Does the fifth amendment apply to brain wallets?

dashingriddler

legendary

Activity: 1258

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ralree on June 05, 2013, 12:20:23 AM

So this happened:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587670-38/judge-child-porn-suspect-doesnt-need-to-decrypt-files/

So, imagine a case where someone was trying to prove that the defendant owned a given bitcoin address corresponding to a brain wallet. The only way to prove ownership is the show that you can produce the private key. If the same principles/rights that apply in the case above applied to a case like that, they wouldn't have to produce the key. Am I missing something or is that absolutely awesome for bitcoin?

If the defendant has used his private key to sign some agreement, it can be used to prove the ownership of that public address as well. Or am i wrong?

ralree

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Manateeeeeeees

Quote from: ?? on ??

Don't get too excited. One ruling in favor of freedom does not balance (hundreds of?) thousands of rulings against.

Is it necessary for me to point out that I think those guilty of CP should be given a permanent vacation in the afterlife? Bitcoin forum? Check. Then, probably.

Well, I read a little more and it seems like lower courts in the US have come out on both sides of this in the past few years somewhat equally. Some rulings for decryption against the will of the defendant, some rulings against. I think we can agree that people who are into CP in any way are screwed up and deserve what they get, but that's beside the point - the point here is that at least some courts in the US uphold the right to avoid self-incrimination by forced decryption of evidence against yourself.

What needs to happen now is for someone to take it to the Supreme Court, but that could definitely backfire. It will be interesting to see if this happens some time soon.

ralree

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Manateeeeeeees

So this happened:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587670-38/judge-child-porn-suspect-doesnt-need-to-decrypt-files/

So, imagine a case where someone was trying to prove that the defendant owned a given bitcoin address corresponding to a brain wallet. The only way to prove ownership is the show that you can produce the private key. If the same principles/rights that apply in the case above applied to a case like that, they wouldn't have to produce the key. Am I missing something or is that absolutely awesome for bitcoin?

Topic: Does the fifth amendment apply to brain wallets? (Read 991 times)