4 ms·
That might currently be the case for UK. Though it's quite reasonable to forget a password, especially in a high-stress situation of an interrogation. Extra hil
by oniTony 15y ago
That might currently be the case for UK. Though it's quite reasonable to forget a password, especially in a high-stress situation of an interrogation. Extra hilarity ensues when there is actually _no_ password for a TrueCrypt volume that _does not_ exist, and one fails to provide a working password.
That is, while one can prove that there is no physical key to a door on the person, there is no way to prove that one does not know the password.
- cheald 15y agoDoes the UK have an "innocent until proven guilty" provision? If so, wouldn't the onus be on the prosecution to prove that the accused does in fact know the password? You can't prove a universal negative, so the only way that becomes a prosecutable offense is if the initial assumption is of guilt rather than innocence, no?
- dredmorbius 15y agoYes, it does. That's where the US tradition comes from. It's originally derived from Roman law. It's contrasted with Napoleonic code, in which innocence must be proven. It is or was the basis of law in countries conquered under Napoleon, and/or their colonies (e.g.: Mexico).
- oniTony 15y agoNot sure, but there are cases of jailtime. > "Drage was convicted of failing to disclose an encryption key in September." [1] Though it says that he "failed" to disclose a password when asked. Not clear if he was unwilling or unable, and if such a distinction even matters. (It's unclear if the use of the term "refusal" was an actual action, or a journalistic spin. It might come down to needing to be very careful about word choice in such situations; "I would like to speak with my lawyer first" seems like the most appropriate answer). [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11479831 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11479831