Try exercising the right to remain silent as a reason to deny a search warrant...
The right to remain silent means you can't be made to incriminate yourself, not that you can obstruct a reasonable request.
Man imprisoned for not giving police password.
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
Try exercising the right to remain silent as a reason to deny a search warrant...
The right to remain silent means you can't be made to incriminate yourself, not that you can obstruct a reasonable request.
This is a real and worrying issue - I've seen it twice reported in the news lately where someones planted illegal content on someones PC then called the cops on them, if they had encrypted the content who knows how it would end up.
However thing's like that can be proven by created records of when the data was moved across etc...I'm surprised that previous case got as far as it did really.
why would that make a difference? Unless they had CCTV capturing the time people entered his office?
AES creates 256bit hashes. Good luck finding one thing that hashes to the desired result, let alone two.
The high profile issue with MD5 collisions doesn't apply to all hashing systems.
That would be very hit and miss - and if someones really determined and clued up they can adjust the low level filesystem data.
Alibi?
That's why I really don't like these laws.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/199087-...n-child-porn-allegations-jailed-for-12-years/
It's far too easy to frame someone for possession of images or these encryption key offences, they are effectively absolute liability offences because they require no mens rea to be proved.
Anyone can fake that kind of data though.
Giving encryption keys is incriminating yourself though. Remaining silent cannot be construed to be an obstruction by any sane person.
Last edited:
Because if thay can prove there whereabouts of when the data was created then its a good argument for saying you didnt create it?
Well yes, but i'm sure there would be other means of finding things like that out?
Am I the only one who is thinking that he shot himself in the foot by "refusing" to give the password, rather than "forgetting" it or "losing" it? After all, it's a 50-character password... It's not so unreasonable to assume that he never confined it to memory, and lost the piece of paper he had written it down on.
Would the law still apply to someone who had forgotten or lost their password?
Would the law still apply to someone who had forgotten or lost their password?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Potentially. Saying yo can't remember it isn't going to mean you won't be found guilty.
Technically there is a defence for forgetting your password, however in practice this would be impossible to prove, you are guilty until proven innocent in this regard.
I find this quite hard to believe...
Is there any way we can get a specific answer on this matter - I'm quite curious really... Would the CAB be able to shed light on the issue?
My home computer isn't encrypted, and my work computer has just standard University encryption, so it doesn't directly apply to me, but it all seems to be entirely counter to the way the legal system is defined.
I've no sympathy for him..
This sounds rather like the person who refuses to give sample when suspected of drink driving..
I've quite draconian, if you don't co-operate, treat them as guilty..
If you want a society where you expect crime to be policed, and yet think that you should be 100% entitled to your privacy from the people that police it, you really haven't thought it through very well, or actually don't want to be part of that society.
Yep, I do think that if you hide things like this, you are either guilty of something, or monumentally stupid..
This sounds rather like the person who refuses to give sample when suspected of drink driving..
I've quite draconian, if you don't co-operate, treat them as guilty..
If you want a society where you expect crime to be policed, and yet think that you should be 100% entitled to your privacy from the people that police it, you really haven't thought it through very well, or actually don't want to be part of that society.
Yep, I do think that if you hide things like this, you are either guilty of something, or monumentally stupid..
Last edited:
Problem is, it's probably something 'petty' so keeping it to himself out of safety sake...?
Could be something small like a couple of films or music, but you know, all adds up
Really? So, in a roundabout way (and yes I will put words in your mouth) you are saying the HTC unit (the infallible gods that they are) screwed this up ??
How many other times have they screwed things up ?? Dare I mention Operation Ore and the many people who killed themselves as they were being prosecuted for downloading this filth based on the reports of many different police HTC unit's.
Turned out that a LOT of these people were innocent but that did stop them....
Computer evidence is NOT infallible contrary to popular belief.
And this ladies and gentlemen is exactly how Labour steered the UK towards a totalitarian state.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
16 weeks for not giving out a password or a 16 year stint for child images? Decisions, Decisions...