2 ms·
It's interesting to see the responses on /. compared to here. The thing is were fogetting (or they're forgetting) is that this is, what, 2 people prosecuted ou
by ErrantX 17y ago
It's interesting to see the responses on /. compared to here.
The thing is were fogetting (or they're forgetting) is that this is, what, 2 people prosecuted out of 11 refusals over the course of 1 year. That's maybe 0.001% (this is a typo - I meant 0.01%, see below) of all the encrypted material investigated in a year (very rough figures, I only have a tiny portion of the data: it could be lower still).
I dont think it's "panties in a twist" material yet :)
- streety 17y agoAre you really suggesting the police investigate 200000 - 1.1M people a year who are using encryption to protect their secrets?
- ErrantX 17y agoah, hmm. Slight typo - one too many 0's sorry. I meant 0.01%. 20,000 was the rough estimate I constructed :)
- pmichaud 17y agoSo we shouldn't worry because the secret police don't have the manpower to prosecute "that many" of us yet? Seriously?
- ErrantX 17y agowell that only works if this was the most they COULD prosecute. Im fairly sure in a year a few hundred wouldnt be too much difficulty (considering the sheer number of computer related prosecutions anyway). Anyway my main point was that the other 99.99% you generally dont need the access keys for: either there is sufficient evidence elsewhere, or not enough data/evidence to warrant a (uh) warrant [this one being the main factor] or you can break throuhg the encryption in some way. Secret Police?