5 ms·

> 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

by 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 ago
But the email that was sent was a confession, so it was related to the open case and needed to be decrypted.
- SEMW 14y ago
  The 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 ago
    So 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 ago
      Patriot 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.
    - SEMW 14y ago
      Technically, no. "Selective enforcement" is when the authorities selectively choose whether to arrest and prosecute someone for breaking a law. That's not quite the case here, as there is no breach of the law unless & until a notice is sent and been refused.
      - alttab 14y ago
        Technically you are right. Essentially the difference is bullshit. They simply don't send a notice to people they want to selectively ignore.
        SEMW 14y ago
        Think of it like a stop-and-search power. It is too wide, but not choosing to stop and search everyone who they have the power to isn't really like selective enforcement - it's just a power they can choose to use if they feel they need to.
        alttab 14y ago
        In America that is a violation of 4th amendment rights. Now clearly this applies to UK, but we didn't fight the UK in a war for nothing.
        SEMW 14y ago
        I'm not very familiar with US law, but a few moments googling suggests that that's nonsense, and the standard the police must reach to conduct a stop and search in the US, for e.g. weapons ("reasonable suspicion", per Terry v Ohio), is essentially identical to that in the UK ("reasonable grounds for suspecting"). Though the UK statute does cover a slightly wider class of items - e.g. stolen property, rather than just guns as in the US. (It's true that the reasonable ground requirement was removed for certain areas by the Terrorism Act 2000. That provision was held incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR (our nearest equivalent of your 4th amendment), and has consequently been repealed). I'd also raise an eyebrow at your implication that the police are generally less prone to misuse of their powers in the US than the UK. I haven't researched it, but my impression was that in practice it's rather the other way round.

by SEMW 14y ago

reustle 14y ago

But the email that was sent was a confession, so it was related to the open case and needed to be decrypted.

SEMW 14y ago
The 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 ago
  So 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 ago
    Patriot 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.
  - SEMW 14y ago
    Technically, no. "Selective enforcement" is when the authorities selectively choose whether to arrest and prosecute someone for breaking a law. That's not quite the case here, as there is no breach of the law unless & until a notice is sent and been refused.
    - alttab 14y ago
      Technically you are right. Essentially the difference is bullshit. They simply don't send a notice to people they want to selectively ignore.
      - SEMW 14y ago
        Think of it like a stop-and-search power. It is too wide, but not choosing to stop and search everyone who they have the power to isn't really like selective enforcement - it's just a power they can choose to use if they feel they need to.
        alttab 14y ago
        In America that is a violation of 4th amendment rights. Now clearly this applies to UK, but we didn't fight the UK in a war for nothing.
        SEMW 14y ago
        I'm not very familiar with US law, but a few moments googling suggests that that's nonsense, and the standard the police must reach to conduct a stop and search in the US, for e.g. weapons ("reasonable suspicion", per Terry v Ohio), is essentially identical to that in the UK ("reasonable grounds for suspecting"). Though the UK statute does cover a slightly wider class of items - e.g. stolen property, rather than just guns as in the US. (It's true that the reasonable ground requirement was removed for certain areas by the Terrorism Act 2000. That provision was held incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR (our nearest equivalent of your 4th amendment), and has consequently been repealed). I'd also raise an eyebrow at your implication that the police are generally less prone to misuse of their powers in the US than the UK. I haven't researched it, but my impression was that in practice it's rather the other way round.