3 ms·

Should not have sued them bro. Always let sleeping dogs lie.

by x5n1 11y ago

yason 11y ago
It might cost you personally, but not always. Sometimes you have to drive crazy things to the point of lunacy that is their logical conclusion, to make a point. The case of encryption heavily underlines the nature of information itself which also lends to the nature of intellectual property, the idea where bits have colors. This is all uncharted territory so far for the general society. (The laws of information are crystal clear as interpreted by the hacker mindset but it's not at all crystal clear whether the society at large ever wants to accept the hacker mindset.) Demanding encryption keys is followed by dozens of logical consequences that are anything but obvious for the uninitiated. Several have been mentioned in this discussion already. For example, how to prove random data isn't an encrypted blob? What are the liabilities of carrying random data? What if you did encrypt it but with a throwaway password which you obviously don't remember? How can bits possibly be so dangerous to warrant jailtime for you unless you choose to reveal them? But if you store the same information in your head, you're not required to reveal it. Then how is storing the passphrase in your head any different from storing all the information in your head, albeit easier?
- cm2187 11y ago
  And we can push the argument to the absurd. I can draw a little symbol on a post it, and that little symbol may mean something to me, it's a form of cipher. Now can the court force me to tell them what this little symbol means, should I really go to jail if I don't? The other thing is that although the 5th amendment is an American concept, I suppose there must be a provision against self incrimination in UK law. I can't be forced to testify against myself. In France I know this how it works, a defendant is entitled to lie or refuse to answer at his own trial. If we follow that logic I don't see how one can force someone to speak a password.
  - caf 11y ago
    Yes, the privilege against self-incrimination is part of the English common law (originally the defendant could not testify at all in common law courts!).
- sjy 11y ago
  > For example, how to prove random data isn't an encrypted blob? It is for the prosecution to prove that the random data is actually encrypted (or more accurately, to prove that you possess the 'key' to some electronic data). > What if you did encrypt it but with a throwaway password which you obviously don't remember? It is for the prosecution to disprove your sworn statement to this effect. > How can bits possibly be so dangerous to warrant jailtime for you unless you choose to reveal them? There could be reasonable grounds for believing that the bits are being used to encrypt child pornography, or some other serious crime.
deepnet 11y ago
This guy wants to challenge the validity of the RIPA law in the European court of human rights. Lauri Love, the accused, is a journalist and this strikes at the heart of the Freedom of The Press. "It’s a presumption of guilt for random data.” - Lauri Love. With a neutered Legislature & Compliant Judiciary the fifth estate is the last hope for the balance of powers a healthy Democracy requires. Arguably the UK government has crossed this line for quite some time, e.g. : The UK govt physically destroying the Guardian Newspapers computers last year - prompting their exodus to New York. The harrasment of Glen Greenwald's husband at Gatwick. The right to remove embarrasing links in google & censor the press, seemingly mostly used by embarrased footballers and malpracticing doctors. The overuse of D-Notices, notice there is no coverage by the BBC of the recent oil bribery scandal, D-notice ! The shameful & inhuman confinement of the 21st Centuries most important journalist, Julian Assange, to prevent & curtail Wikileaks work exposing secrets.

Should not have sued them bro. Always let sleeping dogs lie.

by x5n1 11y ago

Should not have sued them bro. Always let sleeping dogs lie.

yason 11y ago

It might cost you personally, but not always. Sometimes you have to drive crazy things to the point of lunacy that is their logical conclusion, to make a point. The case of encryption heavily underlines the nature of information itself which also lends to the nature of intellectual property, the idea where bits have colors. This is all uncharted territory so far for the general society. (The laws of information are crystal clear as interpreted by the hacker mindset but it's not at all crystal clear whether the society at large ever wants to accept the hacker mindset.) Demanding encryption keys is followed by dozens of logical consequences that are anything but obvious for the uninitiated. Several have been mentioned in this discussion already. For example, how to prove random data isn't an encrypted blob? What are the liabilities of carrying random data? What if you did encrypt it but with a throwaway password which you obviously don't remember? How can bits possibly be so dangerous to warrant jailtime for you unless you choose to reveal them? But if you store the same information in your head, you're not required to reveal it. Then how is storing the passphrase in your head any different from storing all the information in your head, albeit easier?

cm2187 11y ago
And we can push the argument to the absurd. I can draw a little symbol on a post it, and that little symbol may mean something to me, it's a form of cipher. Now can the court force me to tell them what this little symbol means, should I really go to jail if I don't? The other thing is that although the 5th amendment is an American concept, I suppose there must be a provision against self incrimination in UK law. I can't be forced to testify against myself. In France I know this how it works, a defendant is entitled to lie or refuse to answer at his own trial. If we follow that logic I don't see how one can force someone to speak a password.
- caf 11y ago
  Yes, the privilege against self-incrimination is part of the English common law (originally the defendant could not testify at all in common law courts!).
sjy 11y ago
> For example, how to prove random data isn't an encrypted blob? It is for the prosecution to prove that the random data is actually encrypted (or more accurately, to prove that you possess the 'key' to some electronic data). > What if you did encrypt it but with a throwaway password which you obviously don't remember? It is for the prosecution to disprove your sworn statement to this effect. > How can bits possibly be so dangerous to warrant jailtime for you unless you choose to reveal them? There could be reasonable grounds for believing that the bits are being used to encrypt child pornography, or some other serious crime.

deepnet 11y ago

This guy wants to challenge the validity of the RIPA law in the European court of human rights. Lauri Love, the accused, is a journalist and this strikes at the heart of the Freedom of The Press. "It’s a presumption of guilt for random data.” - Lauri Love. With a neutered Legislature & Compliant Judiciary the fifth estate is the last hope for the balance of powers a healthy Democracy requires. Arguably the UK government has crossed this line for quite some time, e.g. : The UK govt physically destroying the Guardian Newspapers computers last year - prompting their exodus to New York. The harrasment of Glen Greenwald's husband at Gatwick. The right to remove embarrasing links in google & censor the press, seemingly mostly used by embarrased footballers and malpracticing doctors. The overuse of D-Notices, notice there is no coverage by the BBC of the recent oil bribery scandal, D-notice ! The shameful & inhuman confinement of the 21st Centuries most important journalist, Julian Assange, to prevent & curtail Wikileaks work exposing secrets.