Composing a question for Ron Paul....

[kgbsquirrel]

...regarding computer encryption and the fifth amendment. I'm having a hard time compressing down the preamble of the question, however, as it is a subject that few truly understand the nuances of, and it would be rather pointless to ask a question regarding a subject a person is unaware of without given at least a modicum of preparatory explanation. So here's what I have so far, any serious suggestions on how to compress it down without losing much of the meaning and explanation are welcome.

On January 23rd of this year Judge Robert Blackburn of the United States Circuit Court of Colorado ruled that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not apply to passwords for encrypted computer documents or the unencrypted contents of those documents under the reasoning that encrypted documents are not a person's own spoken or written testimony, but are instead preexisting physical evidence that the prosecution was already aware of.

This perception and treatment of encrypted files as pre-existing intelligence is incorrect as is the oft used analogy of a safe or vault, additionally the prosecutions awareness of these documents is irrelevant. In actual practice with encrypted files the prosecution is already in possession of those encrypted documents they were aware of, taken from the so called safe or vault, in this case a computer, but finds that the seized documents are written in no existing language. This is because at it's base an encrypted file is simply an arrangement of apparently random characters and contains no actual information in it's current form. In compelling the defendant to decrypt that file, the judge and prosecution are in practice extorting that person under threat of imprisonment to fabricate NEW documents for the prosecution that could potentially incriminate them. This to me seems a rather obvious compulsion of new written or spoken testimony from the defendant.

What is your position regarding the protection from self-incrimination as it applies to modern computer encryption?

Edit to add:

Tried paring it down a bit more. One has a very abbreviated preamble which I hope still accurately reflects the existence of encrypted documents, and the second forgoes it entirely...

On January 23rd of this year Judge Robert Blackburn of the United States Circuit Court of Colorado ruled that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not apply to passwords for encrypted computer documents or the unencrypted contents of those documents under the reasoning that encrypted documents are not a person's own spoken or written testimony, but are instead preexisting physical evidence..

This perception and treatment of encrypted files however is incorrect. The prosecution already possessed all of the files but upon finding them composed of random characters arranged in no understandable form are compelling the defendant to translate, or more accurately, to fabricate new documents for the prosecution to potentially use against them.

What is your position regarding the protection from self-incrimination as it applies to modern computer encryption?

On January 23rd of this year Judge Robert Blackburn of the United States Circuit Court of Colorado ruled that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not apply to passwords for encrypted computer documents or the unencrypted contents of those documents. What is your position regarding the protection from self-incrimination as it applies to modern computer encryption?

[zxcvbob]

Will this be an email or letter?  Or something you'll ask at a townhall meeting?  Or something someone else will read on your behalf at a townhall meeting?

If it's a letter or email, a little background info is appropriate.  If this will be read or asked aloud at a some kind of event, shorter is better -- you don't want to come across as giving a speech nor telegraphing the correct answer to the candidate.

Assume the public has a 5 second attention span.

[wmenorr67]

Will this be an email or letter?  Or something you'll ask at a townhall meeting?  Or something someone else will read on your behalf at a townhall meeting?

If it's a letter or email, a little background info is appropriate.  If this will be read or asked aloud at a some kind of event, shorter is better -- you don't want to come across as giving a speech nor telegraphing the correct answer to the candidate.

Assume the public has a 5 second attention span.

And a politician a 10th of that.

[kgbsquirrel]

Ron Paul is going to be here in Denver tomorrow. I'm not sure if there will even be time for questions though, if there isn't it I'll email the long version. If I can the chance to ask in person, I'll probably roll with a very abbreviated one.

ETA:

If I get the chance, I think I'll go with this one:

On January 23rd Judge Robert Blackburn of the United States Circuit Court of Colorado ruled that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not apply in compelling a defendant to provide encryption passwords or the unencrypted contents of encyphered documents to be used against them. What is your position regarding the protection from self-incrimination as it applies to modern computer encryption?

[geronimotwo]

wouldn't this be a better question for a supreme court nominee?  (as they are who interpret the constitution)

[Perd Hapley]

wouldn't this be a better question for a supreme court nominee?  (as they are who interpret the constitution)

Well, sure, if the squirrel got to vote for one of those, and his campaign was coming to town.

[kgbsquirrel]

So sadly there wasn't time for Q&A from the audience, instead I'll be shipping off the long form of the question to his office. If any-one is curious here's the rally that I attended today...

http://youtu.be/UNc2pOVtcfY

[Blakenzy]

What the man says is just chock-full of common sense. Not only that, but he has a multi-decade track record of saying it, and voting it. How any American paying attention to what is going on could choose to vote against him is beyond my understanding of human nature... unless you want to delve into masochism and other abnormal psychology.

I do however, disagree on his monetary plan to reinstate a Gold Standard for the simple fact that I do not believe the US Treasury is in control of any significant amount of gold anymore. That being said, I fully support his plan to audit the Federal Reserve and rid the land of it.

[kgbsquirrel]

So I'm rather peeved. I was planning on running at a delegate at my precinct during the caucus, only when I went to the caucus training being help by the Ron Paul office here in Denver it was learned that my party affiliation had been changed from Republican to Unaffiliated sometime during the past four years without my notification. I had registered back in October 2008 as R, and had never changed it once during all the intervening time.

So, disenfranchised as I am, I've taken to helping out at the campaign office as much as possible, and even loaned out the use of my old army truck as a mobile billboard for the Vets For Ron Paul coalition.



....still very annoyed about not getting to participate in the caucus.

[Perd Hapley]

What the man says is just chock-full of common sense. Not only that, but he has a multi-decade track record of saying it, and voting it. How any American paying attention to what is going on could choose to vote against him is beyond my understanding...

And so are a few other things. 

[Jamisjockey]

What the man says is just chock-full of common sense. Not only that, but he has a multi-decade track record of saying it, and voting it. How any American paying attention to what is going on could choose to vote against him is beyond my understanding of human nature... unless you want to delve into masochism and other abnormal psychology.

I do however, disagree on his monetary plan to reinstate a Gold Standard for the simple fact that I do not believe the US Treasury is in control of any significant amount of gold anymore. That being said, I fully support his plan to audit the Federal Reserve and rid the land of it.

IIRC, Ron Paul has questioned the amount of gold held by the government, too.  And called for an audit of the physical good holdings.

As for your first paragraph.....shut up....jersey shore is on.

[longeyes]

Say a suspected felon keeps a journal in a self-invented tongue.  Can he be compelled to translate his own writings for the investigators?  I should say no.

[longeyes]

However much gold is available the price will adjust to match.  If that means it's $35,000 an ounce so be it.  It's not an issue of whether Treasury is "short" of gold.  Let the punishment fit the crime.

[zahc]

The fear is that if other countries hold more gold than their proportional GDP, then a large amount of wealth may be instantly transferred out of the US, were we to switch to a gold standard. Since nobody knows how much gold anyone else is holding, it's kind of a bluffing game.