Hacker News Reader

Comment by betterunix | Hacker News Reader

Oh but the courts can find convenient interpretations of the wording. Like, the act of entering a passphrase only proves that you know the passphrase, so unless that knowledge is entered as evidence against you you have not actually witnessed against yourself.

Really though, there is a deeper issue here. What if I legitimately forget my passphrase? There is no real way to know whether or not I forgot it; will I be held in contempt of court over my forgetfulness? Will I be accused of perjury? Will I be imprisoned? Might the government accuse me of a crime, point to an encrypted hard drive that I have not used in a year, and then throw me in prison for failing to decrypt it?

View on HN

There's a great deal of difference 'is there a real way to know X for 100% sure' and 'can a jury&judge be convinced that X is true beyond reasonable doubt'.

Depending on all kinds of criteria, most likely including factors such as what is your known relation to that hard drive, your attitudem, how you look and how good is your lawyer, the argument 'I forgot that passphrase' may turn out both ways.

What if I legitimately forget my passphrase? There is no real way to know whether or not I forgot it

MRIs might change this.

Something, something, xkcd, $5 wrench.

I am not convinced that they could within any foreseeable future. They may be able to prove that the knowledge is in there, or they may be able to prove that you think you are lying, but proving that you are truly able merely unwilling to actually vocalize that data is another matter entirely. Hell, there are disorders that render you unable to vocalize your own name, despite knowing full well what it is and wanting to vocalize it.

Who is to say that "It is on the tip of my tongue/fingers, but I can't seem to say/type what it is." does not, under an MRI, appear to be "He knows what it is, but won't say/type it."?

I'm sure you could find expert witnesses willing to be paid to argue either way exactly what the MRI is or could be indicating.

I am not convinced that they could within any foreseeable future...there are disorders that render you unable to vocalize your own name

Seems terribly shortsighted, given the points you are arguing from. If there is a disorder, it seems quite likely that we would eventually be able to detect the disorder.

Psychology today is still struggling with classifying disorders by observable symptoms. We are a long way off from being able to make a wide range of conclusive and specific diagnoses, particularly of subtle phenomenon. Hell, it isn't even clear how many different phenomenon we are currently calling "schizophrenia". We don't know the categories to put people into yet!

Regardless, I did say "foreseeable future". There may be developments that catch me by surprise, but going at the current rate and direction we are right now, there is no way in hell MRIs will be able to satisfactorily contradict "I am unable to recall" in a courtroom anytime soon.

It seems out disagreement is just stems from different shades of "foreseeable." To me, it's a foregone conclusion that scanning technology will one day be able to verify claims that one is "unable to recall," though we can't foresee exactly how and when this will happen.

That would make a dramatic difference to all kinds of criminal trial. Will it be legal for the police to question you while you're under an MRI? I don't think the answer for the special case of a decryption key will be any different from the general case (did you kill X, or whatever).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com