4 ms·
One of the problems with outlawing encryption is that it takes nothing to prove the crime, and therefore it is impossible to prove one's innocence. Would it be
by jimworm 11y ago
One of the problems with outlawing encryption is that it takes nothing to prove the crime, and therefore it is impossible to prove one's innocence.
Would it be possible to outlaw the possession or transfer of data that appears random? Nearly all data is random data, and nearly all processes randomize data. All data could be "proven" to contain information under at least one encryption scheme. It is the ultimate guilty until proven innocent argument.
If your credit card were erased with a magnet, could you now be prosecuted for the possession of encrypted data, because it could be proven that using a certain one-time pad it could be transformed into something meaningful to humans?
It doesn't end there. All things could be interpreted as information. We would have to start explaining the arrangement of books on a shelf, of spices in a rack, colours of stitching in clothing. If encryption were illegal, we would all be guilty all the time.
Fine, some would argue that random data isn't proof of guilt. What about the means of encryption? Now all random data are one-time pad keys. Prepare to rot in jail.
- CJefferson 11y agoExcept, the law is about "reasonable doubt", and has been dealing with this kind of thing for hundreds of years. This isn't new magic. By a similar argument, any phrase someone says to someone else might have been code for "kill that guy". Except usually it's not, and unless there is convincing evidence you did mean to kill that guy, you'll be set free. Conversely, if you have previously agreed a code where "2+2=4" means "kill that guy", and then you say "2+2=4", you can't argue in court that "Oh, I was just saying a true statement of maths, how could that possibly be illegal?"
- jimworm 11y agoYou're talking about reasonable doubt on an order to murder, I'm talking about reasonable doubt on the possession of encrypted data. Strongly encrypted data looks random and the only way to tell the difference is to have the decryption key. So is withholding the key sufficient for reasonable doubt? If it is, the law is useless; if it isn't, any random data is evidence of guilt.
- debacle 11y agoThe law isn't cut and dry. That's a fantasy that a lot of people, especially in tech, seem to have.
- tn13 11y agoGood point. It might also be a crime to lose key to encrypted data under these sort of laws.
- yxlx 11y agoThis is what scares me the most.