3 ms·
> they will have to outlaw inability to decrypt. The UK's already done that - the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 already made it an offence not to
by drbw 10y ago
> they will have to outlaw inability to decrypt.
The UK's already done that - the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 already made it an offence not to divulge encryption keys when asked. [1]
1 https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000/Part_III https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investig...
- zmmmmm 10y agoYes, that's a step towards it. But at least the person has to be a "suspect" in another crime (however low the bar for that is) and an explicit demand has to be made for the key. Not that it does a lot of good since anybody can become a suspect and the demand for the key is retrospective to when you weren't a suspect.
- mcherm 10y agoI really don't think that having to be a suspect is in ANY way meaningful, since there is absolutely no bar to being a suspect. It is perfectly reasonable to state "we have no idea who did this so every UK resident is a possible suspect".
- anexprogrammer 10y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y (Constable Savage) Suspect of being Muslim, wearing a beard and using an ISP that the public hasn't heard of that isn't price competitive is more than enough for a media hatchet job. How low does the bar have to be? This should be the preserve of Uganda and N Korea.