"We grant you immunity for the contents of your password." Which does not mean that whatever your password is confessing to is now safe, it just means that the password isn't usable as probable cause to investigate it. What's behind the password, on the other hand...

Nope. Immunity would have to cover whatever that password led to.

Otherwise the 5th Amendment "right to remain silent" is meaningless.

"We understand 80 percent of traffic on the Tor network involves child pornography.â - Leslie Caldwell, Ast, Attorney General at the Justice Department

(Drops Mic)

Belief and proof are two different things.

If the government wants to search your person or property THEY HAVE TO HAVE ALREADY DONE AN INVESTIGATION and have obtained sufficient evidence as to demonstrate probable cause to search a SPECIFIC person or a SPECIFIC place and seize a SPECIFIC thing:

4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

First and foremost, a warrant isn't a fishing license. It's permission GAINED BY PROBABLE CAUSE to look for SOMETHING SPECIFIC that the government already knows about. It's not permission to FIND OUT IF THERE IS anything relevant to the crime. They go in already having to KNOW what they are looking for.

What the government is pissed off about is default on hard encryption denies them the ability to CONDUCT fishing expeditions. Sure, it saves time and arguably makes law enforcement EASIER and even more efficient. If the goal of the Founders was to make law enforcement EASY and EFFICIENT, they never would have put the 4th and 5th Amendments into the Constitution. They probably wouldn't have put trial by jury in either. The 3rd probably wouldn't be in either, because if the government can quarter a soldier or a cop in your home, so much the easier to prevent you from committing crimes.

Once you put information into anything except your own head, it's fair game for a subpoena or search warrant. Period. Encryption doesn't matter. You can be compelled to provide keys or passwords, because the keys and passwords themselves aren't evidence against you. They just unlock the evidence that already exists.

Compelled to hand over a PHYSICAL key, I can see that. But a key that exists only in your head? Nope. The 5th Amendment would have to be itself amended to add that.

And I don't see 2/3rds of the States ratifying THAT without some capitol buildings burning to the ground.

It is unsettled law whether the 5th Amendment protects against subpoenaing someone for their disk encryption keys, without giving them immunity for whatever they find. Current case law seems to be leaning toward that it is. [youtube.com]

That is exactly how 5th Amendment law works.

There is only one way you can EVER be compelled to testify and actually ANSWER their questions (you aren't allowed to lie, but you can refuse to answer, the "right to remain silent" applies to your TRIAL as well which is why defendants can't be compelled to testify) and that is you have to be given IMMUNITY. If the prosecution gives your testimony immunity you cannot be prosecuted for what you say (unless you commit perjury and lie).

"Let's be honest - the complaint here is that default encryption denies access to data that, up to now, has been obtained via warrantless methods. A court can still order you to hand over your encryption keys."

Yes, their chief bitch is they now can't just TAKE your data without you being aware of it.

As to the second part, I don't see how a court can ORDER you to surrender your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination. If you believe the contents of your phone (to use an example) might incriminate you, and it's encrypted, you CANNOT be compelled to just give them the key.

And besides, if your key was complex, who's to say the unbelievable STRESS of dealing with the police, being charged with a crime, etc, didn't cause you to forget it? They can't PROVE you actually remember it. A negative CANNOT be proven (or disproven).

Yep. We have so many byzantine laws and regulations (which, by the way, WE are expected to know them all, ignorance is no defense, but the GOVERNMENT doesn't, ignorance is a defense for THEM violating our rights) that no one person can possibly know, THOUSANDS MORE a year are added.

Everyone probably commits at least one felony a week without knowing it.

The solution is that EVERY LAW AND REGULATION should have a SUNSET DATE. To keep them active they should have to be re-authorized at least every 4 years. If the government had to do that only the most NECESSARY laws would remain on the books. Inherent government laziness would then work on the side of Liberty.

The Russians did exactly that after the Snowden revelations. They even bought up a bunch of typewriters.

Anyone with any sense knows that if you put it online, it's available.

I would say he's a cop, but that is unlikely as he at least wrote in complete sentences.

Actually the reason the Constitution originally didn't have a Bill of Rights is that the people who drafted it were afraid that if they did so it would be interpreted to mean THIS IS ALL THE RIGHTS CITIZENS HAVE.

Which was not their intention. The Constitution is supposed to be an EXHAUSTIVE enumeration of all the power the Federal Government has. The rights of the People are supposed to be undefined and MANY.

This is why the 9th and 10th Amendments were part of the Bill of Rights to clarify that:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

(the rights of the people are MANY and INDEFINITE)

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

(the powers of the government are FEW AND WELL DEFINED)

Because it's SUPPOSED to suck. If the Founders intended government to be able to rifle through our affairs AT WILL they wouldn't have put the 4th Amendment into the Bill of Rights would they?

UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Any judge that upholds this law should be taken out back and shot.

"I don't like American Exceptionalism, which is why one of the first things I did as President was cancel the Orion program, instead NASA will do muslim outreach" -Barack HUSSEIN Obama

I don't see much of it. And if I ever do, one right click makes sure I don't see it again.

Yep. A chargeback in the answer. They get enough of them the hotel either won't be able to take credit cards anymore or will pay so much to do so they won't make money.

Not to play.

I do not use Facebook, aka "StealMyIdentityAndInfectMyPC.COM" and I never will.