Warp wrote:
>   "Of course, if Alice got a warrant, then she could probably force Bob
> to reveal the contents of the archive."

Hmmm. Apparently the premature post failed for some reason. :-)

I think the author of that sentence doesn't know what they're talking about.

>   I have always wondered about this. To what extent can authorities,
> legally, pressure a suspect to reveal information that only he knows,
> when this information would prove his guilt?

That's the "Fifth Amendment."  They can't. They can make you turn over 
*things*, but not information.

Or, alternately, they can ask you to reveal it if they promise not to 
prosecute you for it. So they can ask the accountant to disclose the 
password to the accounting files and promise not to prosecute the 
accountant, but then use the information to prosecute the boss, for example.

>   For example, if authorities ask the suspect what is the decryption
> password for a file, and the suspect says he can't remember it, can there
> be any consequences? How do authorities prove that he is lying, that he
> does remember perfectly, and is simply refusing to tell?

Well, in this particular case, the defendant already told them he had the 
password.  They're really arguing "I don't want your password, I want your 
locked files."  Since he told them he knows the password, they're arguing 
that they're not getting anything new from him.

Generally, the government doesn't get to do anything about that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message