4 ms·
> Merely having encrypted data in your possession is technically not within the scope of the law if the context is "as part of a counter-terrorism investigation
by confounded 9y ago
> Merely having encrypted data in your possession is technically not within the scope of the law if the context is "as part of a counter-terrorism investigation"
Not quite; the bar is not as high as an existing 'terrorism' investigation. To quote RIPA (2000)[0], if anyone authorized has the belief (upon reasonable grounds), that
(3) A disclosure requirement in respect of any protected information is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary—
(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
It is very very easy to imagine how this could be abused. Saying that you'd like to slap POTUS or May on Twitter could conceivably meet grounds for (2), and (3) is so broad that it's possible to imagine it could be triggered by something like being Alexandra Elbakyan of SciHub, or Sundae of The Pirate Bay. Depending on the mood of the press and the 'authorized persons', why not any old person caught using BitTorrent, or cracking DRM?
[0]: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/pdfs/ukpga_20000023_en.pdf http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/pdfs/ukpga_20000...