6 ms·
In the UK, You Will Go to Jail Not Just for Encryption, but for Noise, Too
- Cozumel 10y ago2012. Still very relevant though.
- Namrog84 10y agoI wonder what has come of this though?
- bertiewhykovich 10y agoProbably nothing. Groups like the Pirate Party work themselves into a fit over meaningless affronts to privacy because of some combination of a) a lack of real politics, and b) actually having something serious to hide.
- DanBC 10y agohttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11479831 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11479831 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/08/christopher_wilson_students_refusal_to_give_up_crypto_keys_jail_sentence_ripa/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/08/christopher_wilson_s... https://p10.secure.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/ssl/spyblog/2014/01/15/first-ripa-s49-encrypted-usb-devices-conviction-involving-national-security---sy.html https://p10.secure.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/ssl/spybl... etc. Wikipedia has a few more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000#Prosecutions_under_RIPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Po... (Note that Wikipedia has some of it a bit wrong. WP suggests that councils started snooping on citizens after RIPA. In fact, councils were always doing this, and RIPA brought it into a regulatory regime and stopped some of the worst excesses.)
- confounded 10y agoThe process has a few stages. NTAC (GCHQ) approves the issue of a Section 49 Notice ("decrypt or jail"); a Section 49 Notice is issued; and it's then either complied with or not. Eight Section 49 Notices had been issued up to April 2008. Since then the rate has increased steadily; 37 were issued in 2014/15 (latest year of data). Eighty-eight were approved to be issued. https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000/Part_III#Cases https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investig...
- madamelic 10y agoWait. So if I am suspected of being a terrorist or a pedophile, I can refuse to give my encryption key, go away for 5 years then get out without charges? How is this not a valid defense?
- gambiting 10y agoThe onus of providing evidence is,and always should be, on the accuser - so if the police is suspecting you of being a terrorist/pedophile, they should produce evidence that you are. In ideal world, you should be able to refuse to hand over your encryption key and go home without any charges, not a stupid 5 year sentence for not giving out a key to data which might/might not be encrypted. It's not a valid defense, because usually, if the police is investigating you, they probably already have some evidence on you. Finding out some random data on your drive usually comes later.
- hughw 10y agoI haven't read the statute, but I got the impression from the link that the law reads like the laws in the US compelling you to give a breath or blood test when suspected of DUI. If you refuse, you receive punishment whether or not you were actually guilty.
- parent5446 10y agoOnly two years for the latter.
- trizic 10y ago"Looks like we found some encrypted data at /dev/urandom, hand over the keys!"
- elcct 10y ago"Just let me drill through my skull, sir"
- jackjeff 10y agoWrite your key into 2 pieces of paper. Mark one as part 1 out of 2, the other as part 2 of 2. Make you write something like "please note that if I am not served with the appropriate RIPA key disclosure when this equipment is seized I will destroy the other part of the key and this piece of paper proves beyond reasonable doubt that I am not in possession of said key" Keep one piece with you at all times and be ready to destroy it. Write a post on Hacker News explaining what you would do. Now you don't go to jail. And you can live like Jason Bourne. PS. Or move to a real democratic country... ?
- kwhitefoot 10y agoWhich one would that be?
- gpderetta 10y agoCan you then be incriminated for destruction of evidence?
- Grangar 10y agoI don't suppose, if you're not aware of any investigation against you. Besides that you don't have to testify against yourself (in a functioning democracy that is) Edit: obligatory IANAL :)
- SEMW 10y ago> Yes, this is where the hairs rise on our arms: if you have a recorded file with radio noise from the local telescope that you use for generation of random numbers, and the police ask you to produce the decryption key to show them the three documents inside the encrypted container that your radio noise looks like, you will be sent to jail for up to five years for your inability to produce the imagined documents. Alarmist and inaccurate. If you read the statute that Mr. Falkvinge links[0], it turns out that if there's a serious question about whether you have the key to some piece of supposedly encrypted data, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove you do have the key to it (and therefore that it is encrypted data) beyond reasonable doubt, just as you'd expect. s.53(3). [0] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53
- tynpeddler 10y agoWhat counts as proof? Will a jury understand what doesn't count as proof? If a very official and nice looking prosecutor stands up and makes an argument that is slightly too complicated for the average juror to understand, claiming that Mr. Smith's "random" file is actually an encrypted information, is the Jury going to believe him? It is not uncommon for juries to accept flimsy and circumstantial arguments no matter how hard the defense tries to explain that the Prosecutor is spewing nonsense. The scenario the author lays out is not certain, but it is plausible.
- SEMW 10y ago> What counts as proof? Will a jury understand what doesn't count as proof? ... It is not uncommon for juries to accept flimsy and circumstantial arguments no matter how hard the defense tries to explain that the Prosecutor is spewing nonsense. You're right, those are problems. But they're not problems with this law, they're problems with jury-based criminal justice systems. And the system's had 900 years to evolve solutions -- judges summing up, "No case to answer" / directed verdicts, etc. There's room for disagreement about how effective those solutions are. Point is, as the main objection to this law, that complaint 'proves too much' -- since essentially the same objections apply to all but the most trivial criminal offences, the solution then becomes scrap juries and go for a Germany-style professional/inquisitorial justice system. (And maybe we should, I don't know). (btw, this is very, very far from being the most complicated law or subject matter that juries have to face, compared to e.g. complex fraud trials) (To be clear, I think this is a terrible law! But just because I agree with TFA's conclusions doesn't justify his fearmongering, IMO)
- lordnacho 10y agoSo, how do you know if something is encrypted or just random? You could imagine someone being thrown in jail for not being able to decrypt a random block of characters.
- hughw 10y agoWhy should encryption even matter? The principle is, you may not keep any secrets. If the government suspect you know the time and place of a planned terror bombing, then logically, they should argue you be punished if you don't tell them some plans, even if they don't claim you ever committed encrypted plans to paper or bits.
- jlebrech 10y agoso what if there was a encryption method that had two keys, one to decrypt innocuous data and the second to decrypt sensitive data?
- harry8 10y agoThis is the assange/guardian/greenwald law. So they can jail journalists as terrorists and hunt their sources.
- pmyteh 10y agoThis significantly pre-dates the Assange/Guardian/Greenwald stuff. The purpose of the law was to stop being able to get off child pornography and terrorism charges by refusing to provide an encryption key. Now, I think the law is misguided in principle and potentially malicious in practice, but it was never about prosecuting journalists.