- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The FBI Director doesn't like Apple's new encryption standard
Posted on 9/25/14 at 7:19 pm to Mr Gardoki
Posted on 9/25/14 at 7:19 pm to Mr Gardoki
There is case law that found a person does NOT have do that.
U.S. v. John Doe, Nos. 11-12268 & 11-15421, D.C. Docket No. 3:11-mc-00041-LAC (11th Circuit Court of Appeals)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011
The Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination protects against being forced to decrypt hard drive contents.
“We hold that the act of Doe’s decryption and production of the contents of the hard drives would sufficiently implicate the Fifth Amendment privilege. We reach this holding by concluding that (1) Doe’s decryption and production of the contents of the drives would be testimonial, not merely a physical act; and (2) the explicit and implicit factual communications associated with the decryption and production are not foregone conclusions.”
U.S. v. John Doe, Nos. 11-12268 & 11-15421, D.C. Docket No. 3:11-mc-00041-LAC (11th Circuit Court of Appeals)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011
The Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination protects against being forced to decrypt hard drive contents.
“We hold that the act of Doe’s decryption and production of the contents of the hard drives would sufficiently implicate the Fifth Amendment privilege. We reach this holding by concluding that (1) Doe’s decryption and production of the contents of the drives would be testimonial, not merely a physical act; and (2) the explicit and implicit factual communications associated with the decryption and production are not foregone conclusions.”
Posted on 9/25/14 at 7:26 pm to Five0
quote:
There is case law that found a person does NOT have do that.
That's an interesting interpretation of the fif, I'm not complaining though.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News