Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the floorumdrick?
The argument in the states is over whether the police could get a warrant for encryption keys. Your assumption seems to be that they must be allowed to get that warrant regardless of prior evidence and regardless of any legal protections that prevent the police from fishing for evidence. The judge said that the police couldn't get a warrant for the man's encryption keys because they had no reasonable suspicion; as a result, they would be forcing a breach of the fifth amendment in the same way that they would by forcing him to speak to them.
Similar, lesser protections did exist here until RIPA and its related laws came along. The police had to have reasonable suspicion and they had to convince a judge before they could get a warrant. They couldn't just say "we think we can find evidence". They had to prove it.
You're claiming that I was disputing this, when I was not: your position has been consistently that it's justifiably illegal to withhold encryption keys FULL STOP, that the fact that it's illegal to refuse to hand over encryption keys is a good thing in itself. The issue of warrants only came up when your earlier argument was revealed to be a pile of shite.
You argued that it's right that the police have uncontested right of access to encryption keys and that the law as it stands was good. I and others showed you that it was an unjust law in its intent. You then argued that you disagreed with RIPA in its current form and that the police should have warrant powers to get access to encryption keys. I showed you that they already had those powers prior to RIPA. Your argument now seems to be that I was arguing against the concept of warrants, which I was not and never have. I was arguing against your original contention that the police should be able to compel me to hand over encryption keys purely on their say so. You keep contradicting yourself.
And now you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. I would have trouble getting them past your foot.