Forced Decrypt: 5th Amndt Does Forbid says US State PA Supreme Court

Zenaan Harkness zen at
Fri Nov 22 00:29:07 PST 2019

If the state wants any legitimacy at all, it must in the very least
actually protect human rights such as the right to not self

Those who run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds can water down
their position to something that sounds politically correct by
proclaiming "the state must uphold the rule of law", but the problem
with this is that "the law" devolves, at least in people's' minds, to
"what a few Supreme Court judges of the day happen to decide upon".

This problem of partisan judges is abundantly witnessed in this
particular ruling, where a full FOUR judges failed to uphold the
right of the individual human to NOT self incriminate.

Now, as any anarchist worth their salt already knows - my right to
remain silent remains with me until you wring the screaming from my
tortured body as you kill me.  That is:

  You can take away my life, but my right remains with me until the
  moment, I, die!

Take that you scoundrel SCOTUS dissenting judges!

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:50:49PM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
> The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a forceful opinion today holding
> that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals
> from being forced to disclose the passcode to their devices to the
> police. In a 4-3 decision in Commonwealth v. Davis, the court found
> that disclosing a password is “testimony” protected by the Fifth
> Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination.
> EFF filed an amicus brief in Davis, and we were gratified that the
> court’s opinion closely parallels our arguments. The Fifth Amendment
> privilege prohibits the government from coercing a confession or
> forcing a suspect to lead police to incriminating evidence. We argue
> that unlocking and decrypting a smartphone or computer is the modern
> equivalent of these forms of self-incrimination.
> Crucially, the court held that the narrow “foregone conclusion
> exception” to the Fifth Amendment does not apply to disclosing
> passcodes. As described in our brief, this exception applies only when
> an individual is forced to comply with a subpoena for business records
> and only when complying with the subpoena does not reveal the
> “contents of his mind,” as the U.S. Supreme Court put it. (For more on
> the foregone conclusion exception, see this post on a similar case
> currently pending in the Indiana Supreme Court.)
> The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with EFF. It wrote:
> "Requiring the Commonwealth to do the heavy lifting, indeed, to
> shoulder the entire load, in building and bringing a criminal case
> without a defendant’s assistance may be inconvenient and even
> difficult; yet, to apply the foregone conclusion rationale in these
> circumstances would allow the exception to swallow the constitutional
> privilege. Nevertheless, this constitutional right is firmly grounded
> in the “realization that the privilege, while sometimes a shelter to
> the guilty, is often a protection to the innocent.”
> This ruling is vital because courts must account for how
> constitutional rights are affected by changes in technology. We store
> a wealth of deeply personal information on our electronic devices. The
> government simply should not put individuals in the no-win situation
> of choosing between disclosing a password—and turning over everything
> on these devices—or instead defying a court order to do so.
> At least two other state supreme courts, in Indiana and New Jersey,
> are considering similar cases. EFF is participating in both of those
> cases as amicus along with the ACLU. With the victory in Pennsylvania,
> and several other courts set to weigh in, there’s a significant chance
> the U.S. Supreme Court will have the last word. We hope that like the
> Pennsylvania court, the Supreme Court recognizes just how fundamental
> the Fifth Amendment right is.

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list