One of the better tech belief of 2016 amidst the case of the San Bernardino shooter, in which the FBI sought Apple’s help to unlock the attacker’s iPhone by creating a backdoor into the company’s mobile OS last spring. And while the furore over that adventure has died down since, we still haven’t accomplished a resolution as to whether we have the right to keep our agenda secrets under any circumstances.

The story that brings this debate back into focus apropos former Philadelphia police baker Francis Rawls, who was doubtable of accession images of child sexual abuse on his computer in August 2015. When Rawls said he couldn’t bethink the passwords to attenuate the FileVault affection that encrypts hard drives when you log out on your Mac, he was taken into aegis for abortion to comply with a federal court’s order.

As of today, Rawls has spent more than 16 months in a federal apprehension center after absolutely being answerable with a crime.

Rawls was accountable by the court to break the drives when local authorities cited the All Writs Act, a law allowable more than 227 years ago. It was ahead used to coerce Apple to help bypass the aegis measures on the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone. However, that case was alone when the FBI found addition way that cost them a actor bucks – and appear annihilation of absorption on the handset.

In analytical whether Rawls should be appear as he hasn’t yet been answerable for control of actionable pornography, the larger issue we should accede is whether people have a right to advance their agenda privacy.

We don’t yet have legislation to behest how our data can be accessed by law administration agencies in bent investigations, and what sort of abetment suspects must accommodate in these instances.

It might help to unpack Rawls’ case into two audible issues: His declared control of images of child sexual abuse, and the act of befitting a secret.

With the former, if there is accurate affirmation to prove that Rawls broke the law, I accept that he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent with a fair trial. But in befitting a secret by using encryptable hard drives, Rawls hasn’t done annihilation illegal.

I think that the choice and the right to keep article secret are adored – whether you do so by only autumn it in your mind or by purchasing an encryptable device. As human beings, secrets, big and small, are axiological to our circuitous lives. Choosing to keep agenda secrets shouldn’t be area to raise suspicion about our accomplishments and intentions.

In the US, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution provides that no person shall be accountable in any bent case to be a attestant adjoin himself, after due action of law. There are agnate protections in the Indian Constitution and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That means that a person can’t be apprenticed to reveal article stored in their minds, like a decryption password.

If we accede a case like the one involving Rawls, we need to look at the affirmation pointing to his atrocity and decide whether there’s even a need for Rawls to break his data by abandoning a password. Can the police prove absolutely that he downloaded actionable agreeable – which they can accurately analyze – to those two hard drives that he owns, and that those files exist on those drives?

There’s most likely no way to prove absolutely that, decidedly the bit about those specific hard drives being used to store data. However, even in a case involving article as advancing as child sexual abuse, we shouldn’t have to assist law administration in advertent affirmation adjoin ourselves.

The choice for a association to uphold the adherence of our right to keep agenda secrets doesn’t necessarily need to lessen the degree to which it investigates and prosecutes criminals. However, law administration will need to keep that right in mind when free their access appear investigating cases.

As if that isn’t tricky enough to come to terms with, things get abnormally circuitous when you think about how people might be accountable to admit their agenda secrets. If a hard drive is encrypted and the actor says they don’t bethink the countersign for it, as Rawls did, how do you get them to reveal what’s in their mind after throwing ethics out the window?

In October 2014, a Virginia court ruled that suspects can be asked to unlock their phones using their fingerprints; passwords and PINs stored in your memory were still safe. But last December, the Florida Court of Appeal’s Second District said that passcodes are not accompanying to the capacity of a locked or encrypted device, and as such, the law can demand that passwords be surrendered by suspects to help unlock data.

So where does that leave Rawls? Acting as a friend of the court, The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) noted in a brief that (PDF) that “compelled decryption is inherently affidavit because it compels a doubtable to use the capacity of their mind to construe unintelligible affirmation into a form that can be used adjoin them. The Fifth Amendment provides an complete advantage adjoin such atoning accountable decryption.”

As Ars Technica explains, the appeals court’s accommodation on whether to absolution Rawls or abide to detain him won’t end this debate, because ambit courts of appeal in the US aren’t answerable to follow the decisions of their sister circuits; it’ll take a call from the Supreme Court to actuate how such instances are handled in the future.

But before that happens, we need to think about how important secrets are to us as a breed and as a society. Should we unlock our clandestine data just because a key exists?

Read next: This video app promises to keep your bootleg sex tapes clandestine