8 ms·

The Guardian have more context: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/25/campaign-group-director-in-court-for-refusing-to-divulge-passwords https://www.t

• komali2 9y ago
  >possessing encrypted data Is... a crime? Woah.
  • tjoff 9y ago
    If you don't provide the means to decrypt. Absurd nonetheless.
  • mrtron 9y ago
    With very selective enforcement. Almost everyone with an internet connected device possess encrypted data.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  • graphitezepp 9y ago
    Welcome to <current year>, where more and more math is considered illegal.
    • coldtea 9y ago
      Well, more and more math is used for non-math purposes too, so the illegality is not exactly as absurd as it seems.
      • CyberDildonics 9y ago
        What is that supposed to mean and how does it make it less absurd?
        • coldtea 9y ago
          It's supposed to mean that wondering something akin to "it's just math, how can it be illegal" doesn't mean much in an era when math are not just some abstract theory or things used to measure our plots of land, but are at the core of very important technologies with great applications and huge implications. Not to mention that with digitization, every file is "just a number" anyway. Top secret document leaked? Naked photos of an ex posted for all to see? "Hey, I just shared a binary number on the internet" doesn't really hold water. It might be politically abhorrent to persecute people for such things, but absurd it is not.
    • paulddraper 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
  • sparkie 9y ago
    Possessing random data is also a crime since it's indistinguishable from encrypted data, and if you can't provide the non-existent keys, your SOL.
    • mjevans 9y ago
      Which is incredibly worrying as that 'random data' could it's self be a one time pad (the passphrase used for something else).
      • CyberDildonics 9y ago
        How does that make things worse or change the situation?
        • alain_gilbert 9y ago
          I think I meant to say: You have no idea if a file contains something needed as part of a decryption process, or if the file itself contains encrypted informations. So basically, having a "pad" file incriminate you.
        • samfriedman 9y ago
          Presumably in that the data itself is not criminal, and there could be no viable method to determine whether the data the key decrypts is criminal.
    • dozzie 9y ago
      What's this "my SOL"?
      • e12e 9y ago
        [you are/you're] shit out of luck. IE: fucked. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SOL http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SOL
    • eternalban 9y ago
  • drzaiusapelord 9y ago
    In the UK, yes. Holding encrypted data against the wishes of the government, that is to say you are unwilling to decrypt it for them, is a crime. I believe up to two years in prison.
    • komali2 9y ago
      That's actually fucking insane. Things aren't great here in the USA, but as another user stated, encrypted data is indistinguishable from random data. Someone could point at scrambled bits on your harddrive and accuse you a crime you didn't necessarily commit. jeeeeesus
      • joering2 9y ago
        Its even worse. I heard of someone who was raided in London based on the fact their IP was busy with torrents. Two of his drives were encrypted. But guess what - it wasn't he who torrented but another person who shared housing/same IP. So he happily gave up the password. Unfortunately for him, one drive got open (with bunch of his emails) another one did not want to. Although he swears he used same pass for both, apparently the second drive got corrupted during transportation, which can happen very easily. He still sits in jail 8 months later. So when you ready to give out your password - pray your drives did not get corrupted.
        • confounded 9y ago
          Do you have a source? (Not disbelief or concern trolling, I'd like to find out more about this case.)
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• raverbashing 9y ago
  > This was very clearly politically motivated Well, it depends. Though some information there might be protected by "attorney-client privilege" today's verdict doesn't seem to support it > IIRC five if the magic word "terrorism" is conjured. Well, there is another way, but when people are more preoccupied with the rights of outspoken jihadists (not saying it's the case here) and not appearing racist in reporting crimes pressure shifts to those who have less connections to wrongdoings
  • kelnos 9y ago
    I would much rather the odd "outspoken jihadist" remains free than live under an oppressive police-state with no privacy rights. And that's exactly where we're headed.
    • raverbashing 9y ago
      It isn't a dichotomy, but since I don't abide by self-loathing I'd rather see criminals arrested (without forfeiting privacy, since it's not needed in most cases)
      • literallycancer 9y ago
        I'd like to see criminals arrested as well, but it seems that most investigations into police misconduct are inconclusive. I wonder why?
      • norikki 9y ago
        I think Theresa May (and tens of thousands of bureaucrats) should be able to see everything on your phone at all times. Not anyone else's, just yours.
        • raverbashing 9y ago
          I specifically mentioned "without forfeiting privacy"
      • ionised 9y ago
• mfoy_ 9y ago
  >possessing encrypted data (while being unwilling or unable to decrypt How does this work with things like DRM? What if you have media on your phone from something like Spotify or Netflix that's presumably encrypted or protected in some way, that you cannot decrypt if your subscription expires...
  • pricechild 9y ago
    My naive understanding of my country's laws is that it doesn't. I could have a file filled with /dev/random and the law would still apply.
  • dingaling 9y ago
    Back when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill was being circulated, to much outcry from technical folk, someone encrypted a file with a provocative name and sent it to the Home Secretary for exactly that reason, as a form of demonstation-cum-protest. Suddenly the Minister[0] possessed a file which he couldn't decrypt on demand. Would he consider amending the Bill to remove penalties for such eventualities? Of course not, nothing was changed. If you possess the bytes you'll do the time. Delete everything that is unnecessary as soon as its usefulness has expired - big corps learned that lesson, for other reasons, in the early 2000s. [0] well one of his staff
    • dmix 9y ago
      > Suddenly the Minister[0] possessed a file which he couldn't decrypt on demand. While I entirely sympathise with this idea abstractly, so much of law depends on the context of actions where it's easy to dismiss this stunt. Merely having encrypted data in your possession is technically not within the scope of the law if the context is "as part of a counterterrorism investigation" and if the person could reasonably be expected to decrypt it (which would imply they were both the person to encrypt in the first place AND with the means to decrypt it - as this politician clearly wasn't). Wrongful convictions and dragnet searches are the serious consequence of these laws, yes, but the real test comes when it's hateable/despicable people at risk. The problem with these laws isn't that it's fundamentally or potentially arbitrary, it's that it's wrong even when it's not arbitrary. And the mere fact of a police investigation or allegation is not sufficient to cross that line. People should have the right to encrypt anything they want without being coerced into decrypting it. There are more than enough means for police in our modern technological era to convict terrorists/criminals and prevent conspiracies without having total access to all data. And the costs of removing that right is much higher than the rewards of a few extra convictions.