Timeline for Can a US citizen be required to provide the authentication key for encrypted data on a confiscated computer?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 16, 2022 at 0:32 | history | edited | David Siegel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Individual posts do not need or get individual disclaimers. See https://law.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1228/request-for-the-moderators-to-make-an-exception/1229#1229
|
| Jan 10, 2019 at 19:36 | history | edited | Alexanne Senger | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 54 characters in body
|
| Jul 30, 2015 at 8:14 | history | edited | Alexanne Senger | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 65 characters in body
|
| Jul 30, 2015 at 8:08 | history | edited | Alexanne Senger | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 541 characters in body
|
| Jul 30, 2015 at 6:36 | comment | added | Alexanne Senger | Boucher does not apply because the defendant waived 5th amendment protection by initially cooperating. Fricosu does not apply because the encryption issue was mooted by a third party providing the password. In both cases, the 5th amendment was used to protect the defendant from being forced to produce the password. Another hurdle is the un-rebuttable assertion that the defendant might not remember the password. As Fricosu pointed out. @mark | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 2:07 | comment | added | cpast | @Mark Actually, what I found was mostly going both ways on revealing data, not keys. Boucher and Fricosu were about data, not keys (Boucher was initially about a key, but the government themselves conceded that the key was going too far). | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 0:45 | comment | added | Mark | Do you have a source for this? Court cases have gone both ways in deciding if someone needs to reveal a password or encryption key. | |
| Jul 29, 2015 at 22:48 | history | answered | Alexanne Senger | CC BY-SA 3.0 |