This feels weird to me. If your password is "ILikePotato", which is then used to decrypt a text file that contains "IStoleTheMonaLisaAndReplacedItWithAPhotocopy", how is that any different in terms of "incriminating yourself" than if it was the other way around..?

And if you actually forgot your password, that's 3 months jail for you, because they'll hardly believe you? Better have just one so you'll surely remember!

I wonder, if you use special markings to keep track of your illegal doings, and one of your notebooks is found during a search, are you required to assist in deciphering the contents of it? That's basically the same thing as decrypting your hard drive.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

I think the point is that you can grant them access in 3 seconds, it's not like you're giving an onerous task to someone.

While in implementation your notebook analogy may be right, in practice it's more similar to the police searching your house and asking you to unlock the basement so they can search there too. It's not exactly a big ask, it's as simple as unlocking it with the key you have, so from a legal perspective it's perfectly reasonable.

From a privacy perspective it's not great, but I'd argue the control should be on when someone is allowed to rummage through your stuff, it shouldn't matter if your notebook is physical or on your phone. Practicality changes this of course.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If you have the Mona Lisa in your house then letting the police into your house incriminates you, but the whole point of the search is for them to be able to find it.

I think the right to remain silent was meant to protect us from being tortured, not as a shield to hide things?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

But will you be punished for not telling them that the key is under the mat? They will get in either way. They can get into your hard drive with brute force too, it's just a wee bit more trouble for them.