4 ms·
In the UK they've sidestepped this concern by making the refusal to decrypt an imprisonable offence: https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investi
by geographomics 11y ago
In the UK they've sidestepped this concern by making the refusal to decrypt an imprisonable offence: https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000/Part_III https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investig...
Though of course it doesn't help if the owner of the device is unknown, as alluded to in the linked article.
- dtech 11y agoDoesn't this directly contradict the European "right to remain silent" [1] [1]: Europe human rights court: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1996/3.html#para45 http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1996/3.html#para45
- geographomics 11y agoPerhaps, but it wouldn't be the only UK law to do so, for example section 2 the Criminal Justice Act 1987 requires disclosure to investigations by the Serious Fraud Office, and schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 also compels the detainee to answer any question asked. Both of these also under penalty of imprisonment and/or fine.
- fireflash38 11y agoCouldn't they use other methods to figure out the owner of the device? EMEI data? Pull the SIM? Get the serial number & figure out who bought it that way? Hell, if you got that much you could pretty easily get phone records & the like via warrant. I feel like they just wanted what was on the phone, rather than who owned it.