> refusing to provide a PIN/password is protected

In theory. In practice there's a case where a defendant is being held in contempt (jailed) for years now, for refusing to provide her encryption passwords. At that point both the 5th and the idea of contempt are busted.

▲

andsoitis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> In practice there's a case where a defendant is being held in contempt (jailed) for years now, for refusing to provide her encryption passwords.

Link to story?

▲

happymellon 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The only one I know of was this

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13629728

And he was freed after about 4 years.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-...

▲

piyuv an hour ago | parent [-]

> Prosecutors were able to gain access to the laptop, and police say forensic analysis showed Rawls downloading child pornography and saving it to the external hard drives.

	▲	happymellon an hour ago \| parent [-]
		My comment was more about this > In practice there's a case where a defendant is being held in contempt (jailed) for years now They are not still being held due to contempt, they were released. Now if he was convicted then thats different and the correct reason to be imprisoned. > she It was not a she. The ruling showed that you can only be held for 18 months in the US for refusal. They would need to actually charge them with a crime if the government wanted more than that.