.
> The United States Constitution protects an individual's right not to
> testify against themselves. If the production of a passphrase would
> have any kind of testimonial value, then such production cannot be
> ordered. The only time production of a passphrase is permitted is when
> it lacks any testimonial value.
There are quite a few ways police and prosecutors can coerce a suspect
to hand over his encryption key(s). Dangling the prospect of a lighter
sentence under the poor bugger's nose, or conversely, threatening to
come down hard, perhaps going for a death penalty. The surrender of a
suspect's keys would be "voluntary" and therefore constitutional. Even if
the role production serves is testimonial, if it's voluntary, and the
statement the poor sod is required to sign will so state, it's
constitutional (I think).
Don't forget, even non-testimonial key surrender can be used to build a
body of evidence.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer and the above is opinion only.
> Many people look at one particular case and say, "hey, production was
> required in that case, clearly the U.S. can compel you to produce!", or
> "production wasn't required in that case, clearly the U.S. can't compel
> you to produce!" The reality is different. You need to look at the
> role the production serves. Testimonial in nature? Nope, forbidden.
> Non-testimonial? Yep, permitted.
Giant intergalactic brain-sucking hyperbacteria
came to Earth to rape our women and create a race
of mindless zombies. Look! It's working!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Gnupg-users