Man imprisoned for not giving police password.

[Destination]

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.

This is NOT the right to silence.
If a court permits a search of someone property, house car, personal belongings, it means a search for the purpose of criminal investigation is authorised. If you have a safe in your house, you must open it, if you have a locked book you must open it.
Same with your computer files, you must open them.
If you refuse they can try to open them by other means, if they fail, and you refuse to open the item in question, you do time.

Its not bloody removal of rights. How else would anything be investigates if we could hide all our data with an encryption password and refuse to give it out.
Being ridiculous, if this paedofile isn't a pedo, he would have opened the file and not spent 16 weeks in jail. I find it hard to believe you are basing a morale arguement regarding right to silence and privacy on the case of a paedofile.

 

[Destination]

Could you provide more details please?

I was arrested and "investigated" because someone incorrectly (and anonymously!) pointed the finger at me. It's very easy to get someone arrested. If someone did that to you would you hold the same view?

Yeah, but is your computer full of pictures of kids, and other paedostuff?
Its not the same case. Being investigated for this is bloody awful if you are not-guilty as you no doubt know very well. Generally people jump fast and hard to clear their name, not hide the actual information the police are investigating.
If someone accuses you, you try to clear your name, not throw obstacles in the polices pathway such as ensuring they can't access information to clear you.


Must have been bloody awful to be accused in the wrong.

 

[gambitt]

on the case of a paedofile.

A what?

How else would anything be investigates if we could hide all our data with an encryption password and refuse to give it out.

That's their problem (or at least should be). Let him go, keep a close eye on him (legally). If he really is a paedophile then they'll catch him at it later on.

 

[Demon]

Why? Why not do the freedom thing of letting people do as they please ... and then trying to employ superior technology to get access, if the technology is not good enough then tough.


I find it odd, you always advocate freedoms in your posts, a position I agree with, but then you draw the line on encryption.
I view it as a game, whoever is better at it wins, so if police are better they get the stuff to put you away, if you are better then they don't

The fact you think crime should be viewed as a game is so untenable, no wonder people seem to think this case is about personal privacy and some degradation of freedom..

Because the state does have a duty to protect the rights of all individuals, not just those who have been victims of people who don't use encryption.



See, that's where we differ. It isn't a game, it's about the state not infringing people's rights unnecessarily while protecting the rights of others.

I fully oppose any attempts to restrict encryption usage, but that has to be balanced by rules to prevent encryption being used as a means to protect the right to infringe on the rights of others.

The ability to demand the handover of a password, in specific circumstances authorised by a court, is not an abuse of freedoms, but a necessary restriction to enable the law abiding to use encryption.

Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, sometimes that means that certain rules have to be put in place, that's the nature of things. It certainly isn't a 'game' where it's perfectly ok to infringe the rights of another individual if you can hide it.

I Agree, people don't realise if they follow their ideals to there conclusion, in any modern society, they end up exactly where they don't want to be, less 'freedom'..

 

[Dolph]

Why? Why not do the freedom thing of letting people do as they please ... and then trying to employ superior technology to get access, if the technology is not good enough then tough.

Because the state does have a duty to protect the rights of all individuals, not just those who have been victims of people who don't use encryption.

I find it odd, you always advocate freedoms in your posts, a position I agree with, but then you draw the line on encryption.
I view it as a game, whoever is better at it wins, so if police are better they get the stuff to put you away, if you are better then they don't

See, that's where we differ. It isn't a game, it's about the state not infringing people's rights unnecessarily while protecting the rights of others.

I fully oppose any attempts to restrict encryption usage, but that has to be balanced by rules to prevent encryption being used as a means to protect the right to infringe on the rights of others.

The ability to demand the handover of a password, in specific circumstances authorised by a court, is not an abuse of freedoms, but a necessary restriction to enable the law abiding to use encryption.

Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, sometimes that means that certain rules have to be put in place, that's the nature of things. It certainly isn't a 'game' where it's perfectly ok to infringe the rights of another individual if you can hide it.

 

[growse]

Then the next logical step is to restrict access to strong encryption, or to mandate backdoors...

Penalities for refusal to hand over keys are about the most liberal of acceptable solutions to the problems posed by easily available mass encryption...

1) State restriction of access to software/technology/tools to all just because the few can use them in criminal acts is, in my view, ridiculous. Predictable "lets ban cars as well!" analogy goes here.

2) As has already been pointed out, we don't have the ways and means of reliably differentiating between someone who's refusing to hand over the key, someone who's forgotten the key, and someone who's been set up by someone else and never had the key to begin with. Rather a 1000 guilty people walk free than 1 innocent be imprisoned etc.

Re: your point on balance - I agree, we need a balance. However, what's the ratio of innocent use of cryptography vs criminal use of cryptography? How much liberty do we give up in respect of that ratio? The court can ask for key handover, but should only convict on evidence that it's a blank refusal, rather than any other explanation.

At the end of the day, the police already appear to do a pretty good job catching child pornographers, even those that use cryptography. This is because people are always going to get caught by making mistakes, and not using the technology properly, even if the tech is infallible. If there's enough evidence to convict without access to encrypted files, then prosecute. If there isn't, wait until your suspect cocks up and gather more evidence. I'm comfortable with this approach because the alternatives are abhorrent.

 

[Tute]

I do think the guy is guilty of a crime - but not giving out his password doesn't automatically make the guy a paedophile. So people need to put down the pitchforks.

There's lots of crimes you could commit with a computer.

Is it acceptable to send him to prison for it? Well... if they didn't then you'd have lawbreakers encrypting their PCs and refusing to co-operate left, right, and centre. So I can understand the viewpoint in the eyes of the law. But at the same time, he does have a right to privacy.

It's very very dodgy ground in terms of wrong and right.

 

[gambitt]

Yeah, but is your computer full of pictures of kids, and other paedostuff?

No but they don't know that! I wouldn't have given up my passwords either unless it got to Crown Court since I lost all faith in the police when they tried to "sell me" a caution as an easy way out. He told me I wouldn't get a job when (not if, but WHEN) I got convicted. I did nothing wrong, they had no evidence and no confession. I told them to stuff it and they didn't pursue it further.

Must have been bloody awful to be accused in the wrong.

Could've been worse, could've been falsely accused of rape. Even if you're proved innocent it appears you're still treated differently after that.

 

[Masterdog]

At the end of the day, the police already appear to do a pretty good job catching child pornographers, even those that use cryptography. This is because people are always going to get caught by making mistakes, and not using the technology properly, even if the tech is infallible. If there's enough evidence to convict without access to encrypted files, then prosecute. If there isn't, wait until your suspect cocks up and gather more evidence. I'm comfortable with this approach because the alternatives are abhorrent.

What about a case where there's evidence to suggest an encrypted volume is in active use? Say, a link file pointing to a file on a now-disappeared Q: drive called 'my child stuff', created yesterday. Analysis of the registry shows no USB devices recently connected, and Truecrypt is installed and showing up in the 'Recent' folders.
I'd agree that we shouldn't be cavalier in the use of RIPA Part III. But I'd also argue that in many cases it is needed and well-used and that simply removing it would be counterproductive.

 

[Dolph]

1) State restriction of access to software/technology/tools to all just because the few can use them in criminal acts is, in my view, ridiculous. Predictable "lets ban cars as well!" analogy goes here.

I agree, absolutely, which is why the current rule makes perfect sense and is far more fair and just.

2) As has already been pointed out, we don't have the ways and means of reliably differentiating between someone who's refusing to hand over the key, someone who's forgotten the key, and someone who's been set up by someone else and never had the key to begin with. Rather a 1000 guilty people walk free than 1 innocent be imprisoned etc.

Which is why each case goes to court for a trial in front of peers. If there is reasonable doubt created by the defence, then they go free.

At the end of the day, the police already appear to do a pretty good job catching child pornographers, even those that use cryptography. This is because people are always going to get caught by making mistakes, and not using the technology properly, even if the tech is infallible. If there's enough evidence to convict without access to encrypted files, then prosecute. If there isn't, wait until your suspect cocks up and gather more evidence. I'm comfortable with this approach because the alternatives are abhorrent.

See, I disagree. You might as well say search warrants are abhorrent (and as has been pointed out, you have to open anything that is requested if asked. You don't have to tell them where things are, but if they find them, you have to open them).

 

[redshadows]

The quantum computer will be around before that pass is cracked.

Anyway, Refuse to give up the encryption password and you face an up to 2 years jail sentence for criminal cases and up to 5 years for cases involving national security, he got away with weeks.

RIPA LAW

I'm going to believe the worst of this dude, I have children and one the worst crimes would be what he's accused of, anyone accused would want to clear their name so bad yet this dude takes time instead, no real doubt in my mind, he is a Peter File.

 

[gambitt]

He got away with weeks, I'm going to believe the worst of this dude, I have children....

And this is why trial by jury is made a mockery of in cases like this.

"I have children" = "You're going to jail pal"

 

[Demon]

And this is why trial by jury is made a mockery of in cases like this.

"I have children" = "You're going to jail pal"

Having seen how amazingly prejudiced judges can be, I'd take my chances with a Jury anyday, especially if I can dictate that at least 50% didn't have children..

 

[redshadows]

And this is why trial by jury is made a mockery of in cases like this.

"I have children" = "You're going to jail pal"

What I mean it, before children I didn't even think of this crime, now I have them its a concern.

I'm telling you all it takes is one child "abuse" picture and I would send them down, no excuses.

Anyone up at court for it must have some heavy duty proof against them, the police don't just throw that case up without solid proof.

 

[gambitt]

What I mean it, before children I didn't even think of this crime, now I have them its a concern.

I'm telling you all it takes is one child "abuse" picture and I would send them down, no excuses.

Hang on, you just essentially said you would find him guilty as the situation is right now, not if the prosecution produced some actual evidence. Which is it?

 

[gambitt]

Anyone up at court for it must have some heavy duty proof against them, the police don't just throw that case up without solid proof.

I really hope you never get called up for jury service

"Well he's in court and the police don't do that for no reason so he must be guilty!"

So everyone who goes to court is guilty?

 

[redshadows]

Hang on, you just essentially said you would find him guilty as the situation is right now, not if the prosecution produced some actual evidence. Which is it?

I didn't essentially say it I am saying I would find him guilty.

Some one accuses you of that crime and you can proof them wrong then you proof them wrong you dont hide the proof knowing its "safe".

He's guilty as the day is long, something to hide yeah that he's guilty.

 

[Energize]

This is NOT the right to silence.
If a court permits a search of someone property, house car, personal belongings, it means a search for the purpose of criminal investigation is authorised. If you have a safe in your house, you must open it, if you have a locked book you must open it.
Same with your computer files, you must open them.
If you refuse they can try to open them by other means, if they fail, and you refuse to open the item in question, you do time.

And this is bad lawmaking.

Being ridiculous, if this paedofile isn't a pedo, he would have opened the file and not spent 16 weeks in jail. I find it hard to believe you are basing a morale arguement regarding right to silence and privacy on the case of a paedofile.

I think you'll that firstly, I argued against this law when it was first introduced, not because of a paedophile, and secondly there is nothing to suggest he is a paedophile.

 

[redshadows]

I think you'll that firstly, I argued against this law when it was first introduced, not because of a paedophile, and secondly there is nothing to suggest he is a paedophile.

You are joking?

Nothing to suggest he's a paedophile, its more than suggested, he was arrested in May as part of an investigation into child sexual abuse images, yet he refused to open his computer.

 

[gambitt]

I didn't essentially say it I am saying I would find him guilty.

Some one accuses you of that crime and you can proof them wrong then you proof them wrong you dont hide the proof knowing its "safe".

He's guilty as the day is long, something to hide yeah that he's guilty.

Oh my.