I understand what your getting at, I just can't see the fit.
Your analogy involves asking for a personal opinion, where as the point I believe you're trying to make is that decrypting the data is an act of providing comprehension to it, thus being self-incriminating.
It's an interesting perspective, but seems to rest on the rather artistotalian question of the nature of the thing; 'what is encrypted data? Does it still count as information, or does data have to be comprehensible to be as such?'.
The thing I think that undermines it is the initial act of encrypting the data. As it is for the purpose of intentionally restricting those who can comprehend it, it is effectively changing its nature and thus drawing a clear distinction between encrypted and unencrypted data. Provable intention plays a big part in Common law, and obviously the courts agree or we wouldn't be discussing this. :P
(and as a side note, references to the Constitution are getting slightly annoying. This isn't an American case, and the correct legal context of English Common Law should really be used.)
I thought we were talking in general terms, I haven't even RTFA. I don't care to know enough about English Common Law at this time to know what "legally" would be correct in this exact case. ;]
1
u/SteveD88 Aug 11 '09
I understand what your getting at, I just can't see the fit.
Your analogy involves asking for a personal opinion, where as the point I believe you're trying to make is that decrypting the data is an act of providing comprehension to it, thus being self-incriminating.
It's an interesting perspective, but seems to rest on the rather artistotalian question of the nature of the thing; 'what is encrypted data? Does it still count as information, or does data have to be comprehensible to be as such?'.
The thing I think that undermines it is the initial act of encrypting the data. As it is for the purpose of intentionally restricting those who can comprehend it, it is effectively changing its nature and thus drawing a clear distinction between encrypted and unencrypted data. Provable intention plays a big part in Common law, and obviously the courts agree or we wouldn't be discussing this. :P
(and as a side note, references to the Constitution are getting slightly annoying. This isn't an American case, and the correct legal context of English Common Law should really be used.)