Why is it (with a warrant) wrong/illegal/unethical/undemocratic to search encrypted data when it is not to search a safe, lock box or other locked physical device that hides its contents from plain view?
Until you can (and do) answer such a simple question that has been posed by multiple people, multiple times, there is zero point in continuing this.
NO one is talking about the legality of the warrant per se, after its has been duely issued , and legaly and reasonably issued. I am talking about the legal process of obtaining a warrant in light of this immoral law. How to obtain a warrant against an encrypted
file, when there is an assumption in law that:
1) A person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.
That isn't how warrants work. Warrants are obtained prior to a guilty or innocent verdict. That's the point.
2) A person is not compelled to testify against their persons, by providing incriminating evidence, one of which might be an encryption key.
Of course, but there is no guarantee that they won't be held in contempt for doing so. They have avoided incriminating themselves, but they have not avoided breaking the law by failing to respond to the warrant.
The Onus of proof is on the Prosecutor to say that Alice, has an incriminating material that she is hiding through encryption, and the reasons are demonstrates to be true.
And that is how a warrant is issued. The prosecutor presents enough evidence to the judge that the warrant can be issued. It is not a trial. It is especially not a jury trial, and there is no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the warrantee is
guilty. All that is neccessary is for the prosecution to convince the judge that they have enough evidence that a crime has been committed that they need to investigate further by overriding the 4th amenment with a warrant.
Yay, you learned something, I hope.
The police can use brute force attacks to find out what Alice is hiding.
No, they can't. They need a warrant.
But Alice , under the view of the law, should not be compelled to give out her keys, because that can lead to self incrimination.
She is welcome to say "No". She will serve jail time, but she will not incriminate herself. It is likely that she will either serve the time or give up the information. Either way, it is legal and just.
Asking Alice, under threat of jail time, to give out incriminating evidence in terms of keys, is to compel Alice to reveal information that would self-incriminate her. This is clearly against the law.
Compelling someone is legal. The fact that you think it is 'clearly' against the law means you have no idea how the legal system works.
I hope, for your sake, that if you are ever the victim of a crime, you recognize that this is for your benefit. Otherwise, the perpetrator could simply say "I didn't do it, and any evidence of the crime is 'secret', so you can't have it".
No one is saying that a warrant after being legally issued , and reasonably issued, that its illegal. I am talking about the process by which a police officer would have to go through to obtain such a warrant, after convincing a judge.
You never brought this process up. The article you linked to never mentioned this process. You have no idea if this process was followed, and since it was in the UK, you really don't have any real clue how it works, anyway.
We're all quite glad you approve of how the law might be used, but I'd like to point out that 9 out of ten C9 posters don't give a flying f*ck what you think.
How did you get that statistic?
Secondly, your arguments are not sound.
Compelling is not legal. Simply not legal.
Infact a legal case can be thrown out of court , if the accused, who is preseumed innocent until proven otherwise, was compelled to testify against their will.