I believe the precedent in this case is the accused says the file is random data. The defendant has stated he can't provide decryption keys and states that thi

I believe the precedent in this case is the accused says the file is random data. The defendant has stated he can't provide decryption keys and states that this criminalises random data. According to the article he says can't not won't. Have the prosecutors proven what they want decrypted is encrypted and not random noise ? It doesn't seem they have, but we cannot know because this is a 'closed' secret trial. Anyway, Schneier says good encryption should be indistinguishable from random noise. Thus if one plants random noise and make an accusation surely this becomes a blackmailer's charter ? The burden should be on the authorities to prove that the bits are decryptable and that the accused has the keys. Suppose I wrote the key wrong ? Misremebered ? On a post-it on your monitor lost in the raid ? Unreliable thumb drive ? Losing data without backup is literally the most common problem ever. Remember the very early bitcoin potential millionaire who had lost his keys - happens evey day. Regardless he should be tried in the UK, American prosecutorial overreach is notorius and standard - especially when the authorities are embarrased. The extradition damages threshold is based on false numbers - US hacking cases always pad the numbers. The last similar case was Gary Mackinnon, who laughably 'hacked' the pentagon with remote desktop over dialup because port authorities had default password and allowed trusted military access from there - it was not sophisticated - he damaged nothing - was looking for UFO files, took only screenshots. This was spun by US authorities as super sophisticated causing millions in damage. The damages were almost entirely fees to fix the embarassingly large holes Gary had found. These false damages are used to reach the thresh-hold for extradition. The US seems to goto max kill when it is covering its own embarassing mistakes. Funny that they can only catch unsophisticated attacks by UK youth but not Chinese spies. What about suspicion of the old double decrypt ? Is one off the hook if it decrypts but the authorities believe there is a second hidden decryption possible that would satisfy them more ? What if the encryption was by one of those encrypt your files viruses ? What if it looked like that but the authorities didn't believe you. What if you were to be the framed patsy, participating in minor crimes but cops tipped, your drives are encrypted by the framer as the door kicks in ? Seems like this law is ripe for many abuses and presumes guilt. With the greatest respect: Oi US, catch some real troublemakers and stop trying to cover your incompetence by exaggerating tomfoolery and trying to lock up our native nascent talent ! I am sure the fear and terror wrought on this bright young man is already more than punishment enough. Pretty much the definition of evil putting Aspies in solitary to cover ones rear.