10 ms·

They don't have to "prove it", the judge or the jury just has to come to the conclusion that you are not telling the truth and you go to jail.

by evgen 11y ago

cm2187 11y ago
I am not a lawyer but the law does say the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is a reasonable burden for sending someone to jail.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deepnet 11y ago
  RIPA trumps proof & only requires prosecutorial assertion. Under RIPA there is no presumption of innocence. Unbelievable yet sadly true. [Edit] -- disagree? Well so far this has been how it has played out in practice - if you disagree I challenge you to show me where proof was presented in the other three cases ? It is requirement by court order, one is then held in contempt of court - it is entirely up to the judge - no jury involved. We shall see whether any proof is offered, none is in the court filing, though they assert exactly what each file contains: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2781972-Lauri-Love-case-directions-April-2016.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2781972-Lauri-Love-c... Or we won't see because this is a secret trial - as the article and court filing state !
  - deepnet 11y ago
    Yup reading the law clearly show the only proof is the prosecution states the contents and date as they do in the filing. The filing contains what they call proof, I believe it better characterised as an assertion. No jury, just a judge decides if Lauri goes to jail and the only thing that can prevent it is if he proves the contrary. Ever try and prove a negative ? Decryption showing no file won't necessarily be sufficient, as the document could still be on a double decrypt in the salt. They want named documents, the defendant gives them up or goes to jail. Interesting to note one of the documents is "pirate" movies. (The court filing literally says "pirate", wtf does that even mean). Suppose the movie was crap and he deleted it. IMHO RIPA 49 is a travesty should not be legal. Quite possibly isn't, we shall see when it gets to the human rights court - though if I had to put money on it the govt. knows its dodgy and won't let it go that far.
  - deepnet 11y ago
    Can no longer edit this but sjy is correct , they accuse and accused denies it they get a jury trial : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989 Luton terrorist forced to decrypt USB stick by RIPA.
- deepnet 11y ago
  Doesn't this mean the prosection makes an assertion and the defendant has to prove the contrary ? The context for the bit you quote says the defendant must prove the contrary (their innocence). It does say evidence is required and states that evidence is an assertion of the date and details of the file, nothing more. This is not a law to be prosecuted but an investigtory power, an obstruction of justice , there is no jury, the judge decides, like contempt of court. This then imposes a "disclosure requirement" , no further proof is required to jail someone who non-compliant, no jury is involved. IMHO the standard of proof is no more than prosecutorial assertion of file contents & date so to my mind it guilty by accusation until proven innocent - a travesty. IMHO the standard of proof is so low, file contents & date that it really seems one is guilty until proven innocent
  - sjy 11y ago
    No, the quote from s 53(3)(b) refers to a defence. You are not in possession of the password if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidential_burden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidential_burden), and the contrary (ie. that you were in fact in possession) is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Typically you would discharge the evidential burden by giving sworn evidence that you have forgotten the password. The prosecution would then have to adduce evidence that proves the contrary beyond reasonable doubt, for example evidence that you had used the password every day for the past few years. Secondly, this is a 'law to be prosecuted' in the sense that s 53 creates an ordinary criminal offence. Section 49 creates the investigative power to issue a notice compelling someone to disclose a password, and s 53 makes it a criminal offence not to comply with the notice.
    - deepnet 11y ago
      So the defendant must expicitly deny it before proper proof is presented ? What sort of thing could possibly prove innocence ? A coma or merely a denial ? The text of RIPA49 states the only defense is to produce the documents and prove you were entitled to them - which is very different. The law does state that the initial proof is only content description and date which seems a lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt. So it creates a criminal offense, does that mean the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt and is that a jury trial ? What proof was presented in the previous 3 RIPA49 jailings ? IP addresses, footage or testimony that the guy was using that computer at that time, i.e. means and opportunity ? My guess is not but I really hope you can show I mistaken and British Justice still stands.

They don't have to "prove it", the judge or the jury just has to come to the conclusion that you are not telling the truth and you go to jail.

by evgen 11y ago

They don't have to "prove it", the judge or the jury just has to come to the conclusion that you are not telling the truth and you go to jail.

cm2187 11y ago

I am not a lawyer but the law does say the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is a reasonable burden for sending someone to jail.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deepnet 11y ago
RIPA trumps proof & only requires prosecutorial assertion. Under RIPA there is no presumption of innocence. Unbelievable yet sadly true. [Edit] -- disagree? Well so far this has been how it has played out in practice - if you disagree I challenge you to show me where proof was presented in the other three cases ? It is requirement by court order, one is then held in contempt of court - it is entirely up to the judge - no jury involved. We shall see whether any proof is offered, none is in the court filing, though they assert exactly what each file contains: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2781972-Lauri-Love-case-directions-April-2016.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2781972-Lauri-Love-c... Or we won't see because this is a secret trial - as the article and court filing state !
- deepnet 11y ago
  Yup reading the law clearly show the only proof is the prosecution states the contents and date as they do in the filing. The filing contains what they call proof, I believe it better characterised as an assertion. No jury, just a judge decides if Lauri goes to jail and the only thing that can prevent it is if he proves the contrary. Ever try and prove a negative ? Decryption showing no file won't necessarily be sufficient, as the document could still be on a double decrypt in the salt. They want named documents, the defendant gives them up or goes to jail. Interesting to note one of the documents is "pirate" movies. (The court filing literally says "pirate", wtf does that even mean). Suppose the movie was crap and he deleted it. IMHO RIPA 49 is a travesty should not be legal. Quite possibly isn't, we shall see when it gets to the human rights court - though if I had to put money on it the govt. knows its dodgy and won't let it go that far.
- deepnet 11y ago
  Can no longer edit this but sjy is correct , they accuse and accused denies it they get a jury trial : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989 Luton terrorist forced to decrypt USB stick by RIPA.
deepnet 11y ago
Doesn't this mean the prosection makes an assertion and the defendant has to prove the contrary ? The context for the bit you quote says the defendant must prove the contrary (their innocence). It does say evidence is required and states that evidence is an assertion of the date and details of the file, nothing more. This is not a law to be prosecuted but an investigtory power, an obstruction of justice , there is no jury, the judge decides, like contempt of court. This then imposes a "disclosure requirement" , no further proof is required to jail someone who non-compliant, no jury is involved. IMHO the standard of proof is no more than prosecutorial assertion of file contents & date so to my mind it guilty by accusation until proven innocent - a travesty. IMHO the standard of proof is so low, file contents & date that it really seems one is guilty until proven innocent
- sjy 11y ago
  No, the quote from s 53(3)(b) refers to a defence. You are not in possession of the password if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidential_burden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidential_burden), and the contrary (ie. that you were in fact in possession) is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Typically you would discharge the evidential burden by giving sworn evidence that you have forgotten the password. The prosecution would then have to adduce evidence that proves the contrary beyond reasonable doubt, for example evidence that you had used the password every day for the past few years. Secondly, this is a 'law to be prosecuted' in the sense that s 53 creates an ordinary criminal offence. Section 49 creates the investigative power to issue a notice compelling someone to disclose a password, and s 53 makes it a criminal offence not to comply with the notice.
  - deepnet 11y ago
    So the defendant must expicitly deny it before proper proof is presented ? What sort of thing could possibly prove innocence ? A coma or merely a denial ? The text of RIPA49 states the only defense is to produce the documents and prove you were entitled to them - which is very different. The law does state that the initial proof is only content description and date which seems a lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt. So it creates a criminal offense, does that mean the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt and is that a jury trial ? What proof was presented in the previous 3 RIPA49 jailings ? IP addresses, footage or testimony that the guy was using that computer at that time, i.e. means and opportunity ? My guess is not but I really hope you can show I mistaken and British Justice still stands.