...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Harvard Journal of Law and Technology >COMPELLED DECRYPTION AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT: EXPLORING THE TECHNICAL BOUNDARIES
【24h】

COMPELLED DECRYPTION AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT: EXPLORING THE TECHNICAL BOUNDARIES

机译：强制解密和第五修正案：探索技术界限

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

This Article has examined the compelled decryption doctrine to date and found that it sometimes turns on non-obvious technological details in surprising ways. Despite this fragility, it does seem possible to apply in a consistent manner by carefully considering the technologies involved. That the doctrine is not fundamentally inconsistent does not by itself mean that it is satisfactory. However, consistency is a necessary condition, and not one that can be taken for granted. To date, courts have differed in the legal standards applied in compelled decryption cases and also in their understanding of the technologies involved. Indeed, the possibility of consistent application is a crucial factor in evaluating the robustness of a doctrine that has proved so sensitive to technological details that its adaptability to future technological developments is far from obvious.
机译：本文迄今为止审查了强迫解密主义，发现它有时以惊人的方式转向非明显的技术细节。 尽管这种脆弱性，但似乎可以通过仔细考虑所涉及的技术来以一致的方式申请。 教义并非根本不一致并非本身意味着它是令人满意的。 但是，一致性是必要的条件，而不是可以被视为理所当然的条件。 迄今为止，法院在强制解密案件中适用的法律标准不同，也有他们对所涉及的技术的理解。 实际上，一致申请的可能性是评估对教学的稳健性的重要因素，这些原则已经证明对技术细节如此敏感的，即其对未来技术发展的适应性远非明显。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Harvard Journal of Law and Technology》 |2018年第1期|169-234|共66页
  • 作者

    Aloni Cohen; Sunoo Park;

  • 作者单位

    MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University;

    MIT Media Lab Harvard Law School Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号