The Journal of the Institute of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication (한국인터넷방송통신학회논문지)

The Institute of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication (한국인터넷방송통신학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative Study of US and Korean Legal System on the Privilege against Self-Incrimination through Forced Unlocking in Digital Era

디지털시대 강제해독에 따른 자기부죄 거부 권리에 관한 미국과 한국의 제도 비교 연구

  • 이욱 (한양대학교 정보시스템학과) ;
  • 지명근 (한양대학교 정보시스템학과) ;
  • 이동한 (가천대학교 산학협력단)
  • Received : 2017.05.01
  • Accepted : 2017.06.09
  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

With the coming of the digital era, encryption has become common in everyday life. Almost anyone can easily acquire encryption software and use it to prevent unwanted third parties from accessing one's private information. However, the spread of encryption has also seriously hindered law enforcement during the investigation of cybercrimes, which hides incriminating digital evidence in encrypted hard drives and files. Therefore, many countries have attempted to compel criminals to decrypt encrypted evidence and it has been inevitable to examine privilege against self-incrimination as basic right on the side of constitution. This study analyzed the past court decisions on the issue of compelled decryption in the US and whether the Government can compel a defendant to disclose his password in Korean legal system on the constitutional side. Finally, this study suggests an approach to create a legal procedure to make it a crime for a suspect or defendant to refuse to disclose his password to law enforcement for criminal cases in Korea.

디지털 시대의 발현과 함께, 암호화는 생활의 한 부분이 되었고 대부분의 사람들이 쉽게 암호화 프로그램을 취득하여 제3자로부터 그들의 정보를 보호하게 되었다. 그러나 이런 암호화 프로그램의 확산으로 말미암아, 범죄자들조차도 범죄증거를 암호화하여 정부는 범죄 수사에 큰 난항을 격고 있다. 이에 따라서 여러 국가에서는 암호화된 범죄증거들을 강제해독하기 위한 시도를 하고 있으며 여기서 헌법상 자기부죄거부라는 기본권의 문제가 발생하게 되었다. 본 연구에서는 전반부에 이와 관련된 미국 헌법 및 미국 대법원의 판례를 분석하여 주요 기조를 제시하였으며, 후반부에서는 대한민국의 헌법과 형사소송법에 기초하여 암호화된 디지털 증거의 강제해독 여부에 대한 분석을 실시하였다. 마지막으로 결론에서는 공공의 안전과 복리를 위하여 법적 제도 측면에서의 강제해독의 접근 방향을 제시하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-considers-far-reaching-steps-for-extreme-vetting-1491303602 (last visited April 24, 2017).
  2. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgetsand-tech/news/donald-trump-immigration-check-phones-social-media-facebook-twitter-logins-a7668111.html (last visited April 24, 2017).
  3. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/extreme-vetting-dig-social-accounts-financial-info-article-1.3018978 (last visited April 24, 2017).
  4. Eoghan Casey et al., "The Growing Impact of Full Disk Encryption on Digital Forensics", DIGITAL INVESTIGATIONS Vol.8, pp. 129-134, Nov 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2011.09.005
  5. Dario Forte, "Do Encrypted Disks Spell the End of Forensics?", COMPUTER FRAUD & SECURITY, No.2, pp. 18-19, Feb 2009.
  6. Erica Fruiterman, "Upgrading the Fifth Amendment: New Standards for Protecting Encryption Passwords", TEMP. L. REV., Vol.85, pp. 655-689, Mar 2013.
  7. SYMANTEC, "Internet Security Tehreat Report, SYMANTEC, Vol.22, Apr 2017.
  8. TrueCrypt, CNET, http://download.cnet.com/TrueCrypt/3000-2092_4-10527243.html (last visited April 24, 2017).
  9. John Leyden, "Brazilian Banker's Crypto Baffles FBI (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/28/brazil_ banker_crypto_lock_out).", REGISTER, June 28, 2010,
  10. Sarah Wilson, " Compelling Passwords from Third Parties: Why the Fourth and Fifth Amendments Do Not Adequately Protect Individuals when Third Parties are Forced to Hand Over Passwords, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol.30, pp. 1-39, Spring 2014.
  11. United States Constitution, Amendment V.
  12. Nicholas Soares, "The Right to Remain Encrypted: The Self-Incrimination Doctrine in the Digital Age", American Criminal Law Review, Vol.49, pp. 2001-2019, Fall 2012.
  13. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 34-36 (2000).
  14. United States v. Fisher, 425 U.S. 391, 411 (1976).
  15. Vivek Mohan & John Villasenor, "Decrypting the Fifth Amendment: The Limits of Self-Incrimination in the Digital Era", Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol.15, pp. 11-28, 2012.
  16. Andrew J. Ungberg, "Protecting Privacy Through a Responsible Decryption Policy", HARVARD J.L. & TECH, Vol.22, pp. 537-558 Spring 2009.
  17. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605-617 (1984).
  18. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 455 (1972)
  19. United States v. Hubbell, 167 F.3d 553, 555-556 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
  20. David Colarusso, "Heads in the Cloud, a Coming Storm the Interplay of Cloud Computing, Encryption, and the Fifth Amendment's Protection against Self-incrimination", B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L., Vol.17, pp. 69-102, Nov 2011.
  21. Constitution of the Republic of KOREA, Article 12
  22. Criminal Procedure Act of the Republic of KOREA, Article 244, Article 283
  23. Regulation on Criminal Procedure of the Republic of KOREA, Article 127
  24. Sang-Un Lee, Myeong-Bok Choi, Integer Factorization for Decryption, The Journal of The Institute of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication, VOL.13, No. 6, pp. 221-218, Dec 2013 https://doi.org/10.7236/JIIBC.2013.13.6.221
  25. Yang-Ho Lee, Seung-Jung Shin, A Study on Efficient Encryption for Message Communication between Devices, The Journal of The Institute of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication, VOL.14, No. 5, pp. 19-26, Oct 2014 https://doi.org/10.7236/JIIBC.2014.14.5.19