Key Disclosure Laws Can Be Used To Confiscate Bitcoin Assets

Comments

Paul's picture

Many of these grey area cases seem to be connected to the fact that the defendant told police at least some of what was on the drive. It's well known by now that you should never talk to police. Never even admit a drive is encrypted. Don't give them an opening.

Bradley Keyes's picture

I agree that talking to the police at all is a mistake, but I still don't see how this is a grey area.

If you are being questioned by the police about a murder, for example, and answer a few questions, you still have the right at any time to decide to remain silent. The fact that you answered a few questions does not require that you answer all subsequent questions related to the murder.

Why would being remaining silent on revealing passwords or keys be any different?

sscharliem's picture

Bradley,

It sounds like you have never been questioned by a trained investigator. These people take classes on how to question you. The problem about stopping answering questions at a certain point, (usually when they answers start to become harmful to you) is that in itself gives them information. They will also do little tricks to see if you tell the truth and what your facial expression is so they can tell if you are lying or not. If you stop answering and say something like "no answer" they will put words in your mouth and say something like "I'll take that as a yes." So believe me, it's best to not start answering any questions in the first place, take it from someone who found out first hand.

Bradley Keyes's picture

Sorry, sometimes it's very difficult to be clear in a short discussion reply.

I think you misunderstood my statement. My first sentence stated clearly that talking to the police at all is a mistake.

The rest of my comment was simply meant to address the use of the term grey area by Paul. The police, some lawyers, and courts might like to create an impression of a grey area, but I can't see that that giving up encryption keys or passwords was somehow a grey area, something not really covered by the right to remain silent because the police knew there was something there.

Paul is right that the common theme seems to be 'we know some, now you have to tell use the rest'. I just don't see how they can remotely make this case. My ending question of 'why would remaining silent on revealing passwords or keys be any different?' was asking why should the desire to not provide keys or passwords be treated any differently that the desire to not answer any more questions about a murder.

I don't see a grey area, they should both be treated the same - you should be able to stop providing information at any time, without threat or punishment.

I don't think any of us are disagreeing, I just didn't like the reference to this being a grey area.

Glock27's picture

Bradley, greetings.
Mymemory is not long, but there is a site on the I.N. that gives the complete details of police interrogation. I have a copy of it somewhere and should pull it out and study it a bit, because I know they are more devious than a fox. Most people here are of the stance of not saying anything, but there are caes where limited information is more helpful to you than can be recognized. See some of my posts below. I do agree with what you are saying to a point. As I said earlier not speaking the police will take one of two options: Let you go or arrest you. Probably anything else other than a self-defense shooting I just might shut up, but too, I hope I never put myself in a situation wherein I would be interrogated.

Glock27's picture

Bradley, greetings.
Mymemory is not long, but there is a site on the I.N. that gives the complete details of police interrogation. I have a copy of it somewhere and should pull it out and study it a bit, because I know they are more devious than a fox. Most people here are of the stance of not saying anything, but there are caes where limited information is more helpful to you than can be recognized. See some of my posts below. I do agree with what you are saying to a point. As I said earlier not speaking the police will take one of two options: Let you go or arrest you. Probably anything else other than a self-defense shooting I just might shut up, but too, I hope I never put myself in a situation wherein I would be interrogated.

Suverans2's picture

Don't Talk to Police
A law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Glock27's picture

Greetings Suverans2

The You tube was interesting, couldn't watch it as I would use up all my "Fair Access" to the internet. I am in a box with limited download time. Two minutes costs me 5% of my download time and I would not be able to listen to it in its entirity. As for me not cooperating with the police, in a limited cooperation" is a guaranteed go straight to jail card. do not pass go, do not collect $200" As a CCW I am confronted with this issue, and every gun site with attorney always say "Limited cooperation", now this deals with a shooting. 1. You call 911 first telling them you need a rescue team and the police, there has been a shooting, describe yourself so when the police arrive you will not be face with several armed LEO's pointing their, 9mm, 40 cal, .38's or .45's at you. Describing yourself to the 911 person lessens your chance of being shot by the police. 2. You tell them you are the victime, point to the downed person saying he attacked me, I had to defend myself I was so scared I pissed my pants (make sure you do if you haven't). I will give a full statement tomorrow after I have calmed down and have talked with my attorney." End of story. I shall rest my case on the twenty some attorney's who have shared what to do after a shooting. In any other case I will give limited cooperation, My name, where I live and that I will give a full statement tomorrow after consulting with my attorney. I know nothing about the guy on you-tube, I do know the gun organizations. www.USCCA.Com has been involved with self-defense shoots. The Navy officer susect I would guess was not a self defense shoot. He left the scene for someone else to discover (Very bad light for the Navy Officer) Wish I could have listened to all of it, but the fellow spoke very fast making it difficult to understand what he was saying and my lap top does not have the best audio system.
Good luck on your philosophy of remaining silent. I will cooperate to a limited extent and hope it is enough to keep me out of jail, but I do have the bail money to get me out as soon as I get in, but when is my bail hearing. The next day, next week. That hurts.

Glock27's picture

P.S. You might want to review Browne's book "How I found Freedom in an Unfree World" Especially the chapters on Certainty and uncertainty.
Good luck on your philosophy.

Suverans2's picture

"A law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police."

My philosophy? Hm-m-m-m that "philosophy", as you call it, came from a man who is a "law school professor and former criminal defense attorney," and, from a 28-year veteran interrogator, e-r-r-r-r, I mean, interviewer with THOUSANDS of interviews under his belt.

What is it that your rulers teach its military personnel to do if they are captured? I believe the Code of Conduct instructs that anyone who is captured, on either side, is obliged to give name, rank and serial number, but nothing else. Perhaps we should do the same thing, although the last item would be impossible for those of us who don't use a "serial number", i.e. taxpayer identification number, or any other "acceptable form of identification"?
____________________________________________

p.s. Did you know that a privately-made photo identification card with a million witnesses will not be regarded as an "acceptable form of identification" by the men and women acting as agents for your government? That is because the real question is NOT "Who are you?"; the real question is, "Who do you belong to?"; "Who is your master?" And, "I am my own master", is NOT ACCEPTABLE to them.

Suverans2's picture

And greetings to you, also, Glock27;

Let me see if I got this straight; you thought that YouTube was interesting, but you evidently couldn't watch more than "Two minutes" of it. Too bad because this "law school professor and former criminal defense attorney" shared the last half, or so, of this 48 minute YouTube with Officer George Bruch, of the Virginia Beach Police Department, an agent who has done "THOUSANDS of interviews". Here is the first thing he said, when the mic was handed to him. (Approximately 27:15 on the YouTube)

"Everything he said was true. Okay? And it was right, and it was correct."

Glock27's picture

Because their job is to get evidence that can convict you whether you are innocent or not. Seems to be a historical fact by anecdotal observation.

Paul's picture

It's a question of resolve. If I am stuck in this situation of having been "braced" by a cop, I intend to boost my resolve not to talk to him this way: a cop's job is to put people in cages. He's trying to put you in a cage. Why cooperate with that? Don't give them anything, not even the time of day.

Some may object that a cop's job is to find the real bad guys. If they are that naive, they deserve to be put in a cage. It's Darwin all over again.

The system (those in it) does not care about you. It will dispose of your life without a qualm. You are on your own...

Glock27's picture

Paul. Are you really that interested in spending days on end in jail. I have never been, but I know someone quiet close to me and it is clearly not a fun place to be; especially if you have never spent time in it. Many jails contain people up to one year and these guys are nasty fellows. They do tend to group together and take all the advantage of the nube. Like to eat. Then being a nube in jail is not where you wanna be. Limited cooperation gives you a better chance of staying out of the pokeys. Depending on where you are your bail hearing may not be for days. Some places you can get out almost as quickly as you went in if they have night courts and you have the money up front. Good luck on your policy.

Glock27's picture

I was trite in my comment. I am a membe of the USCCA, a gun organization for ccw. I am a ccw person carrying two firearms with me everywhere I go and 4 magazines for each weapon. As a member of the USCCA I have a criminal defense attorney fund, and yes it has an annual cost, nothing is free except maybe the air we breath. The USCCA encourages its members to obtain an attorney, getting their phone number to call. I have, for one year, been contacting attorny's but none ever reply to offer their services should I need it. As a member of another firearm association the MCRGO I contacted them trying to understand. The attorney their offered temporary services until he could locate an attorney to represent me . His statement to me was "only give the basic facts, "He attacked me. I had to defend myself. I was in fear of my life. I will give a statement tomorrow when I have clamed down and contacted my attorney." end of discussion. At this point the police will do one of two things; let you go or arrest you on the suspicion of murder" In this case you best have a loved one or someone you can trust to post your bail or a bailbondsman. The MCRGO attorney did not like bail bondsman. Why? Don't know. I don't know how this plays out in any other situation, but the job of the police is to catch a bad guy whether he is bad or not. The DA just needs to get you to trial. It's what he wants. I have had experiances in that arena. They look for convictions and don't give a shit whether you are innocent or guilty. It makes no never mind to them. Its a political post; they are politicians first and formost, so what do you imagine they are going to be interested in.
Most everyone here knows that the police have no legal obligation to protect the citizens and in many cases refuse to..."Protect and Serve" Ha! Protect themselves, and serve their self-interests. Remaining silent will clearly be enough for the police to have suspicion and arrest you. "What would a reasonable man do?"
You give only the barest of facts then tell them you want your attorney present for any further interrogation. Once you get into the hands of the detectives, these guys are usually well trained in interrogation techniques. If it gets to this point you really, really want an attorney and hopefully not a court appointed because they have no incentive.
If you are a concealed carry I strongly suggest that you give www.USCCA.com a look and see. There is another that provides a $5000 bail, but how long it takes to get it I've no idea. NRA also has an attorney insurance program also. Remember, this is only for a situation where you are involved with a shooting and you have legally terminated the threat. In these situations if you have not wet yourself, make sure you do before the police arrive. It adds credibility to you as the victim of the crime.

Glock27's picture

Greetings.

Under the concept of Natural Law where exactly would this stand. If I understand Natural Law correctly, individuals have a moral and ethical duty to reveal the necessary information to satisfy Justices' need. Somene smart on Natural Law and or Common Law care to straighten me out.