Timeline for (Cryptography) - Sending Encrypted Messages Online
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 13:00 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://law.stackexchange.com/ with https://law.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 10, 2015 at 15:38 | comment | added | goldilocks | This is sort of obvious, but note that this right would be theoretical in the sense that only the two end parties can obtain a decrypted version. So law enforcement can't go to your ISP and say, "We want to monitor this person and get everything decrypted" -- the ISP, phone company, etc. can only provide the encrypted versions because that's all they can access. So the warrant or request may get complicated if they don't have a means of accessing your computer. They would have to get a warrant on the person you are communicating with. | |
| Nov 7, 2015 at 18:56 | comment | added | J C | @DPenner1 Thanks for clarifying, have a good day | |
| Nov 7, 2015 at 6:38 | history | edited | DPenner1 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Removed parenthesis, I am not certain that it was correct
|
| Nov 7, 2015 at 1:23 | comment | added | DPenner1 | @JC I've edited explanations in at the end of my answer now, I definitely didn't explain those points clearly at first. | |
| Nov 7, 2015 at 1:21 | history | edited | DPenner1 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarification of production order use, and self-incrimination
|
| Nov 7, 2015 at 0:37 | comment | added | J C | How can someone have reasonable grounds and not be under investigation? Don't they contradict each other? | |
| Nov 7, 2015 at 0:32 | vote | accept | J C | ||
| Nov 7, 2015 at 0:32 | comment | added | J C | Are you sure the following is correct? "Canadian law enforcement: Can obtain decrypted data given reasonable grounds and when you are not under investigation" --- Never mind, just read the last point at the very end | |
| Nov 6, 2015 at 23:45 | comment | added | DPenner1 | @gnasher729 Addressing your first comment: You might be right, I didn't do any independent research for that. However, my summary there doesn't include anything about keys/passwords, just the decrypted data, as asked in the question. I agree with you: showing that you know the password is no new evidence, but would decrypting and providing the data, where that data was previously unknown to law enforcement not violate the Fifth amendment? | |
| Nov 6, 2015 at 22:14 | comment | added | gnasher729 | Assume someone is killed by being hit with a laptop. The laptop is encrypted. The person decrypting the laptop is the killer; nobody cares what's actually stored - fifth amendment says you don't have to decrypt the laptop. | |
| Nov 6, 2015 at 22:12 | comment | added | gnasher729 | I think you've got the "fifth amendment" bit upside down. Fifth amendment hits if the fact that you know the password is evidence against you. So if they know that you can decrypt the data, because you know the password, showing that you know the password is no (new) evidence against you. | |
| Nov 6, 2015 at 8:25 | history | edited | DPenner1 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Minor grammar, removed references that went unused
|
| Nov 6, 2015 at 8:17 | history | answered | DPenner1 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |