Digressing from the subject of the aforementioned case, it is interesting to me.
In a scenario where the self-incriminating information is thoughts, a the judicial system will not pry a that information person via normal interrogation techniques. But when the thoughts are written as a word document, the system is tending to pry the information required to open the document.
The question is whether the thought itself is protected or the right to the thought protected.
I tend to agree that the password & the underlying documents are parts of extended thoughts and cannot be pryed out within the confines of the Fifth amendment, but only the court of law can answer that
In a scenario where the self-incriminating information is thoughts, a the judicial system will not pry a that information person via normal interrogation techniques. But when the thoughts are written as a word document, the system is tending to pry the information required to open the document.
The question is whether the thought itself is protected or the right to the thought protected.
I tend to agree that the password & the underlying documents are parts of extended thoughts and cannot be pryed out within the confines of the Fifth amendment, but only the court of law can answer that
No comments:
Post a Comment