@Vapur9
One thing that has been postulated with regard to this case... the fact that the accused does have apparent knowledge of method to unlock further evidence, in past this may be considered either a key, or actual evidence within the case. Withholding evidence is criminal, and a key (seemingly physical based on case-precedence, although this seems to be the crux) would need to be forfeited. This case has risen to a level that the 'object' to be forfeited to the courts is the specific item of a password (non-physical entity), and is the specific item (not the information gathered post-forfeiture), that is being held against the terms of the 5th amendment, self incriminating. In short, does the knowledge of, and withholding of this password pose as withholding evidence, as obstruction of justice, or is it (in itself) a self-incriminating entity?
If the entity does not incriminate the defendant, but the use of this entity serves to incriminate the defendant, does that qualify (of itself) as self-incriminating. The only method of defense (IMO) is to assure the entity DOES incriminate by including within it's very being, the wording as I proposed earlier. (separate post where I proposed including the wording "I'm Guilty".)
In short, the simple inclusion of guilt within the password would act as a method of self-incrimination, and therefore, also as grounds to never accede to forfeiture of knowledge (under the 5th amendment) of contents of said password.
Discussion on:
Message 12 of 1
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
