4 ms·

> 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 num

by 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 ago
What 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)
type0 10y ago
> the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove you do have the key to it (and therefore that it is encrypted data). If they know that you have the key, they could simply confiscate it from you to decrypt it. But how would you even prove or disprove that someone has the key? If they arrest someone with a laptop encrypted with ransomware, will they force this person to pay? Let's say he pays or the police and gov authorities pay and the outcome would be that it's not decrypted, would it prove that this person encrypted it themselves or could it be that ransomware decryption didn't work. Does it really matter if we would be jailing potentially innocent person, I mean the terrorists and pedophiles are rampant right!?
- SEMW 10y ago
  > But how would you even prove or disprove that someone has the key? The same way you 'prove' anything in criminal law: by adducing evidence that convinces a jury beyond reasonable doubt. If they don't have any evidence, the accused has no case to answer. > If they arrest someone with a laptop encrypted with ransomware, will they force this person to pay? Which provision are you thinking they could do that under? s.49 and 53 aren't relevant, they're only if someone is in possession of the key. With ransomware, some third party bad actor is in possession of the key.
grkvlt 10y ago
Yes, and in fact, for that (radio telescope data) case, there is a pretty obvious null 'key' you can hand over - or rather, load the data file into JodrellBank.exe and show them what it is. If, on the other hand, you have been trying to troll the police and MI5 with: % dd if=/dev/random of=terr0r_pl4nz.dat count=2048 Then, good luck with that. But really, stop doing that; it's not as clever as you think. In fact, the provocative filename gives reasonable suspicion you are an (incompetent) terrorist, and the police and security services don't like their time being wasted while you try and prove a point.
- jlgaddis 10y ago
  In my first month of high school (c. 1993), similar trolling (renaming a README.TXT to VIRUS.EXE on a floppy disk) got me kicked out of any computer classes and banned from touching any of the school's computers for the remainder of my high school career. That was when I learned that the "powers that be" don't like you fucking with them.

by SEMW 10y ago

tynpeddler 10y ago

What 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)

type0 10y ago

> the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove you do have the key to it (and therefore that it is encrypted data). If they know that you have the key, they could simply confiscate it from you to decrypt it. But how would you even prove or disprove that someone has the key? If they arrest someone with a laptop encrypted with ransomware, will they force this person to pay? Let's say he pays or the police and gov authorities pay and the outcome would be that it's not decrypted, would it prove that this person encrypted it themselves or could it be that ransomware decryption didn't work. Does it really matter if we would be jailing potentially innocent person, I mean the terrorists and pedophiles are rampant right!?

SEMW 10y ago
> But how would you even prove or disprove that someone has the key? The same way you 'prove' anything in criminal law: by adducing evidence that convinces a jury beyond reasonable doubt. If they don't have any evidence, the accused has no case to answer. > If they arrest someone with a laptop encrypted with ransomware, will they force this person to pay? Which provision are you thinking they could do that under? s.49 and 53 aren't relevant, they're only if someone is in possession of the key. With ransomware, some third party bad actor is in possession of the key.

grkvlt 10y ago

Yes, and in fact, for that (radio telescope data) case, there is a pretty obvious null 'key' you can hand over - or rather, load the data file into JodrellBank.exe and show them what it is. If, on the other hand, you have been trying to troll the police and MI5 with: % dd if=/dev/random of=terr0r_pl4nz.dat count=2048 Then, good luck with that. But really, stop doing that; it's not as clever as you think. In fact, the provocative filename gives reasonable suspicion you are an (incompetent) terrorist, and the police and security services don't like their time being wasted while you try and prove a point.

jlgaddis 10y ago
In my first month of high school (c. 1993), similar trolling (renaming a README.TXT to VIRUS.EXE on a floppy disk) got me kicked out of any computer classes and banned from touching any of the school's computers for the remainder of my high school career. That was when I learned that the "powers that be" don't like you fucking with them.