WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 5868

AN ACT RELATING TO STATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT -- DIGITAL ASSET KEYS--PROHIBITION OF PRODUCTION OF PRIVATE KEYS

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Jon Brien and 2 co-sponsors

Rhode Island bans forcing private keys in court to access digital assets, protecting keyholders’ privacy while permitting asset transfers through other lawful means.

03/06/2025 Committee recommended measure be held for further study
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5868

Summary — HB 5868: "Digital Asset Keys — Prohibition of Production of Private Keys"

Overview / Purpose

HB 5868 would, with limited exceptions, prohibit the compelled production or disclosure of a private cryptographic key that grants access to a digital asset, digital identity, or other right or interest. The bill is framed as a privacy/security protection for holders of cryptographic keys while preserving other lawful means to obtain access to assets or information about them.

Key provisions

  • Creates a new chapter in Title 42: "Digital Asset Keys — Prohibition of Production of Private Keys."
  • Section 42-64.35-3 — Defines "private key" as a unique cryptographic element that is:
    • Held by a person;
    • Paired with a publicly available cryptographic element (public key);
    • Associated with an algorithm necessary to encrypt/decrypt or execute a transaction.
  • Section 42-64.35-4 — Primary prohibition: No person may be compelled to produce or disclose a private key in any civil, criminal, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding in the state that relates to a digital asset, digital identity, or other right to which the private key provides access — unless the public key is unavailable or cannot disclose the requisite information about the asset/identity/right.
  • Section 42-64.35-5 — Clarifies that the act does not prevent lawful proceedings from compelling a person to produce, sell, transfer, convey, or otherwise disclose a digital asset, or disclose information about it; it only limits compelling production of the private key itself.
  • Effective date: upon passage.

Who would be affected

  • Individuals and entities who hold private cryptographic keys (individual wallet holders, custodial services storing keys).
  • Law enforcement, prosecutors, regulatory agencies, courts, and civil litigants seeking access to digital assets as part of investigations, forfeiture, or civil discovery.
  • Digital-asset custodians, exchanges, and other service providers that may be subject to state subpoenas/orders.

Exceptions, limits, and interpretations

  • The prohibition does not block compelled transfer or sale of a digital asset; authorities could seek transfer of assets without obtaining the private key.
  • The public-key exception could allow compelled production of information derived from the public key when that is sufficient to disclose the asset’s details; the bill leaves technical and evidentiary thresholds (e.g., when a public key is “unavailable or unable to disclose the requisite information”) open to interpretation.
  • Cross-jurisdictional and federal orders (or conflicts between state and federal authority) are not expressly resolved by this text.

Procedural status & timeline

  • Introduced (Rhode Island) Feb. 28, 2025; referred to House Innovation, Internet, & Technology Committee; scheduled hearing 03/06/2025.
  • Committee action listed: 03/06/2025 — committee recommended measure be held for further study.
  • Note: the package of documents provided also includes a different HB 5868 (Michigan, tax-tribunal legislation) unrelated to digital asset keys; this summary addresses the Rhode Island digital-asset-key bill.

Potential impacts / considerations

  • Increases cryptographic keyholder privacy and limits compelled decryption, which advocates view as protecting speech/privacy and minimization of systemic risk.
  • May constrain investigations and asset-recovery efforts that rely on obtaining keys (investigators may need warrants, seizure of devices, subpoenas to custodians, or other methods).
  • Ambiguities (public-key exception, interplay with federal law, scope across custodial arrangements) could prompt litigation and require judicial clarification or implementing guidance.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.