
Man Who Refused to Decrypt Hard Drives Still in Prison After Two Years - rbanffy
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/man-who-refused-to-decrypt-hard-drives-still-in-prison-after-two-years/
======
lenkite
So the police no longer need to plant drugs. They can just plant encrypted
hard drives to which you have 'forgotten' the password. Hard-drives containing
hashes of 'bad' pics. And then you can spend your life in jail (unless you
plead guilty) ?

~~~
rayiner
They’d also need to plant a sister who will testify that you showed her a
bunch of child porn.

~~~
300bps
The judge's ruling says essentially what you're saying... there's enough
evidence already that he considers it a foregone conclusion that there is
child porn on the encrypted hard disk.

The only problem I have with this argument is that if it is such compelling
evidence why not send the case to trial and let a jury decide?

~~~
harryh
You have misunderstood what "foregone conclusion" means in this case. It is
not a foregone conclusion that this is child porn on the disks. It is a
foregone conclusion that there is _something_ on the disks and that something
is encrypted with a password known by the defendant.

See [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2016/06/07/the-fifth-amendment-limits-on-forced-decryption-and-
applying-the-foregone-conclusion-doctrine/)

~~~
300bps
You're mistaken.

Source: [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/man-jailed-
indef...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/man-jailed-indefinitely-
for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives-loses-appeal/)

~~~
harryh
The author of the arstechnica piece (who, unlike the author of the Washington
Post piece, is not a laywer) hasn't really explained things well. It's worth
reading the actual decision from the court[1].

A relavent paragraph:

In Fisher, however, the Court also articulated the “foregone conclusion” rule,
which acts as an exception to the otherwise applicable act-of-production
doctrine. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 411. Under this rule, the Fifth Amendment does
not protect an act of production when any potentially testimonial component of
the act of production—such as the existence, custody, and authenticity of
evidence—is a “foregone conclusion” that “adds little or nothing to the sum
total of the Government’s information.” Id. For the rule to apply, the
Government must be able to “describe with reasonable particularity” the
documents or evidence it seeks to compel. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 30.

Note that the issue with this question is the "existence, custody, and
authenticity" of the evidence not its actual contents.

1\. [https://arstechnica.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/rawlsopin...](https://arstechnica.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/rawlsopinion.pdf)

------
jancsika
There's a better article in Ars:

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/man-jailed-
indef...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/man-jailed-indefinitely-
for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives-loses-appeal/)

From that article:

> The court also noted that the authorities "found [on the Mac Book Pro] one
> image depicting a pubescent girl in a sexually suggestive position and logs
> that suggested the user had visited groups with titles common in child
> exploitation." They also said the man's sister had "reported" that her
> brother showed her hundreds of pictures and videos of child pornography. All
> of this, according to the appeals court, meant that the lower court lawfully
> ordered Rawls to unlock the drives.

And then this from Rawls' public defender:

> "The fact remains that the government has not brought charges," Donoghue
> said in a telephone interview. "Our client has now been in custody for
> almost 18 months based on his assertion of his Fifth Amendment right against
> compelled self-incrimination."

There are numerous quotes from Comey and many others in the FBI and DOJ who
have argued that forced decryption is necessary to catch the bad guys. But
here the argument is the exact opposite: the evidence they have is so
overwhelming that it is a "foregone conclusion" that more of the same
incriminating evidence is on the encrypted drive.

~~~
geofft
> _" The fact remains that the government has not brought charges," Donoghue
> said in a telephone interview. "Our client has now been in custody for
> almost 18 months based on his assertion of his Fifth Amendment right against
> compelled self-incrimination."_

To be clear (and I am pretty sure the public defender knows this, but is just
phrasing it like this for public perception), the prosecution's position is
that the Fifth Amendment is irrelevant because they're compelling him to do an
act under the All Writs Act and not to testify about anything (produce a
password, produce files, etc.). The approach they're taking is that he's a
person in a position to do something to let the government access evidence,
and it doesn't matter that he's the person they want evidence against, instead
of a third party (as with New York Telephone Co., or more recently Apple), and
he's in prison for refusing compliance with the writ.

It's totally unclear that this legal strategy _should_ work in a just/ideal
society, but, at least for now, the courts are allowing it.

~~~
jo909
My analogy would be that

    
    
      1. There is an unbreakable safe
      2. The judge believes he has the key to the unbreakable safe
      3. They know there is evidence inside the safe
      4. They ask him to unlock the safe
      5. He refuses to do so, so they try to force him by jailing him
    

They do not ask him to testify about the safes contents or even to hand over
the key, just to "insert and turn the key". And their argument is that he can
not refuse that by pleading the fifth. In a physical world they would be able
to seize the key from him by force even if he gets hurt in the process (within
some limits).

In the end he will probably be able to argue that he does no longer have the
key, and they will not be able to proof he still has. But _at the moment_ this
is not whats being argued about.

(Not saying I find anything about that right or just or moral, but I do not
find it completely without reason)

~~~
1_2__4
The fact that he possesses no physical key is the crux of the matter. Any
metaphor that tries to use objects like keys is pointless - there would be no
controversy if there was a physical key.

~~~
jo909
Well there are plenty of safes without physical keys that use pin-pads. To to
bring that analogy a little closer to reality then, they are trying to force
him to enter the pin into the safe.

And again the current argument is not about whether he knows the pin or not,
just whether he can refuse to enter it by arguing that this would be "being
witness against himself", i.e. protected by the fifth.

------
Powerofmene
When the FBI used the All Writs Act against Apple to attempt to force Apple to
bypass the password functions of an iPhone or develop a backdoor method of
access, the courts ruled that decryption was not a violation of the Fifth
Amendment "if the contents were a foregone conclusion."

So if "foregone conclusion" is the criteria that must be met, I have to ask
how the contents of this man's external hard drive could be conclusively a
foregone conclusion. Maybe he did download thousands of images. What if he no
longer possess them? He could have deleted them. The police have been known to
make mistakes and have made high profile mistakes' i.e., the Atlanta Olympics
bombing when they all but destroyed Richard Jewell.

What if he decrypted it and there was no child porn but there were records of
say a store selling drugs etc on the dark net? Then he would have incriminated
himself for something they had zero knowledge about because the court issued
this writ.

The government states that his sister acknowledges him showing her many
explicit photos. Did she turn in her brother? Why would a man show his sister
pornographic images? Did she tell anyone around the time this happened that
this occurred? Seems to me to be unusual at the least for the government to
hang their hat on something uncorroberated. If the sister had access to the
computer' who is to say that she did not download the images. He could have
seen them and deleted them. Seems that a mere he said -she said is enough to
have the government invade your privacy and demand you willingly set aside
your consistutional protections or risk going to jail when you have not been
charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime.

We have to be very careful when we start seeing civil liberties and
constitutional protections erode. Tech companies have been under siege from
the government's use of the All Writs Act in the last two decades and as long
as they are successful, I do not foresee them changing their methods.

~~~
sw00pur
> What if he no longer possess them? He could have deleted them.

If that's the case he should give the FBI the key. That way he'll prove he
wasn't possessing child pornography.

~~~
Powerofmene
Or maybe he is a firm believer that there is no faster way to erode our
constitutional protections than to voluntarily surrender them.

Or maybe he believes that damn pesky constitution (sarcasm) applies to
everyone including the government when it comes to search and seizure, and to
himself when it comes to right to due process of law, and the protection
against self incrimination to name just a few.

Or maybe there is child pornography on there and he does not want to charged
and tried and vilified in the court of public opinion. Right now he can stand
on "higher ground" by making a constitutional law argument than exposing a
secret that he may be ashamed of (guessing here).

Or maybe he truly does not know the password? Despite the governments best
efforts they have not been able to crack it so it must be quite
secure/complicated.

~~~
ajross
Maybe. But let's be honest here: there's CP on that drive. This is a good case
for spinning around on HN arguing about the extent of the bill of rights
protections in the face of creative application of the All Writs Act. It's a
terrible one for actually defending the perp. I mean, come on.

~~~
Powerofmene
>It's a terrible one for actually defending the perp. I mean, come on.

Who is defending him? I cannot in good conscience call him a perp as he has
not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. I am only pointing out
that there are a myriad of possibilities one of which is that there is child
pornography on the drive. However, we do not know that for a fact.

But just as I said, he may fear decrypting the drive because of what is on it
(only he knows at this point). He may think it is better to be seen as the
little guy being bullied by big brother than to be vilified by those who will
presume him guilty of having "CP on that drive" and becoming "the perp"
without due process.

Forgive me if I am incorrect but don't our laws apply equally regardless of
the crime one is suspected of commiting?

~~~
ajross
> Forgive me if I am incorrect but don't our laws apply equally regardless of
> the crime one is suspected of commiting?

The All Writs Act _is_ a law, and it allows exactly what is happening here.
The question at hand is about whether that is in conflict with the fourth and
fifth amendments. Equal protection is an entirely different thing and not at
issue here.

------
xtanx
"Investigators said content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file
hashes for known child pornography content."

If the disk is encrypted how can they match file hashes? Do they encrypt known
CP files with the FileVault key and then compare? If so, isn't that enough to
convict him?

~~~
stephengillie
Something doesn't add up in this story. Encryption and hashing are different
processes with different algorithms - SHA vs MD5. For example, IPSec VPNs hash
a packet with MD5 to prevent tampering, then encrypt the hash with SHA256 to
prevent viewing. (Because the message could be modified while encrypted, were
it not also hashed.)

Isn't the point of encryption that it _doesn 't_ create a reliable hash - that
2 identical files will appear different while encrypted, as part of the larger
encrypted drive?

Or are encrypted-hash collisions possible when small files are encrypted
individually?

~~~
Neverbolt
There are several misconceptions in this comment, first and foremost that SHA
is encryption, which it is not. It is a hashing algorithm, not unlike MD5,
though "stronger".

Secondly, when you have two files that are exactly the same and encrypt both
with the same key, method and parameters then both will have the same hash. (
Though I could imagine Apple doing stuff with padding, and other parameters to
make this not happen)

~~~
chatmasta
Right... so for the authorities to "compare" the hash of an encrypted file
with that of a known original, they would need to encrypt the original with
the same private key used to encrypt the encrypted file. If they had that
private key, wouldn't it be sufficient to unlock the drive? They wouldn't need
his cooperation to decrypt the drive if they had a private key. So it seems
like a catch-22 compelling him to decrypt the drive based on a hash collision.

~~~
weinzierl
Exactly, but the original quote doesn't say that they compared _decrypted
content_ with known hashes. It doesn't say anything about _how_ they learned
about the "content stored on the encrypted hard drive".

"Investigators said content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file
hashes for known child pornography content."

I read it like this: They figured out that the disk had some incriminating
files, as I described in another comment of this thread. To make this work
hashes are of no use, they need the original files. For various reasons they
might not want to admit that they are in possession of the original files,
hence the cryptic and vague phrasing.

~~~
foldr
If they're in possession of the original files they can just look at the files
to see what they contain.

~~~
beisner
There could be a hash collision, which might be enough to provide reasonable
doubt for a jury.

~~~
johncolanduoni
The chances of a hash collision are drastically lower than the false positive
rate of a DNA test, and US courts have accepted the latter for a long time.

------
SolaceQuantum
I think, importantly and regardless of the crime itself, I would like to ask:
what can be done here and how did we get to this point? We have someone who
has been in prison indefinitely who hasn't been charged with anything. What
can be done about this situation even if we raise awareness? Also, how did we
get to the point where this is legal?

~~~
stinkytaco
I think this is not the hill you want to die on. Everything points to this guy
being guilty and the court of public perception would not be on your side.
Though it does seem possible that they are using this case to set a precedent
for future, less clear-cut cases.

~~~
Simon_says
> Though it does seem possible that they are using this case to set a
> precedent for future, less clear-cut cases.

Possible? Try exceedingly likely. That's why it should be fought here, with an
unpopular defendant.

------
godzillabrennus
The accused crime is heinous and there is some evidence against him stated in
the article but common, an indefinite jail sentence with no conviction?

Then people wonder why the country elects Trump to shake things up.

This guy should stand trial or be let go.

~~~
mcny
Absolutely but I'll go further. Having something in your hard drive or book or
whatever should never be a crime in itself. I mean in India it is a crime to
carry an authentic map of India with you.

What harm does the contents of an encrypted disk do to society? It is not like
he was going out and trying to legalize child abuse. If the person was
involved in child abuse, we must try to convict him absolutely but we should
be able to do that without what's on the hard disk.

Oh and while I have your attention I'd like the reader to look up something
unrelated but still very important. Look up cfaa. If you're in the us, please
help repeal it!

~~~
JohnBooty
Yeah, I'm uncomfortable with the banning of certain kinds of content.

The root problem here is child abuse. Anybody abusing children, or financially
supporting the abuse of children, is doing a _seriously_ bad thing and this is
what should be illegal.

I'm highly skeptical that images on a hard drive can _cause_ the abuse of
children. That's the same kind of logic people used back in the 1970s to argue
that playing D&D and listening to Kiss were going to result in a whole
generation of Satan-worshippers.

You could show a non-pedophiliac person the entire contents of that hard
drive, and it wouldn't arouse them or make them want to go abuse children.
Wouldn't make _me_ go abuse kids. I'd probably cry a lot and go volunteer to
help some kids[1]. So I am not convinced that the contents of this guy's hard
drive are going to result in more kids being molested somehow.

If anything, I think the opposite may be more likely. Access to porn is
correlated to a reduction in rape. I don't know if this extends to pedophiles,
but it sure seems entirely possible:
[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-
sex/201601/ev...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-
sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault)

Would I want _my_ kids hanging around somebody with a hard drive full of that
stuff? Probably not, but I also wouldn't want them hanging around supporters
of certain political parties either, and I don't think _they_ should be
rotting in prison indefinitely with no trial.

______

[1] I already do volunteer work; no need to send me illegal porn in order to
get me off of my couch

~~~
Pharylon
But children were abused to create these photos.

~~~
dTal
A 9 year old girl was napalmed to create this photo. Should it be illegal to
possess?

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg)

~~~
Tech-Noir
Really? The reason she was napalmed was to create that photo? You're sticking
with that?

~~~
JohnBooty
Unrelated to this discussion, but my favorite piece of unexpected good news
was discovering that the girl in the picture healed and has gone on to live
what appears to be a happily normal life! I'd always seen that photo and
figured that she was yet another person lost to war...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc)

------
alistproducer2
CP is a wedge tool for politicians. Want to get around the Constitution while
having public opinion on your side? Use a pedophile. I don't have a problem
sending people to jail who produce the stuff, but the idea that I could put
images in someone's computer, call the cops, and get them put away didn't sit
right with me.

This case in particular is troublesome. There are lots of bogus claims by the
prosecution like being able to confirm the CP via hashes despite the content
being encrypted. If they truly had a strong case against this guy, they'd go
to trial.

------
lagadu
What's appalling about this is that it effectively means that anyone can be
arrested potentially for life because they forgot a password.

As someone who has forgotten passwords in the past: this is outrageous.

~~~
kakarot
When I was in jail for only a month, I forgot a password I had recently
changed, and when I got back home I ended up having to reformat my hard drive
and lost a lot of old data. Poems, prose, music, images from my childhood...
(well, what was left from recovering a failed drive from a year earlier,
anyways)

Put me in jail for a year or two and I'll probably lose access to everything I
own.

------
lsaferite
> The suspect appealed the indefinite prison sentence twice, but both appeals
> failed. His lawyers tried to argue that holding him breaches his Fifth
> Amendment right to not incriminate himself, but appeal judges did not see it
> that way. Judges pointed out that the Fifth Amendment only applies to
> witnesses and that the prosecutors didn't call him as a witness but only
> made a request for him to unlock his device, hence Fifth Amendment
> protections did not apply.

> The government also said that Rawls doesn't have to provide them with his
> password anymore, as they only need him to perform the act of unlocking the
> hard drive.

Those two statements seem at great odds. If the government actually knows the
password now, the _only_ thing having the defendant himself unlock it does is
make it some sort of testimonial fact. The prosecution _will_ use the fact
that the defendant unlocked the device himself a point to the jury.

~~~
dTal
I think you misread; the government doesn't know the password. Nor are they
interested in the password, per se; they are interested in the contents of the
suspect's hard drive. Therefore, rather than ask for the password itself,
which is information contained in his head and therefore arguably "testimony",
they are merely compelling him to perform an "action" in decrypting the drive;
he is free to keep the secret of the password itself.

~~~
lsaferite
I find that so wrong I guess. The act of decrypting the drive is "testimonial"
itself, even without providing the password to a third party.

But yes, I agree that I misunderstood what they were saying.

------
Rjevski
I've got a few hard drives wiped with random data that looks like cipher text
and yet it isn't and I don't know the password (but this can't be proven).
Does this make me a criminal in the US?

~~~
danielharrison
No

~~~
iUsedToCode
Or rather "probably not, but now you'll never know for sure"

------
throw2016
Is democracy basically dead? There are all sorts of disturbing precedents
being set over the last 10 years without any push back. Can anyone think of a
single democracy, free speech, surveillance or rule of law issue that will get
people on the street or even change their voting preference?

This is just the sort of hard case to set the right precedents about rule of
law, you just can't lock someone up without trial. It goes against every know
tenet of law.

If there is a rule of law that allows this, then it is basically not rule of
law as we understand the word.

------
snakeanus
> Investigators said content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file
> hashes for known child pornography content

How on earth is this supposed to work? Unless they can decrypt the hard drives
I am pretty sure that this is impossible to deduce.

Maybe he used freenet or something in his unencrypted hard drive?

~~~
rmwaite
My best guess is that something on the unencrypted Mac Pro was referencing
files on the encrypted drive. I'm not sure what kind of metadata macOS stores
or what a third-party app would have, but it wouldn't be hard to imagine that
something had hashes for files on the external drive.

------
daodedickinson
How do they know the hashes are child pornography? Did they get that from the
International Center for Missing and Exploited Children? Which is controlled
by child porn "artist" Jeff Koons who was accused of his exwife of molesting
their son?Once you can indefinitely detain someone for a hash, all the
organized criminals have to do is control the body that responds to has
requests and they can ruin or exonerate anyone. Too much power to rationally
consider this risk, but we're allowing it to happen.

------
imh
Does anyone understand the intent of the foregone conclusion doctrine? It
seems like if something's a foregone conclusion, instead of overriding 5th
amendment rights, they shouldn't even need whatever's being hidden in the
first place. So why the doctrine?

------
libeclipse
> Investigators said content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file
> hashes for known child pornography content.

This makes zero sense. It would have to be an utterly terrible encryption
program for anyone to be able to see the hashes of the encrypted files.

------
ust
Last time this story was here, I posted this link [1], from law prof. Orin
Kerr. I find his reasoning about "foregone conclusion" and Fifth Amendment
pretty interesting.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2016/06/07/the-fifth-amendment-limits-on-forced-decryption-and-
applying-the-foregone-conclusion-doctrine/?utm_term=.2d6d76adb715)

------
onnimonni
> Investigators said content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file
> hashes for known child pornography content.

Can someone explain to me how it's possible to check file hashes in encrypted
drive?

~~~
onnimonni
Whoops! xtanx already asked the same question.

------
dopamean
This guy is going to forget the password before this is resolved and then the
argument will be about whether or not he has really forgotten. I look forward
to seeing how this all plays out.

------
simonbarker87
Given the could convict him right now, my guess is that they are trying to
bargain in some way to get access to the HDDs as a way to 1) try to find the
children being abused and 2) access a wider ring of child absusers etc.

Given the legal grey area this all appears to be in and the potential upside
of getting in to the HDDs this seems like something the authorities would be
ok doing while the law catches up.

~~~
djsumdog
Or they're using it as the case to challenge encryption. If this goes to the
supreme court, a decision on this will set some major prescient on encryption.

------
midnitewarrior
Sounds like he knows what's on that hard drive will be far more damaging to
his freedom and reputation than being jailed for contempt.

------
newcomcjoe
I saw this in the article that was posted here on Ars technica and have
thought about the issues it brings up.

Why should this guy get a free pass on child pornography just because he
encrypted his hard drive? Child pornography is terrible! Who cares if the guy
encrypted his child pornography. He should be in jail either way. The only
reason someone would rot in prison for 2 years is because he knows he's going
to rot in there for a lot longer due to his child pornography if he unlocks
his hard drive.

The point of the 5th ammendment is not that the government shouldn't be able
to access concrete evidence. It's so that the government can't
torture/imprison someone in order to get them to admit to a crime. The reason
for this is that a forced confession isn't any indication that the person
actually committed a crime.

Of course we will never know if the guy truly forgot his password, but chances
are he's been counseled by his attorney to never give it up.

~~~
Faaak
Why is the _consumption_ (not talking about production !) of CP terrible ? If
that's what it takes to keep you off the streets..

Honest question

~~~
axaxs
Because, as basic economics teaches us, there is no production without
consumption, generally speaking.

------
Kaius
If the drive is encrypted, how can they say in contains hashes of know illegal
content? Unless the content is shared in its encrypted form along with the
key... This sounds like BS on their part.

------
oh_sigh
What happens if he forgets the password? Prison for life?

------
ZenoArrow
One potential option:

1\. Install a hardware keylogger (software keylogger wouldn't work) in the
laptop.

2\. Release the defendant.

3\. Get a warrant for the arrest of the defendant for CP-related crime.

4\. Decrypt the laptop with the password recovered from the keylogger.

All of this depends on the suspect using the laptop again, but I'm guessing
they'd want to recover the contents on the laptop.

~~~
ship_it
> Install a keylogger: Ok, check. Keylogger installed.

> Release the defendant: If this is judges decision, he can't be in court
> again for the same crime.

> Get a warrant for the arrest: Again? Isn't he released? As such, gov must
> not return laptop with backdoor either in hardware or software mode.

> Decrypt the laptop: Even if all above matched, you think he'd use the same
> laptop again? If he has a bit of brain, I think he wouldn't.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "If this is judges decision, he can't be in court again for the same crime."

He hasn't been charged with a crime yet.

> "Again? Isn't he released? As such, gov must not return laptop with backdoor
> either in hardware or software mode."

Don't release him fully then. Release him on bail or some other form of
conditional release.

> "Even if all above matched, you think he'd use the same laptop again? If he
> has a bit of brain, I think he wouldn't."

Admittedly this is the weakest part of the suggestion. It'd rely on the person
being addicted to CP to impair his judgement.

------
kazinator
What sort of encryption scheme reveals hashes of the plaintext files?

------
ddorian43
`Investigators said content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file
hashes for known child pornography content.`

Well there's the reasoning

~~~
NiklasMort
that makes 0 sense, if the files are encrypted they cannot be a match

~~~
jo909
From what I understand, they have basically the logfile or other metadata from
the program he used to download/manage these files, which contains the hashes.
The encrypted drives in question are external drives, not the OS drive.

~~~
Arnt
Reference?

~~~
jo909
[http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/153537p.pdf](http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/153537p.pdf)

Despite Doe’s refusal, f orensic analysts discovered the password to decrypt
the Mac Pro Computer , but could not de crypt the external hard drives. [...]
The Forensic examination also disclosed that Doe had downloaded thousands of
files known by their “hash ” values to be child pornography. 3 The files,
however, were not on the Mac Pro, but i nstead had been stored on the
encrypted external hard drives. Accordingly, the files themselves could not be
accessed.

~~~
Arnt
Thanks.

------
whiterabbit77
5th amendment is the wrong argument here, he should be arguing 1st amendment
right to free expression. Typing is a form of speech, and the government can't
compel speech under the first amendment. It cuts out all the unlock / password
/ vault metaphors which are irrelevant. You can't compel a person to say
something / type something under the first amendment. The "right to remain
silent", fifth amendment is redundant after the case law that says the first
amendment protects the right to be silent.

