Re: the bill of rights hasn't been revoked. not yet, anyway.
Matthew Lyle writes:
In a recent message, Murdering Thug said: | The Fifth Ammendment is the tastiest one of all when it comes to | encryption. By pleading the Fifth, you do not have to decrypt anything | for the prosecution. The Fifth Ammendment gives you the right not to | testify or provide evidence that would incriminate you. Providing a | key to decrypt your hard disk would incriminate you, and you don't | have to do it.
What the government has to do in this case is to give you immunity from prosecution. They can then order you to decrypt your hard disk. You can't refuse based on the 5th ammendment because you have been given immunity from prosecution. They can't use the hard drive against you, but they then can in anybody elses prosecution.
Agreed. I guess if you refuse after that point, they can hold you in contempt of court or cite you for obstruction of justice. BUT, what if they "crime" involves only you. Then they (the prosecutors) are up shit's creek, pardon the language. You're immune, and there's no one left to prosecute. Okay, let's assume the crime involves a conspiracy, and they give you immunity and force you to decrypt your hard disk. What good would this do them if all your communications between your conspirators took place anonymously and the messages from your conspirators are so vague/obscure as to be worthless as evidence. Now, they have already given you immunity, and now they can't even go after your conspirators because they may not even know who those conspirators are or even what the hell those conspirators were talking about in their vague/obscure messages to you. Even if the prosecutors know what the messages are in reference to, they still have to prove that in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt. Since they cannot go back on their promise of immunity to you, the prosecutors are again up shit's creek. All this will only work providing the prosecutors have no other evidence against you (ie: voice wire taps, physical evidence (notes, cancelled checks, survielance video, stashed cash, etc.)). If you conduct EVERYTHING via encrypted and anonymous communications and keep all records encrypted, they really cannot touch you. Don't you just love crypto-anarchy? I know I do. Thug
The major problem is that in any case which the government will be interested, money is involved. The problem with anonymous banking is that it can't look like banking, because the reporting laws for banks are extrememly tight. No matter what the bill of rights says, certain things (such as cash transactions over a certain amount) must be reported. Interest must be reported by federal taxpayer ID. (Ok, we don't pay interest. This is the cost of privacy, I guess.) And I'm not convinced that if the banks records were seized, that you could avoid being traced. you have to get the money to and from them somehow. And even if I'm unkown by name to them, I'll be damned if I'm going to put *money* into a bank which I (or my agent) can't walk up to and do business if I so choose. Marc
participants (2)
-
Marc Horowitz
-
thug@phantom.com