5 ms·

Suppose I exchange letters with people on dead trees, but encrypt them first (using Solitaire [0], for example). Now that no computer is involved, do you still

Suppose I exchange letters with people on dead trees, but encrypt them first (using Solitaire [0], for example). Now that no computer is involved, do you still want to require I hand over this key? What if, instead of using the well-published Solitaire method, I use one of my own devising? (Now we're approximating Apple's situation of actually having to do work oneself, rather than provide the government a relatively small bit of data for them to do work.) 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitaire_(cipher) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitaire_(cipher)

rtpg 11y ago
Sure? I feel like you're trying to point out some absurdity here but I don't see it. People are compelled to do things in investigations all the time.
- koenigdavidmj 11y ago
  On paper, this is more blatantly being demanded to write a self-incriminating document.
  - MichaelBurge 11y ago
    Not really, you're being asked to produce a self-incriminating document you already wrote. You'd have a better argument if you encrypted it in your head with a shared encryption key that your recipient also memorized before putting it in writing anywhere. Then it's like knowing a foreign language that the government can't read. In the US, we already force public companies to store potentially self-incriminating electronic documents in case of an investigation later. It's not too much of a stretch to force individuals to have a retention policy, in case they need to be investigated. I imagine other countries have similar laws. You could take a lesson from said companies and discuss anything remotely risky in-person rather than over monitored networks.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > Not really, you're being asked to produce a self-incriminating document you already wrote. The (paper) document will be produced and turned over. It isn't my fault if anybody doesn't understand how to read it. A warrant isn't a guarantee that evidence will be found or understood. > public companies Corporations are created by the state; they do not have rights. The state can put additional requirements on their offer of limited liability. People have rights against self-incrimination.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - jackgavigan 11y ago
        > People have rights against self-incrimination. Not in the UK.
        caf 11y ago
        The privilege against self-incrimination is based in English common law. Has there been recent legislation to abolish it?
        deepnet 11y ago
        Fittingly in 1984 the right to silence was changed so guilt could be inferred from silence. For instance when arrested at a place, in England & Wales you must explain your prescence then and there. That whole "...fail to give in evidence something which you later rely on in court..." English Miranda thing when they arrest you. Not sure about Scottish or Northern Irish law. Then when Blair removed Habeus Corpus pretty much the whole of Magna Carta was gone. Really back to secret Star Chamber & Royal inquisitions of yore. (this is a secret trial) The RIPA password law trumps all rights. It has not been taken to the European court of human rights. Looks like it will now. This guy, Lauri Love, objects in principle to the law and is determined to go all the way for Justice.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
deepnet 11y ago
This mirrors the liberation of encryption. Classified as a munition it could not be downloaded across borders - so no ecommerce , banking or safe logins could ever be possible. The PGP code when recited from memory became free speech, a t-shirt of the speech was printed and worn on a flight to the UK.

rtpg 11y ago

Sure? I feel like you're trying to point out some absurdity here but I don't see it. People are compelled to do things in investigations all the time.

koenigdavidmj 11y ago
On paper, this is more blatantly being demanded to write a self-incriminating document.
- MichaelBurge 11y ago
  Not really, you're being asked to produce a self-incriminating document you already wrote. You'd have a better argument if you encrypted it in your head with a shared encryption key that your recipient also memorized before putting it in writing anywhere. Then it's like knowing a foreign language that the government can't read. In the US, we already force public companies to store potentially self-incriminating electronic documents in case of an investigation later. It's not too much of a stretch to force individuals to have a retention policy, in case they need to be investigated. I imagine other countries have similar laws. You could take a lesson from said companies and discuss anything remotely risky in-person rather than over monitored networks.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > Not really, you're being asked to produce a self-incriminating document you already wrote. The (paper) document will be produced and turned over. It isn't my fault if anybody doesn't understand how to read it. A warrant isn't a guarantee that evidence will be found or understood. > public companies Corporations are created by the state; they do not have rights. The state can put additional requirements on their offer of limited liability. People have rights against self-incrimination.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - jackgavigan 11y ago
      > People have rights against self-incrimination. Not in the UK.
      - caf 11y ago
        The privilege against self-incrimination is based in English common law. Has there been recent legislation to abolish it?
        deepnet 11y ago
        Fittingly in 1984 the right to silence was changed so guilt could be inferred from silence. For instance when arrested at a place, in England & Wales you must explain your prescence then and there. That whole "...fail to give in evidence something which you later rely on in court..." English Miranda thing when they arrest you. Not sure about Scottish or Northern Irish law. Then when Blair removed Habeus Corpus pretty much the whole of Magna Carta was gone. Really back to secret Star Chamber & Royal inquisitions of yore. (this is a secret trial) The RIPA password law trumps all rights. It has not been taken to the European court of human rights. Looks like it will now. This guy, Lauri Love, objects in principle to the law and is determined to go all the way for Justice.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]

deepnet 11y ago

This mirrors the liberation of encryption. Classified as a munition it could not be downloaded across borders - so no ecommerce , banking or safe logins could ever be possible. The PGP code when recited from memory became free speech, a t-shirt of the speech was printed and worn on a flight to the UK.