This argument is interesting because it both a) makes the law worthless and b) removes the "scary slippery slope" argument.
After all, if you can provide a key to anything, then all you have to do (whether it's encrypted financial documents or random noise) is say, "Yep, it's encrypted, here's the key, it's the text of the Wikipedia page for 'kittens.'"
Prove that's not the correct key. If the onus for producing a key (whether one exists or not) is on the defendant, isn't the onus for proving the validity of the decrypted file on the prosecution?
All this comes back to cases like the one from CA (I think) where the guy who refused to decrypt the evidence that would prove his guilt.
And from another perspective, if you're Bernie Madoff and the evidence that will convict you is encrypted, won't you refuse to decrypt with a smile and take the 2-year punishment (with $500M in the bank) over life for financial fraud (and bankruptcy)?
After all, if you can provide a key to anything, then all you have to do (whether it's encrypted financial documents or random noise) is say, "Yep, it's encrypted, here's the key, it's the text of the Wikipedia page for 'kittens.'"
Prove that's not the correct key. If the onus for producing a key (whether one exists or not) is on the defendant, isn't the onus for proving the validity of the decrypted file on the prosecution?
All this comes back to cases like the one from CA (I think) where the guy who refused to decrypt the evidence that would prove his guilt.
And from another perspective, if you're Bernie Madoff and the evidence that will convict you is encrypted, won't you refuse to decrypt with a smile and take the 2-year punishment (with $500M in the bank) over life for financial fraud (and bankruptcy)?