One of the issues raised in mandatory key disclosure controversy is about the nature of a key or password. I intend to discuss the same here.
Existence of password
It is clear that the knowledge of the password exists in the mind. But the question is whether the password in itself also exists only in the mind or has some existence in reality. This can probably be tackled by asking if the password ceases to exist when the person who knows the password, or in whose mind the password exists dies, ie. when his mind is destroyed. From Descartes point of view, probably yes. Because the destruction of the knowledge of the password obviously happens when a person dies. Once the knowledge of the password is gone, the password ceases to exist until someone else comes along and "discovers" the password.
But can this analogy be applied here? Because people would still know there exists something which can cause the computer system to unlock- they just do not know what it is. In other words, is the password a perception? I would like to compare it with another analogy here. Imagine the situation before Ptolemy said that earth revolved around the sun. Everyone was of the opinion that the Sun revolved around the Earth. So should we be saying that the people were mistaken and "reality" was different- which is that the Earth revolves
around the Sun? Can it be said that there is a reality existing outside of our minds and perceptions? Because on the other hand, it can be said that Ptolemy "perceived" something else- this perception including certain observations- which won over the previous perceptions. So this new perception became the reality. And it is well possible that future observations can change this perception propounded by Ptolemy too- maybe the sun
and the earth revolve around each other. Physics after all does understand the importance of point of reference. Now can this analogy be used to draw parallels with existence of a password?
Maybe not really, because in our example- everyone, which means the accused and the police perceive that the password can be used to unlock the system-- no one really has a different perception here. Password would still be valid if anyone else other than the accused enters it, even after the accused's death. Even if he does it without realisation of what it is. This is because- everyone- the accused, humankind and the computer-system made by human kind operate under the same assumption- that the right password once entered will unlock the computer and give access to its contents. The problem for the police here really lies in the too large number of possibilities to find out what the password really is. And not its existance. Thus in the human reality, the password exists not just in the mind of the accused but in "reality". It is only the knowledge of what password is which exists with the accused.
Revealing password as testimony v. Password as a link to reaching incriminating material
One argument goes that revelation of password would be a testimony sure because it would be revealing knowledge within mind. Issue lies is that the defence then argues that speaking out the password would be a testimony but entering the password in the computer would not, because in entering the password the accused would not be revealing the contents of "his mind" which would be the case when he simply enters the password rather than divulging it. But the counter-argument goes that even by simply entering the password the accused in fact does reveal contents of his mind, e.g. the knowledge of the fact that he has control over any evidence found on the computer, which was earlier unknown to/unverified by law enforcement, and was only within accused's knowledge.
Now notice that law grants privilege of self incrimination to even mere knowledge about existence of a thing which exists in mind- and not just to things which completely exist in the mind, or which can be modified by mental powers. For example, self incrimination privilege is granted to the knowledge of the accused of the fact that he was carrying a knife on the night of 14th March 2011. This fact is something which would have been accepted as reality by any human who saw him on that night with a knife. Accused cannot change this fact of him carrying his knife with the power of his mind. Thus for all human purposes this fact is "reality". Yet the accused's knowledge of this fact is privileged. In the password situation, two things may happen.
a. Accused may say he has control over the computer but refuse to disclose the password pleading right against self incrimination.
b. Accused may say he has no control over the computer, so he is unable to disclose the password.
Let's take situation b. first. Accused has set the password at some prior time. Knowledge of password is only within his mind, though it sure exists in reality too. He sure cannot change the password by using his mental powers. Yet by drawing analogy with the knife carrying situation, accused can keep silent about his knowledge of the fact that he had set the password at a prior time, or that he knows the password at any level. In this case even forcing him to enter the password will demonstrate his control over the password or the computer under right against self-incrimination.
Situation a. now. Accused has set the password at some prior time. Knowledge of password is only within his mind, though it sure exists in reality too. He sure cannot change the password by using his mental powers. Yet by drawing analogy with the knife carrying situation, accused can keep silent about his knowledge of what the password is and hence disclosing it under right against self-incrimination.
Hmm...looks like arguments for situation a. and b. are more or less the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment