Compelled Decryption

Because it is difficult and sometimes impossible for the government to decrypt data encrypted on devices seized during criminal investigations, the government has sometimes sought to compel (apparent) device owners to unlock the devices themselves. This raises important Fifth Amendment questions. There is still no consensus in the courts, with the divided rules that have emerged so far sometimes hinging on the precise order the government has sought: an order requiring a suspect to unlock the device using a biometric, to unlock the device with a PIN or password, or to disclose the PIN or password to the government. Which, if any, of these paths are constitutional? Do technical advances in forensics render the question moot? For this debate, one side should argue that any kind of compelled decryption (compelled unlocking with a biometric, unlocking with a password, or disclosure of the password) is unconstitutional and bad policy. The other side should argue that at least one form of compelled decryption is constitutional and good policy.

The debate will consist of three sections: a presentation by each side, a rebuttal, and questions. Presentations must address both the legal and technical aspects of the question. Each side should prepare two opening statements of about 4 minutes each; one should be by a CS student and one by a law student—but there is no requirement that each student "stay in their lane". In fact, we encourage just the opposite. Each side will then get 4 minutes rebuttal. The rebuttal should be just that: rebutting points that the other team has made, or noting things that they have missed in your presentation. After that, there will be questioning, primarily by the rest of the class. The total time will be about an hour.