[43552] in Cypherpunks
Re: COE Recommendation No. R (95) 13
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Smith)
Fri Nov 17 10:57:30 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 10:46:39 -0400
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
From: smithmi@dev.prodigy.com (Michael Smith)
>>9. Subject to legal privileges or protection, most legal systems permit
>>investigating authorities to order persons to hand over objects under
>>their control that are required to serve as evidence. In a parallel
>>fashion, provisions should be made for the power to order persons to
>>submit any specified data under their control in a computer system in the
>>form required by the investigating authority.
>>________________________________________________________________________
>
>>Is this 'what we would want'? It clearly means that one can be ordered
>>to reveal the password to encrypted data and punished by law if one
>>refuses.
Forgive me if this point has already been raised, but couldn't an
objection to such laws be based on the protection against
self-incrimination?
Maybe this all depends on whether the legal context is a civil or a
criminal proceeding. If I'm being sued and they ask me at a deposition
whether I did such-and-such, I can't take the Fifth (or can I?). But
if I'm accused of murder, the police can't make me tell them where I've
buried the knife. However, if I have a wall safe and they
get a warrant to search it, can I be jailed for contempt if I don't
give them the combination?
This seems to be a case where existing legal paradigms ought to
extend rather naturally. Whether the existing paradigms are any
good or not is of course a separate question.
--Michael Smith
smithmi@dev.prodigy.com
