Court rules that people can't be locked up indefinitely for refusing to decrypt
> The Fifth Amendment gives witnesses a right not to testify against themselves. Rawls argued that producing a password for the hard drives would amount to an admission that he owned the hard drives. But the 3rd Circuit rejected that argument. It held that the government already had ample evidence that Rawls owned the hard drives and knew the passwords required to decrypt them. So ordering Rawls to decrypt the drives wouldn't give the government any information it didn't already have. Of course, the contents of the hard drive might incriminate Rawls, but the contents of the hard drive are not considered testimony for Fifth Amendment purposes.<p>It sounds like this ruling is more against indefinite detention than a ruling that allows you to invoke the 5th before handing over your passwords. The quoted text above [1] tells me that the courts have thus far not recognized any right to keep your data encrypted against the wishes of law enforcement. Maybe it means they can only lock you up for 18 months, but I don't see how this changes things appreciably. I guess if the crime you're accused of carries a sentence worse than 18 months, it might be worthwhile, but who knows...<p>[1] <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-to-decrypt-hard-drives-is-free-after-four-years-in-jail/" rel="nofollow">https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-...</a>