6 ms·

I don't know if a law compelling you to reveal encryption keys to the government/police/courts is valid in the UK. I do, however, know that such a law is moral

I don't know if a law compelling you to reveal encryption keys to the government/police/courts is valid in the UK. I do, however, know that such a law is morally reprehensible. Quite frankly, it is in the interest of the people to ensure encryption tools are entirely useable by criminals, gangsters, and terrorists, because that ensures they are entirely useable by lawful citizens as well. Unlike guns (something possible to "defend liberty" as well as commit crime with), encryption has no victims, has no negative consequences. It can hide negative things, but it merely provides automation for knowing something you refuse to tell. Edit: spelling

citricsquid 16y ago
Let's say I have a hard drive full of illegal material, the police suspect it and have enough evidence to obtain a warrant, should I not then be obligated to show the contents of the hard drive? Much like a warrant for a home or business premises, why should it not be enforceable for digital things too?
- lutorm 16y ago
  But if you've written notes in your notebook that are comprehensible only to you, should you be compelled to explain to the authorities what they mean?
  - oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago
    That was one of the jokes with the original wording. To cover encrypted, as well as enciphered, text it said something like "any clear text that has a hidden meaning". Which immediately made most of literature and theology illegal. You couldn't posses a poem or a bible unless you could explain to the police any hidden symbolism! Pictures of the police kicking down doors and shouting "you're nicked - now explain what the poet really meant by a host of yellow daffodils"
  - patio11 16y ago
    This is talking about the Color of Bits, to quote a famous article on the subject of computer programmers discussing law about computers. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php Computer programmers think, aha, I can apply an arbitrary algorithmic translation to input A and get output B, and applying the law to B would be absurd, so therefore applying the law to A is also absurd. What they fail to realize is that bits have color -- a type of metadata that law algorithms can see and operate on which your computer algorithms are ignorant of. You think that encrypted contents of a computer harddrive is a logically equivalent operation to writing things in a form only comprehensible to oneself. This is only true if you're Colorblind.
    - mindslight 16y ago
      > You think that encrypted contents of a computer harddrive is a logically equivalent operation to writing things in a form only comprehensible to oneself. This entirely depends on whether you view your computer as an extension of your personal consciousness or as being an external service that you're interacting with. I'd rather a society where computers act as individuals' agents, rather than people being at the mercy of the computers.
    - ovi256 16y ago
      This color is what normal people call intention. Big file that is storing your n-th computed prime : innocuous. Big file that is storing pirated movie, even if called "n-th prime" : not OK.
- gst 16y ago
  "Much like a warrant for a home or business premises, why should it not be enforceable for digital things too?" In most (democratic) countries you do not have to cooperate with the police if they have a warrant. So they are allowed to search your house, they are allowed to break your lock/door, but you are not obligated to give them the key to your house. It's already the same with digital things: The police can get a warrant and is then allowed to try to crack my password. But I'm not obligated to give them the key.
  - aplusbi 16y ago
    I'm not so sure that's true. I'm pretty sure that not allowing the police to search your house (given that they have a search warrant) is at the very least considered obstruction of justice (in the US). The difference is in the consequences of refusal. For a home search, it's usually in your best interest to open the door because it's really easy for the police to break it down. For an encrypted hard drive, it's nearly impossible to retrieve the data if you refuse to decrypt it.
- oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago
  Because it's more like the police being given a warrant for you to tell them everything you know. In most countries the police don't get a search warrant for your head - except where you are wearing an orange jumpsuit and having water poured down your throat.
  - btilly 16y ago
    having water poured down your throat. If you're referring to waterboarding, the water goes in your nose and sinuses, not your throat. And the amount of water used is very small. The aim is not to drown the person. It is to trigger the drowning reflex. Which happens very fast when you are unable to move. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58 for a demonstration of how exactly it is done and what it looks like.
    - oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago
      In that case then my point about the difference between searching your property and searching your mind is totally refuted.
ax0n 16y ago
It is valid, and it is morally reprehensible. In the US, the Fifth Amendment protects us from such travesties.
- oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago
  Assuming your congressman visits you while you are being secretly held in a Syrian prison
- gunzler 16y ago
  Has there been a case where the Fifth Amendment protected someone from disclosing a password? I'm not sure that giving up your password is analogous to being forced to testify against yourself. Edit: Indeed there has been a case, and so far the Fifth Amendment is holding strong: http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2010/04/passwords-and-5th-amendment-privilege.html http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2010/04/passwords-and-5th-ame...
  - praptak 16y ago
    "I'm not sure that giving up your password is analogous to being forced to testify against yourself." This one is tricky. It depends on ones beliefs about the true reasons for the anti-self-incrimination laws. If you believe (as I do) that it is a fundamental right to remain silent whenever it could make your situation worse, then it is indeed analogous. An opposing view is that not being forced to testify against oneself comes from other, more basic reasons. One of the "higher-order" reasons against forced self-incrimination might be that punishment for refusing self-incrimination gives incentive to false self-accusation. This one does not apply to forced revealing of passwords (you cannot falsely self-accuse in this case.)
- aplusbi 16y ago
  Not necessarily. For example, let's say I have a safe, and I've hidden the key. The police get a warrant to search my safe. I am then legally obligated to allow them to search my safe, which means that I am legally obligated to reveal the location of the key. In the case of the safe, if I refuse they'll just break it open. Strong encryption is not so easily broken so it may not be in my best interest to cooperate (whereas with the safe, it probably is). Personally I think encryption passwords should be protected by the 5th amendment, but I understand the logic in saying it's not.
smokeyj 16y ago
"It can hide negative things, but it merely provides automation for knowing something you refuse to tell." Encryption doesn't hide negative things, people hide negative things. Almost like guns don't kill people, people do.
- eru 16y ago
  Bullets do.
  - forensic 16y ago
    Loss of blood does.

citricsquid 16y ago

Let's say I have a hard drive full of illegal material, the police suspect it and have enough evidence to obtain a warrant, should I not then be obligated to show the contents of the hard drive? Much like a warrant for a home or business premises, why should it not be enforceable for digital things too?

lutorm 16y ago
But if you've written notes in your notebook that are comprehensible only to you, should you be compelled to explain to the authorities what they mean?
- oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago
  That was one of the jokes with the original wording. To cover encrypted, as well as enciphered, text it said something like "any clear text that has a hidden meaning". Which immediately made most of literature and theology illegal. You couldn't posses a poem or a bible unless you could explain to the police any hidden symbolism! Pictures of the police kicking down doors and shouting "you're nicked - now explain what the poet really meant by a host of yellow daffodils"
- patio11 16y ago
  This is talking about the Color of Bits, to quote a famous article on the subject of computer programmers discussing law about computers. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php Computer programmers think, aha, I can apply an arbitrary algorithmic translation to input A and get output B, and applying the law to B would be absurd, so therefore applying the law to A is also absurd. What they fail to realize is that bits have color -- a type of metadata that law algorithms can see and operate on which your computer algorithms are ignorant of. You think that encrypted contents of a computer harddrive is a logically equivalent operation to writing things in a form only comprehensible to oneself. This is only true if you're Colorblind.
  - mindslight 16y ago
    > You think that encrypted contents of a computer harddrive is a logically equivalent operation to writing things in a form only comprehensible to oneself. This entirely depends on whether you view your computer as an extension of your personal consciousness or as being an external service that you're interacting with. I'd rather a society where computers act as individuals' agents, rather than people being at the mercy of the computers.
  - ovi256 16y ago
    This color is what normal people call intention. Big file that is storing your n-th computed prime : innocuous. Big file that is storing pirated movie, even if called "n-th prime" : not OK.
gst 16y ago
"Much like a warrant for a home or business premises, why should it not be enforceable for digital things too?" In most (democratic) countries you do not have to cooperate with the police if they have a warrant. So they are allowed to search your house, they are allowed to break your lock/door, but you are not obligated to give them the key to your house. It's already the same with digital things: The police can get a warrant and is then allowed to try to crack my password. But I'm not obligated to give them the key.
- aplusbi 16y ago
  I'm not so sure that's true. I'm pretty sure that not allowing the police to search your house (given that they have a search warrant) is at the very least considered obstruction of justice (in the US). The difference is in the consequences of refusal. For a home search, it's usually in your best interest to open the door because it's really easy for the police to break it down. For an encrypted hard drive, it's nearly impossible to retrieve the data if you refuse to decrypt it.
oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago
Because it's more like the police being given a warrant for you to tell them everything you know. In most countries the police don't get a search warrant for your head - except where you are wearing an orange jumpsuit and having water poured down your throat.
- btilly 16y ago
  having water poured down your throat. If you're referring to waterboarding, the water goes in your nose and sinuses, not your throat. And the amount of water used is very small. The aim is not to drown the person. It is to trigger the drowning reflex. Which happens very fast when you are unable to move. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58 for a demonstration of how exactly it is done and what it looks like.
  - oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago
    In that case then my point about the difference between searching your property and searching your mind is totally refuted.

ax0n 16y ago

It is valid, and it is morally reprehensible. In the US, the Fifth Amendment protects us from such travesties.

oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago
Assuming your congressman visits you while you are being secretly held in a Syrian prison
gunzler 16y ago
Has there been a case where the Fifth Amendment protected someone from disclosing a password? I'm not sure that giving up your password is analogous to being forced to testify against yourself. Edit: Indeed there has been a case, and so far the Fifth Amendment is holding strong: http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2010/04/passwords-and-5th-amendment-privilege.html http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2010/04/passwords-and-5th-ame...
- praptak 16y ago
  "I'm not sure that giving up your password is analogous to being forced to testify against yourself." This one is tricky. It depends on ones beliefs about the true reasons for the anti-self-incrimination laws. If you believe (as I do) that it is a fundamental right to remain silent whenever it could make your situation worse, then it is indeed analogous. An opposing view is that not being forced to testify against oneself comes from other, more basic reasons. One of the "higher-order" reasons against forced self-incrimination might be that punishment for refusing self-incrimination gives incentive to false self-accusation. This one does not apply to forced revealing of passwords (you cannot falsely self-accuse in this case.)
aplusbi 16y ago
Not necessarily. For example, let's say I have a safe, and I've hidden the key. The police get a warrant to search my safe. I am then legally obligated to allow them to search my safe, which means that I am legally obligated to reveal the location of the key. In the case of the safe, if I refuse they'll just break it open. Strong encryption is not so easily broken so it may not be in my best interest to cooperate (whereas with the safe, it probably is). Personally I think encryption passwords should be protected by the 5th amendment, but I understand the logic in saying it's not.

smokeyj 16y ago

"It can hide negative things, but it merely provides automation for knowing something you refuse to tell." Encryption doesn't hide negative things, people hide negative things. Almost like guns don't kill people, people do.

eru 16y ago
Bullets do.
- forensic 16y ago
  Loss of blood does.