Man imprisoned for not giving police password.

vonhelmet said:
Come on, it's lawyers and privileged discussion, not the Catholic church and confession.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it is a cornerstone of our justice system.
The lawyer is there to fight your side, no matter what you have done.

It is a huge conflict if he has to inform the police, as it may mean he cannot give you the best advice due to you not being able to tell him everything.
 
vonhelmet said:
Well, as I said was back in the early pages of this thread, properly coded strong encryption methods are as good as unbreakable, so the issue then becomes whether you allow people to use them.
Click to expand...

Unbreakable only as far as we know right now, they are still based on maths ... and someone may come up with a new mathematical method to defeat them.
 
rypt said:
Yes, but it is a cornerstone of our justice system.
The lawyer is there to fight your side, no matter what you have done.

It is a huge conflict if he has to inform the police, as it may mean he cannot give you the best advice due to you not being able to tell him everything.
Click to expand...

I know, I was just making a joke about the sanctity of the confessional. I don't honestly know how far legal privilege extends in these cases, but it sounds like it goes a long way.
 
rypt said:
Unbreakable only as far as we know right now, they are still based on maths ... and someone may come up with a new mathematical method to defeat them.
Click to expand...

True, but it would be an absolutely epic breakthrough. I'm not going to say it can't be done, but it would be absolutely amazing if someone pulled it off.
 
vonhelmet said:
True, but it would be an absolutely epic breakthrough. I'm not going to say it can't be done, but it would be absolutely amazing if someone pulled it off.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly some recent maths discovery has left several encryption methods vulnerable.
Quantum computing will leave several more vulnerable.
 
rypt said:
If I remember correctly some recent maths discovery has left several encryption methods vulnerable.
Click to expand...

They discovered a means of generating hash collisions with MD5, but it's not really relevant for this application. I'm not aware of other recent failures, but I've not been reading slashdot so much lately.

rypt said:
Quantum computing will leave several more vulnerable.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but it's a long way off, and the way people talk about it you'd think it could raise the dead, so I'll just wait and see on that front.
 
rypt said:
If I remember correctly some recent maths discovery has left several encryption methods vulnerable.
Quantum computing will leave several more vulnerable.
Click to expand...

Quantum computing is unlikely to significantly affect private-key block cipher style stuff, it's main target will be mathmatical problems in public key systems.

I think the discovery you are talking about is the potential p=np proof, which turned out to be invalid.
 
vonhelmet said:
I know, I was just making a joke about the sanctity of the confessional. I don't honestly know how far legal privilege extends in these cases, but it sounds like it goes a long way.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain for lawyers, legal professional privilege can only be waived by the client irrespective of what it's about.
 
Demon said:
No, it's not really wrong, it's just irrational.
Click to expand...

Not really.

I'm sure that you would not feel comfortable with Government-monitored telescreens in every room of your house, and regular checks by authorities of everything in your life (1984-style). So from there downwards, it's just a matter of degrees.

Try to understand that different people have different perspectives on privacy. This is inevitable in a society of free-thinking individuals, and is the way that it should be. The law (in this country at least) seeks to balance the need to protect its citizens against the right to privacy. The boundaries between the two are ever changing, and are always open to debate as technology changes and the expectations of society evolve. To simply assume that your personal viewpoint is inherently correct, and to label any other perspectives as "irrational" or "tinfoil hat" is rather naive and quite short sighted.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
I know of at least two solicitors / runners I have dealt with on a regular basis who would not and as there is no recording made of the consultation and the consultation notes are not disclosable then no issue would become of it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
I'm talking from a data protection issue and where professionals should and give information up.
In my own department we would have to give up the things I mentioned and also in the case of a Counselor.

What if the Solicitor heard he was going to commit terrorism?
Is he under oath to still keep that quiet?
 
dmpoole said:
What if the Solicitor heard he was going to commit terrorism?
Is he under oath to still keep that quiet?
Click to expand...

As i understand it, if a lawyer is made aware crime/fraud is to be committed then they should disclose.

If, in the course of giving legal advice the lawyer is made aware of the client having committed a terrorist event then they should not disclose as it's covered by privilege.

Edit:

Overriding privilege

By statute
LPP is a fundamental human right; Parliament can of course legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. However, the House of Lords in Morgan Grenfell stressed that a parliamentary intention to override rights, such as LPP, must be expressly stated in the statute or appear by necessary implication.24

Public duty
Unlike the position in relation to confidential material (see above), there is no public interest exception to LPP. It is therefore prima facie unlawful for a solicitor to disclose a communication if to do so would involve a breach of LPP.

From: http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/downloads/dynamic/practicenote_terrorismact2000.pdf
 
Last edited:
Brian8bit said:
I encrypt. And no, I wouldn't give the cops my password either. But then I don't do anything for the cops to ever require it.
Click to expand...

If some nasty neighbour (or enemy of yours), gave an anonymous tip stating, "Brian8bit invited me to his house and showed me some nasty images of child porn. He lives at this address. Please investigate this. When I saw them, it almost turned my stomach over."

When the Police come knocking on your door asking you for your password, what will you do?
 
dmpoole said:
What if the Solicitor heard he was going to commit terrorism?
Is he under oath to still keep that quiet?
Click to expand...

There is a section of the Terrorism Act where such information if known should be disclosed but I don't know if such information would have to be disclosed with counsel / client legal privilege.

Will have to do a bit of homework on that one unless any solicitors here can shed any light.
 
Pudney@work said:
As i understand it, if a lawyer is made aware crime/fraud is to be committed then they should disclose.

If, in the course of giving legal advice the lawyer is made aware of the client having committed a terrorist event then they should not disclose as it's covered by privilege.
Click to expand...

Surely, what you have written is the opposite of what is true?

Just to clarify, what you have written is that:
1. if I fraudulently acquire £50 and I admit this to my solicitor, the solicitor must dob me in.
2. if I have committed a major terrorist act, killing 5 people in the process and admit this to my solicitor, my solicitor is not legally obliged to inform any other authorities about my admission.

Have I got this correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom