Man imprisoned for not giving police password.

Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,962
Location
England
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11479831

A teenager has been jailed for 16 weeks after he refused to give police the password to his computer.

Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool, was arrested in May 2009 by police tackling child sexual exploitation.

Police seized his computer but could not access material on it as it had a 50-character encryption password.

Drage was convicted of failing to disclose an encryption key in September. He was sentenced at Preston Crown Court on Monday.

If anyone needed proof that the police don't have a magic back door into encryption programs then this is it. His only failure was not using hidden partitions.

I laughed at this part,
Officers are still trying to crack the code on the computer to examine its contents.

Good luck with that. :D

Remember don't forget your password, lest you are convicted under this draconian legislation!
 
Lol. So what happens after 16 weeks? Another 16 if he refuses again?

I'd hate to be in his situation. Even if I wasnt guilty, I'd still hate to have someone look around all my personal folders etc.
 
Lol. So what happens after 16 weeks? Another 16 if he refuses again?

I'd hate to be in his situation. Even if I wasnt guilty, I'd still hate to have someone look around all my personal folders etc.

Am sure the computer would be sent to a goverment agency, to try and crack the password. While he spends some more time at her majesty's pleasure ;)
 
Blimey, 19 seems young. Doesn't fit into the anoraked greasy 60 year old paedo stereotype at all. Daily Mail please tell me what to think!

I always assumed they'd have one of those Hollywood-type de-encryption software things.
 
You can be arrested for this? What?

RIPA Act Part III. It's a law that Labour introduced in their attempt to create a real life version of George Orwell's "1984" while simultaneously violating the ECHR and the long held British principle of the right to silence.
 
I can't see why you wouldn't give away the password unless you've really got something to hide.

This argument is so tired and so, so thin.

Yes, nobody should have any privacy because we should all be good boys and girls anyway.

I take it you invite strangers into your house during the week to have a look around? To have a quick ruffle through your drawers? Maybe open your mail and have a look?
 
There is a slight difference between 'nobody should have any privacy' and cooperating with a police investigation when you are being investigated for child sex offences.

If it were me being investigated, i'd just let them have a look - what good is refusing going to do if you're innocent?
 
So either he's a martyr, or he does genuinely have something worth hiding from the police. It doesn't make it right, but either he's proving a point or he is hidin something, otherwise surely he'd let them in to prove his innocence of whatever they are looking for in the first place. That being said, if they want to get in then the risk is that they can trawl everything and can probably find something to use against him if they really want to.

I'd be curious to know what sort of evidence is needed for these sorts of things. If it was a physical building, you'd need sufficient proof of something to get a warrant. However, this RIPA stuff seems to give them power to demand a key without that sort of proof, and then give punishments as though a warrant was being refused. And if it is comparable to a warrant, is there are any restriction on what they can and can't look for?

The law seems much too loose and wide reaching.
 
This argument is so tired and so, so thin.

Yes, nobody should have any privacy because we should all be good boys and girls anyway.

I take it you invite strangers into your house during the week to have a look around? To have a quick ruffle through your drawers? Maybe open your mail and have a look?

While I partialy agree... imagine you had the choice? Go to jail and have it on your record, or give the police your password. Seems like a strange choice unless you do have something to hide.
 
I can't see why you wouldn't give away the password unless you've really got something to hide.

Quite possibly true, however without the proof he's been doing something wrong they can't get him for that, only not providing the password.

It's a bit like when drunk drivers refuse to give a sample when caught, you can't do them for drink driving but can for refusing to give a sample. I know of one user on here (forget who it was now!) who refused to give a sample because he knew he was so far over the limit the punishment would be far worse than just not giving them one.
 
Back
Top Bottom