6 ms·
Yes. From the comments (credit to http://www.ktetch.co.uk/p/about-me.html http://www.ktetch.co.uk/p/about-me.html): "Funny thing about the RIPA act was that i
by aqme28 14y ago
Yes.
From the comments (credit to http://www.ktetch.co.uk/p/about-me.html http://www.ktetch.co.uk/p/about-me.html):
"Funny thing about the RIPA act was that in 1999, when the act was first discussed, civil Liberties group Stand decided to show the problem.
They sent an email to the Home Secretary (the minister for law and justice) containing a confession (source http://www.zdnet.com/surveillance-straw-petitioned-on-commerce-bill-controversy-3002073974/ http://www.zdnet.com/surveillance-straw-petitioned-on-commer... ). That confession was encrypted. Mr Straw had details to a crime in his posession, in an encypted file, and no way to decrypt it. He was, under the letter of the law, refusing to decrypt information relevent to a crime, and should therefore be charged under RIPA.
Guess who wasn’t charged?
Yes, the law doesn’t actually apply to you is you’re the Home Secretary. Who knew that those in government consider themselves above the laws they inflict on others."
- knowaveragejoe 14y agoAnd the reply to that: "This argument is ridiculous, since it’s missing the concept of intent. The Home Secretary clearly had no intent. That’s why he/she wasn’t charged."
- excuse-me 14y agoSo a law which you have to prove yourself innocent and can be applied to anyone - but the police get to decide who to apply it to. nope, can't see any problem with that.
- aqme28 14y agoAnd the reply to that is that there is no criteria requiring intent in this law.
- ta12121 14y agoAnd the reply to that: The UK law in question does not require intent (mens rea).
- refurb 14y agoIt appears that way. Mens rea is a legal concept applied to some of common law (although not always effectively). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#England EDIT: British common law divides up laws between those requiring intent and those that don't.
- SEMW 14y ago> Yes, the law doesn’t actually apply to you is you’re the Home Secretary. Well, no. The law doesn't say 'if you have encrypted information you have to decrypt it'. It says 'if you have encrypted information you have to decrypt it if the police (or someone else with statutory powers to detain your property) require you to'. The HS wasn't required to. You can't just email someone an encrypted file and key, snap your fingers, and have them be breaking the law. They have to actually refuse to comply with a notice. Yes, it's a stupid law, but this stunt doesn't actually show anything.
- reustle 14y agoBut the email that was sent was a confession, so it was related to the open case and needed to be decrypted.
- SEMW 14y agoThe law doesn't work like that. It doesn't matter how important it is - if the police haven't given you a notice to decrypt it, the statute isn't engaged.
- alttab 14y agoSo they are infringing on personal privacy, and practicing selective enforcement? If this came to America everyone would be brown from the big shit storm.
- mike-cardwell 14y agoPatriot Act
- Karunamon 14y ago> and practicing selective enforcement? This is really a terrible analogy for reasons laid out up above. The law says you must do X when asked. You have not been asked to do X, therefore you don't have to do X. Search for outrage elsewhere.
- 14y ago
- tzs 14y agoThat appears to be incorrect. Looking at the actual law, via the link provided on the submitted site (not just the section linked to, but also the surrounding sections), it looks like in the above situation you would be off the hook. See section 50(3)(b). Also relevant is 53(1) and 53(4).