Man imprisoned for not giving police password.

[Delvis]

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.

Not really sure what you're getting at here.

He was pretty much named and shamed as a paedophile when he wasn't, all because there were images etc on his computer.

I find it hard how they can just prosecute someone when he must have been sat there smreaming his head off he wasn't guilty, and not following it up with another investigation of some kind (Granted, this is sometimes done for appeal purposes anyway)

Oh, and I can only presume the subject you mention is 'old'? To which I can understand why they probably gave hei lives up as there probably would have been no way out...If its a more recent case then god knows.

 

[Vonhelmet]

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.

A duress password (one that would open a perfectly innocent partition) would be a much safer bet than saying you forgot. Plausible deniability, etc. Are they really going to believe you have a fully encrypted computer for which you forgot the password? "Oh, office, you've siezed my computer just as I was about to start reformatting and re-installing as I'd forgotten my extremely long password". Good luck with that.

 

[Dolph]

Giving encryption keys is incriminating yourself though. Remaining silent cannot be construed to be an obstruction by any sane person.

Giving encryption keys isn't incriminating yourself at all. That they can decrypt the volume doesn't mean they will automatically find something. The comparison with a physical search again comes into play, opening the door to let them in isn't incriminating yourself

As for remaining silent not being construed as anything, that's not been the case for a very long time in the UK justice system. Even the police warn you that remaining silent can count against you when they arrest you

The key part that is needed is reasonable cause to require the password (which the current law may or may not give, I'm not sure), but not being able to request the password at all is not a reasonable protection of civil liberties because of the impact it can have on the civil liberties of others.

 

[Richie]

He was pretty much named and shamed as a paedophile when he wasn't, all because there were images etc on his computer.

This can be punishment enough without any official sentence IMHO.

I find it hard how they can just prosecute someone when he must have been sat there smreaming his head off he wasn't guilty, and not following it up with another investigation of some kind

And yet they were....

 

[steve-h]

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..

You would be quite happy to let people troll through your personal files?

 

[Rainmaker]

Why are people arguing over whether it'd be "chargeable" if they found pirated movies and software on his computer? Possession isn't a crime, it's a civil infringement. Only sharing is a crime, so even if the police found a hundred movies on his hdd, unless there's evidence he'd shared it for profit there's sod all they could (or would) do.

That said, +1 for this:

16 weeks for not giving out a password or a 16 year stint for child images? Decisions, Decisions...

 

[Energize]

Giving encryption keys isn't incriminating yourself at all. That they can decrypt the volume doesn't mean they will automatically find something. The comparison with a physical search again comes into play, opening the door to let them in isn't incriminating yourself

There is a clear difference between a warrant where you are not expected to do anything, and asking for keys which requires an action from the accused.

As for remaining silent not being construed as anything, that's not been the case for a very long time in the UK justice system. Even the police warn you that remaining silent can count against you when they arrest you

Yes and that's completely unacceptable too.

The key part that is needed is reasonable cause to require the password (which the current law may or may not give, I'm not sure), but not being able to request the password at all is not a reasonable protection of civil liberties because of the impact it can have on the civil liberties of others.

Someone not being prosecuted does not affect the civil liberties of others.

A duress password (one that would open a perfectly innocent partition) would be a much safer bet than saying you forgot. Plausible deniability, etc. Are they really going to believe you have a fully encrypted computer for which you forgot the password? "Oh, office, you've siezed my computer just as I was about to start reformatting and re-installing as I'd forgotten my extremely long password". Good luck with that.

Yeah, the forgotten password thing is not really believable for an encrypted hard drive. Interestingly though my boot loader once became corrupt so when I entered my password I could no longer access my hdd and had to restore the boot loader from a cd, this is something that could potentially happen in a case and what would happen then I wonder?

 

[Vonhelmet]

The key part that is needed is reasonable cause to require the password (which the current law may or may not give, I'm not sure), but not being able to request the password at all is not a reasonable protection of civil liberties because of the impact it can have on the civil liberties of others.

I had a quick look earlier (sections 49ff RIPA 2000) and it appears the conditions for demanding the password are basically that you have the right to demand the hardware on which the passworded files are located. So, if you are able to sieze the computer, you can demand any passwords needed to access files thereon.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Why are people arguing over whether it'd be "chargeable" if they found pirated movies and software on his computer? Possession isn't a crime, it's a civil infringement. Only sharing is a crime, so even if the police found a hundred movies on his hdd, unless there's evidence he'd shared it for profit there's sod all they could (or would) do.

Sharing is still a civil infringement. It's only a crime once it gets into the big leagues of making lots of cash from it.

 

[Dolph]

There is a clear difference between a warrant where you are not expected to do anything, and asking for keys which requires an action from the accused.

The alternative solution is simply to make encryption illegal...

Yes and that's completely unacceptable too.

Why?

Someone not being prosecuted does not affect the civil liberties of others.

Yes it does, unless the crime is truly victimless... Furthermore, the granting of effective immunity through encryption can certainly reduce the protection of others against misdeeds, which are part of civil liberties.

 

[Energize]

The alternative solution is simply to make encryption illegal...

Or just let it remain the way it did for the last 500 years...

Why?

Watch this video for a full explanation of why it puts innocent people in great danger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Yes it does, unless the crime is truly victimless... Furthermore, the granting of effective immunity through encryption can certainly reduce the protection of others against misdeeds, which are part of civil liberties.

Many crimes are truly victimless in this country. Aside from that though you cannot justify a law which puts innocent people in such danger on the grounds that someone may use encryption to hide their crimes.

 

[Dolph]

Or just let it remain the way it did for the last 500 years...

What, where encryption was fairly easy to break? You want to outlaw complex encryption?

Watch this video for a full explanation of why it puts innocent people in great danger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

You can't have an absolute right to silence without consequences, all rights come with consequences when exercised...

Many crimes are truly victimless in this country. Aside from that though you cannot justify a law which puts innocent people in such danger on the grounds that someone may use encryption to hide their crimes.

I agree with you about many crimes being victimless, and am on record here about many 'crimes' that I'd like to see abolished, however you cannot reasonably expect absolute freedom to hide your activities no matter what.

There needs to be reasonable protections built into the law, but the law needs to exist, otherwise it is entirely unreasonable.

 

[Demon]

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

Well when you are made aware that you get 16 weeks in jail, or you hand over access to your stuff to the police (not some random person), then it's your choice, I know what I'd do, even if I was 12..

And this ladies and gentlemen is exactly how Labour steered the UK towards a totalitarian state.

I don't think so, I believe that the more you try and give people privacy from the Police (not other individuals), if crime rates rise as a result of this, that's when draconian and totalitarian laws get passed that affect normal law-abiding citizens, and as a law abiding citizen, I don't want that.. Simple really.. It's a dynamic situation, when something needs to be done to address something not acceptable by society, something has to occur, either more draconian laws that affect people more in daily life, or give more powers to the police, who's job it is to uphold the laws..

You would be quite happy to let people troll through your personal files?

Only if it where the Police (not some random member of the public), and I could prove my innocence, yes.. why wouldn't I? If it was my neighbour, then no.. and luckily the law stops him doing that..


All I am saying is, that the more you can hide from the police, the more someone committing a crime can legally hide from the police, and things will have to be changed if that crime is deemed unacceptable by society. Simple really.. It's a by-product of modern societies, diminishing acceptabillity of crime and unncessary deaths.

 

[Energize]

What, where encryption was fairly easy to break? You want to outlaw complex encryption?

One time pads were impossible to break when implemented correctly.

You can't have an absolute right to silence without consequences, all rights come with consequences when exercised...

Works in the USA where in fact identical cases have come to court.

I agree with you about many crimes being victimless, and am on record here about many 'crimes' that I'd like to see abolished, however you cannot reasonably expect absolute freedom to hide your activities no matter what.

There needs to be reasonable protections built into the law, but the law needs to exist, otherwise it is entirely unreasonable.

I feel that it is unreasonable to be expected to assist the police in a case against yourself quite frankly.

I don't think so, I believe that the more you try and give people privacy from the Police (not other individuals), if crime rates rise, that's when draconian and totalitarian laws get passed that affect normal law-abiding citizens, and as a law abiding citizen, I don't want that.. Simple really..

That's a bit of a paradox. You have to implement totalitarian laws to prevent totalitarian laws.

 

[The Running Man]

but they cant charge you with remaining silent, they can just use that to lengthen your sentence where if you had opened your mouth you may have been able to reduce your sentence through helping the police?

for example, you can no comment an interview all the way. find out what evidence the police have, that way you cannot inciminate yourself.

sure you havent pleaded guilty which may have gone in your favour at the court. but they cant imprison you for a no comment interview. and thats basically what this is.

 

[G-MAN2004]

I'd hate them looking around on my computer, even if I haven't got anything to hide.

If they want to search your computer for child porn for example, but then find let's say, illegally downloaded music or movies, etc. can they arrest you for that?

 

[slylittlefox]

One time pads were impossible to break when implemented correctly.

They still are

 

[JBod]

I use TrueCrypt and a 25 char password at home. You don't actually have to encrypt an entire drive, you can encrypt a file (named anything - although a Windows doc that is 5GB might be a give away) and TrueCrypt will mount it as a drive.

Bloody good software.

I use it so if I am ever run over by a bus... well

I suggest browsing in google chrome and using the anonymous browsing option where all cookies and cache are cleared upon closing of the program.

Edit: Actually Firefox has that now I think as well. Privacy option?

 

[Energize]

They still are

Pedant.

One time pads are quite an interesting subject for this thread though, a form of encryption that is mathematically impossible to brute force thus providing perfect secrecy of data. The only problem is that it requires key files because the key is far too large to remember for anything other than a text message. This in itself provides a security problem of where to hide the pen drive.

 

[Dave M]

I'd hate them looking around on my computer, even if I haven't got anything to hide.

If they want to search your computer for child porn for example, but then find let's say, illegally downloaded music or movies, etc. can they arrest you for that?

They've got a warrant, gone into your home, wrecked it, confiscated your computer and god only knows what else.

You can be damned sure they'll bust you for anything they can to save looking completely stupid.