3 ms·

It has to be in writing, and given a time-frame, but the police are authorised to write such a note, as is the border force, the NCA and I think HMRC as well te

It has to be in writing, and given a time-frame, but the police are authorised to write such a note, as is the border force, the NCA and I think HMRC as well technically. There are cases of people being prosecuted under it [1], [2], [3] [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/cage-muhammad-rabbani-anti-terrorism-law-passwords-refuse-police-london-heathrow-airport-a7742611.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/cage-muhammad-rabbani-ant... [2] https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/drug-suspect-jailed-refusing-give-11136172 https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/drug-sus... [3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/facebook-password-jail-police-lucy-mchugh-prison-sentence-latest-southampton-a8516471.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/facebook-passwor...

ivan_gammel 2y ago
In those cases people were subjects of investigation and there was a really good reason to demand the keys. It isn’t abuse of power by law enforcement and it’s very far from random border checks or stops where law enforcement was looking for something incriminating rather than conducting an investigation. And of course it is not the same as making encryption illegal (which would allow mass surveillance).
- zipy124 2y ago
  the first case was literally a border check at an airport, and in which no evidence was ever shown of him committing a crime other than this one. The others yes. The point is no court was required to compell him, no warrant was needed. The point is that the law allows for abuse of power by law enforcement not that it is currently being abused, do not move the goal-posts. Also if encryption itself is not illegal, but it is illegal to not decrypt something when asked, then encryption is effectively illegal, since you only need to convince a part of the state that you have suspicion to get it decrypted for you, a task which is really not that difficult in the modern day.
  - ivan_gammel 2y ago
    I looked deeper into the first case and it doesn’t look like a random border check. He was a political activist who got in touch with a member of terrorist organization, if I understand it correctly. There was a massive media campaign to present this case in a certain way, but at least two courts confirmed the legality of the demand to unlock the devices. The abuse of power means they could detain him indefinitely etc (as it happens in countries where abuse of power is common). But in this case he had the right to defend himself in the court and he used it. This is very far from the situation where encryption is illegal, all communications are transparent to the state and it can search for incriminating data without asking.

ivan_gammel 2y ago

In those cases people were subjects of investigation and there was a really good reason to demand the keys. It isn’t abuse of power by law enforcement and it’s very far from random border checks or stops where law enforcement was looking for something incriminating rather than conducting an investigation. And of course it is not the same as making encryption illegal (which would allow mass surveillance).

zipy124 2y ago
the first case was literally a border check at an airport, and in which no evidence was ever shown of him committing a crime other than this one. The others yes. The point is no court was required to compell him, no warrant was needed. The point is that the law allows for abuse of power by law enforcement not that it is currently being abused, do not move the goal-posts. Also if encryption itself is not illegal, but it is illegal to not decrypt something when asked, then encryption is effectively illegal, since you only need to convince a part of the state that you have suspicion to get it decrypted for you, a task which is really not that difficult in the modern day.
- ivan_gammel 2y ago
  I looked deeper into the first case and it doesn’t look like a random border check. He was a political activist who got in touch with a member of terrorist organization, if I understand it correctly. There was a massive media campaign to present this case in a certain way, but at least two courts confirmed the legality of the demand to unlock the devices. The abuse of power means they could detain him indefinitely etc (as it happens in countries where abuse of power is common). But in this case he had the right to defend himself in the court and he used it. This is very far from the situation where encryption is illegal, all communications are transparent to the state and it can search for incriminating data without asking.