Slashdot Mirror

FYI the United Kingdom is, in fact, a member of the EU which has enacted enabling legistlation effective as of 1998.

As an aside, I note that you linked to opsi.gov.uk, which has simply redirected to the new legislation.gov.uk for some time now, which makes me wonder where you found that link... I know it's a bit petty of me, but there's really "no excuse for being unaware" of the change and still "presenting yourself as someone qualified to analyze the matter...".

Also, legislation only has the one t in it.

Data isn't protected unless it has some merit of it's own. Lists are generally not protected.

The European Union disagrees with you, since directive Directive 96/9/EC created a sui generis database protection in the mid 90s.

FYI the United Kingdom is, in fact, a member of the EU which has enacted enabling legistlation effective as of 1998.

Why do you feel qualified to evaluate the strength of the case, when you apparently have no actual knowledge of the law in the UK? The European database protection right is neither new nor particularly obscure. There's no excuse for being unaware of it yet presenting yourself as someone qualified to analyze the matter....

"Delivered incorrectly" is different from "addressed incorrectly". One is an error of the Postal Service, the other is an error of the sender.

Either way, as confirmed in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000:

It is an offence to open, destroy, hide or delay any post that is addressed to someone else. Post cannot be opened if it is to the addressee's detriment and without reasonable excuse. Reasonable excuse is not defined by the Act.

An example of a potential conflict is if a landlord opens a previous tenant's post in order to trace them. Post cannot be opened if someone knows or reasonably suspects the post has been incorrectly delivered.

It is also an offence to divert someone's post in order to intentionally delay them from receiving it. An example of this could be where a person re-posts documents or cheques to delay the addressee from acting upon them.

It's not "delivered incorrectly" if the address is right (your house) but the contents are wrong (meant for your neighbor)... That's basically what is going on here. While it could easily be argued that they acted with intent (since they certainly don't have a business called Kelllogggs that they need to send/receive email for) it is still within the bounds of "we read it because we were the intended recipient"... Those boilerplates are about as useful as walking around with a t-shirt saying "you just read this now you owe me twenty quid".

While I'll agree the 'envelope' was correct - it was delivered to the correct address; the person who it was delivered to was not the recipient.

If this was applied to mail, not only would it be that they 'know or suspect to have been delivered incorrectly', they are certainly acting with intent. It would be hard to claim they didn't "know or suspect" these mails were not meant for them!

Sure, the boilerplate is meaningless; but to take the postal analogy further - this would be like me deliberately opening a company with a similar name in a similar road to another; with the sole reason of opening their post. It would take a serious stretch of the imagination to say this has been delivered 'correctly', and pretty obvious that it should be unlawful.

This is sure to have happened in the past, I'm sure someone somewhere has mismatched names with addresses on a mail merge. So if I received a bank statement, with your name but my address on it - would you say it was legal for me to open it?

In any case, as confirmed in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000:

It is an offence to open, destroy, hide or delay any post that is addressed to someone else. Post cannot be opened if it is to the addressee's detriment and without reasonable excuse. Reasonable excuse is not defined by the Act.

An example of a potential conflict is if a landlord opens a previous tenant's post in order to trace them. Post cannot be opened if someone knows or reasonably suspects the post has been incorrectly delivered.

It is also an offence to divert someone's post in order to intentionally delay them from receiving it. An example of this could be where a person re-posts documents or cheques to delay the addressee from acting upon them.

The bales of hay one is a real law. Introduced in the London Hackney Carriage Act 1831 s.51, repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1976.

What the law actually stated was that nobody could "feed the horses of or belonging to any hackney carriage in any street, road or common passage, save only with corn out of a bag, or with hay which he shall hold or deliver with his hands".

Actually, Article 2 of the original European Convention makes allowances for the death penalty, as can be seen where it is reproduced in the human rights act. The Sixth protocol (at the bottom of the page) was agreed later, adding abolition of the death penalty in wartime. Finally the thirteenth protocol finished it off. Whether it was closed down steadily due to initial oversight or to weaken opposition is another matter...

I hope that UK teenagers don't do that, because with the crazy laws the UK now has, they will be up on paedophile (pedophile) charges and get a criminal record.... even if they are married to each other but under 18. It's not like there have never been cases taken to court over this law.

I think you need to make sure you're aware of the specifics before you say such things - the English law specifically makes an exception for people who are married. See the Sexual Offences Act 2003 - Section 45.

-- Pete.

Am I incorrect in thinking that it does require "Reasonable Suspicion" - random searches are not permitted (apart from under terrorism legislation)?

I think the key phrase there is "apart from under terrorism legislation". When you've got stop and search powers that can be used "whether or not the constable has grounds for suspecting" anything at all (from Section 45(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 200 - note the year) it doesn't really matter if other laws require suspicion. Of course, in theory the police officer needs to have authorisation for each specific area where this takes place (either written or oral confirmed in writing), which runs out after 28 days, but that authorisation (from a senior police officer) can be renewed, so I think the entirety of Greater London has been an "area of high terrorist risk" or whatever for years.

Partly. The Criminal Justice Act 1994 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/ukpga_19940033_en_7#pt4-pb2-l1g60 provides for example in s60 the right to temporarily search anyone or any vehicle without suspicion if violent disorder is anticipated. The main search laws etc are in PACE, and these generally do require reasonable grounds. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871558

If you want to check, the relevant bit of law is Section 13A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended by the The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003) which states:

(2) ... copyright expires—

(a) at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the recording is made, or

(b) if it is released before the end of that period, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is released, or

(c) if during that period the recording is not published but is made available to the public by being played in public or communicated to the public, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,

While various minor Acts (mainly based on EU directives or international treaties) have extended the duration of written works to life+70 from the life+50 in the original Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, so far, duration of copyright on sound recordings has escaped largely untouched. Of course, it is still a long way from the original 14+14 years, but it is something.

From the UK Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006:

48 Interception and disclosure of messages

(1) A person commits an offence if, otherwise than under the authority of a designated person--

(a) he uses wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of a message (whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not) of which neither he nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient, or

(b) he discloses information as to the contents, sender or addressee of such a message.

(2) A person commits an offence under this section consisting in the disclosure of information only if the information disclosed by him is information that would not have come to his knowledge but for the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus by him or by another person.

-- http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060036_en_5#pt2-ch5-pb2-l1g48

The relevant legislation. Sections 4 and 5 are the relevant ones.

The law I'm thinking of is actually written rather carefully. It does not criminalise all networking or monitoring broadcasts that would normally be intended for public use. It does criminalise either intentionally obtaining certain types of information or disclosing such information even if it was obtained unintentionally.

I suspect even Google's lawyers would have difficulty arguing that employees of one of the most high-tech companies in the world, driving around in a specially equipped vehicle, with the goal of monitoring and recording transmissions from other people's wireless networks, storing personal messages or other sensitive information, did not breach the "intentionally obtaining" part of the Act.

Interestingly, the sale of goods act would cover open source software - even if the price was zero.

I am not a lawyer, but I fail to see why. From the Sale of Goods Act 1979, 2(1):

A contract of sale of goods is a contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price.

I doubt £0 would constitute "consideration" in this context.

As far as I can see, the most significant consequences of this ruling are that:

• software can be covered by consumer protection legislation;
• those selling software cannot escape responsibility for the related obligations just by putting small print in a contract of adhesion; and
• liability can exceed the original cost of the software where the damages are greater.

This is particularly interesting because if EULAs do have any legal standing at all here, then they are probably a contract of adhesion based on technicalities about copyright.

I imagine some lawyers are running around looking nervous at quite a few big software companies this morning. All those DRM systems, for example, just became a bit of a liability: if I install a game and it simply doesn't work, then all those arguments about not returning opened products for a refund just became untenable. (Take note, Ubisoft and games shops.) And if you play silly wotsits on someone's computer to try to install your software's copy protection system and you get it wrong and damage their system, $DEITY help you, because it looks like the courts aren't going to. (Take note Sony, Adobe, et al.)

Of course, we'd have to see the complete context before reading too much into this case, because it sounds like the sale was made following significant contact between the parties and specific claims by the sellers, which might or might not still be the case with typical off-the-shelf or preinstalled software.

The problem stated is that of determining what the current version is.

Unfortunately I can't read Swedish so I can't comment on your link but here's a recent example of the problem from the UK.

This section of the controversial Digital Economy Act adds new text to this section of the Communications Act 2003. As far as I am aware, there is nowhere I can find a copy of the Communications Act after the changes from later legislation have been applied. This means that to ensure I am compliant with the law, I need to be aware of the original Communications Act and every subsequent act which changes it.

The problem stated is that of determining what the current version is.

Unfortunately I can't read Swedish so I can't comment on your link but here's a recent example of the problem from the UK.

This section of the controversial Digital Economy Act adds new text to this section of the Communications Act 2003. As far as I am aware, there is nowhere I can find a copy of the Communications Act after the changes from later legislation have been applied. This means that to ensure I am compliant with the law, I need to be aware of the original Communications Act and every subsequent act which changes it.

Just looking through the list, I'm not particularly excited by their loop-holes.

• Ok, I'll accept that this is quite cunning; however, it is basically just shifting the burden. It means that rather than needing n strikes, you'll need 2n-1 strikes (assuming two people capable of signing the subscriber agreement). They will all still go on the list of alleged infringements and any allegations (from what I remember of the debates; can't find the Hansard quote) stay with you for some time, even if you switch ISP. - Ineffective
• I'm a little worried by becoming a "communications provider". There are over 400 sections of the Communications Act 2003 most of which seems to be aimed at laying down rules and laws for communications providers. I haven't read this Act thoroughly, but I think this will just end up placing a huge burden on the unsubscriber (like the provisions on Data Retention, or registering with the Information Commissioner - that sort of thing). Even then, it could be argued that if you are a communications provider, then you must provide the service to some sort of subscriber (even if it is just you) so then you become the target of all the initial obligations and liable for carrying them out. - Could cause a lot of trouble
• This hinges on the definition of "allocation". Not sure how well this would hold up in Court (when the ISP is taken to court for not carrying out its obligations). However, it is a good example of what happens when you have an Act "debated" only briefly by people who mostly don't understand the context. - Possible, but might not hold up.
• Comments to the second point apply here as well. Could work, but will likely be highly problematic for the unsubscriber. Also, this would only apply to some users, not all. - Problematic and limited
• This was discussed in the Lords (should be quotes somewhere in Hansard) and there was an idea that the copyright notice count should follow you from one ISP to another. It's not explicit in the Act (from what I can see), but could be in the Code. It probably will be now. - Probably covered
• This seems to hinge on the definition of an ISP. The definition is quite loose, and the three criteria are that they have subscribers (also defined quite loosely), they mainly or entirely provide access to the Internet and allocate IP addresses. The first and third have already been discussed, but the second might work; you'd need to find another primary business for the ISP - i.e. they sell invisible pink unicorns, but you get an Internet connection free with every monthly sale. - Could work
• Well, this one should be a given. If they receive an invalid notice, they should delete it (or if I get my way, take action against whoever sent it). Of course, what makes it valid will be in the Code. The main criteria would be ensuring the evidence of infringement was up to standards (standards that aren't defined yet) and that whoever sent the notice actually owns the copyright. Both of these could require a lot of effort from the ISP to check. Also, if the ISP doesn't comply with the DEA, under Section 14 (2) they can be fined up to £250,000. This isn't something small ISPs are likely to mess with. Not really a loop-hole

So, while I am impressed that at least one ISP has thoroughly read through the Act and is trying to work against it, I think their loop-holes aren't going to be that good in practice (with the one exception). Still, their draft Code seems to have highlighted many of the key points, and I hope that they will get heavily involved with the Code-drafting process.

The best way to get around this sort of thing is to either fight for repealing the Act (so vote Pirate or Green - while the Lib Dems have said they want to repeal it, that's due to the process by which it was passed, they still seem mostly in favour of the content) or making sure that the Code approved

Drawings of schoolgirls getting raped.

There's quite a difference. Unless you think they abduct actual schoolgirls, and octopuses, to use them as models.

In Japan, maybe but not in some places - such as the UK as of a couple of weeks ago.*

Well, the tentacles part doesn't matter - you wouldn't get done for having images of bestiality (I think) assuming it was a drawing, but you could still get locked up for 3 years and have your life destroyed.

*Assuming the schoolgirls are under-18 or that the "impression conveyed" is that they are under-18, or that the "predominant impression conveyed" is that they are under-18 "despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child".

The Sale of Goods Act can be found here.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1979/cukpga_19790054_en_1

Where does it say you can return anything for any reason? I can't find it.

The Distance Selling Regulations can be found here.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2000/20002334.htm

Sections 10 and 11 say you can return within 7 days. Section 13 says you can't return if it is software.

The Sale of Goods Act can be found here.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1979/cukpga_19790054_en_1

Where does it say you can return anything for any reason? I can't find it.

The Distance Selling Regulations can be found here.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2000/20002334.htm

Sections 10 and 11 say you can return within 7 days. Section 13 says you can't return if it is software.

Minor correction: Amazon chose to pay out, they didn't have to.

Now, it's possible that the court would've held Amazon liable anyway, but it hasn't come to that yet, and they may just as well have informed the customer that their case was with Sony instead.

In the UK the blame lies with Amazon. If Amazon want to sue Sony that's up to them, but the Amazon customer doesn't need to deal with Sony.

Read The Sale of Goods Act 1979 section 48A: "the buyer has the right ... to require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods to the buyer by an appropriate amount". Everything in those sections refers to the Buyer and Seller, not the manufacturer.

The term in English & Welsh law is "substantial":
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_10

It isn't an exact percentage, because the law is designed to be interpreted on a case by case basis.

A discussion of "different types of substantial" which might be worth a read is here:
http://www.ipit-update.com/copy15.htm

Remember that sexism, by definition, can only be against women and that it's impossible for women to be sexist against men

Actually, under UK law it can be either way round. Section 2 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 states "Section 1, and the provisions of Parts II and III relating to sex discrimination against women, are to be read as applying equally to the treatment of men, and for that purpose shall have effect with such modifications as are requisite".

This doesn't apply in the UK.

Yes, it does. Even in the UK, you have the right to remain silent.

-jcr

You do not have the right to remain silent in the UK, not since the 80s. It was eliminated by the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. And the fact that it was easily eliminated in a part of the UK means it's not a right at all, at least not as Americans would understand the term.

One of the pieces of US legislation I'm most envious of, as an European is FOIA (the time span should be considerably shorter, but over here, governments are free to keep things secret forever).

That's not entirely true; the UK is both a member state and has a Freedom of Information Act, though I confess I've neither read ours nor the US one, so can't compare the two. More details on the UK one are available on the OPSI website.

You shouldn't believe everything you read in hysterical right wing media. The British government passed 27 laws in 2009. So that's about one law every 2 weeks, not one a day.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/SearchResults.aspx?TYPE=QS&Title=&Year=2009&Number=&LegType=Act+(UK+Public+General)

Your search misses these results: http://opsi.gov.uk/si/si-2009-index

All right, it would be hard to describe _all_ 3,500 of them as laws (many are just administrative orders), but _some_ of them are, e.g. no 6 (The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2009, which among other things amends the definition of the offence of disturbing a wild animal in a conservation area). In some cases it's hard to tell the difference between an adminstrative order and a law. Is an order requiring a body (with the legal power to regulate RF communications) to designate a particular RF band for a particular purpose a law or not? Probably, yes: it affects what actions are legal for a certain group of people (i.e. those authorised to use the communication system that it makes provision for).

Well, it certainly meets the definition of 'terrorism' in the UK, as defined by the Terrorism Act 2000. "'terrorism' means the use or threat of action where... the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. Action falls within this subsection if it... is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system"

What is considered "terrorism-related"?

Here's some information linked from the reporting page:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Counterterrorism/DG_183993

Scaring large groups of the population by threatening to report them for a terrorism-related fate of certain doom could in itself be considered an act of terrorism...

That's quite a stretch. If you want an actual guideline of terrorism according to UK law, the following is a link to the full text of the Terrorism Act 2000 (or TACT), and right up the top, we have a definition:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_2#pt1-l1g1

Scaring people is not enough. It actually has to be a threat.

Well actually, they've already done that in the UK, if a trial is too complicated and will go on for too long, the judge can hold the trial without a jury and just decide on the verdict himself. It's under Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Section 44 allows for trials without jury where the police can't afford to protect the jury from tampering/intimidation.

Nonsense. I'm not sure what the exact name of the charge is - news reports of the only conviction I've heard of say "charged with ... offences under section 53 of RIPA" - but it would be something like "Failing to comply with a notice requiring disclosure of encrypted information".

It is a scam for the artist, but if you read TFA, you will see that it says "give Larsen 15 percent of any increase in value of the artwork".

Of course, this is in _addition_ to the stuff he'll be able to rake in anyway.

We French have a law (roughly called "IT and privacy) that guarantees us the right to see and amend any data about us retained in computer form. I'm of half a mind to request my file from Google, for curiosity's sake.

Section 7 of the UK's Data Protection Act covers something similar but for any data - not just that held in digital form:

(1)....an individual is entitled—

1. (a) to be informed by any data controller whether personal data of which that individual is the data subject are being processed by or on behalf of that data controller,
2. (b) if that is the case, to be given by the data controller a description of—
   1. (i) the personal data of which that individual is the data subject....
3. (c) to have communicated to him in an intelligible form—
   1. (i) the information constituting any personal data of which that individual is the data subject, and
   2. (ii) any information available to the data controller as to the source of those data,

Effectively this means that any individual is able to have any data on them disclosed to them and there are further provisions for having the data corrected if it is inaccurate. However, the data controller responsible is entitled to charge for providing the data, (possibly planning to prevent mass-spamming of requests). All data controllers are required to be registered with the Information Commissioner's Office which has a database of all the data controllers (that is publicly searchable). That's also the reason why, at least in the UK, if somewhere as CCTV cameras they are legally obliged to have a large sign saying so and making it clear who has all the recordings etc.. The Data Protection Act is an impressively complicated piece of legislation, though, so there are lots of other requirements and get-outs (it consists of 8 pages of raw law and 12 pages of schedules).

I can't speak for the specific legislation covering this, but it's not uncommon for UK laws to exempt the police and security services from laws. This is from the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003:

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not make unlawful anything done by, or on behalf of, law enforcement agencies or any of the intelligence services -

(a) in the interests of national security; or

(b) for the purpose of the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence, or the conduct of a prosecution,

Unless you can point out, under which law such an action is legal, my point still stands.

Be glad to!

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980023_en_1

Both 43B (1) (a) and (b) are applicable.

I can only reiterate my wish for actual facts,

Here you go.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt

The fact of conspiracy is evidenced. The fact of commission is currently being researched.

Which requirements of the FOIA have they supposedly been trying to circumvent?

The emails referenced in the above link are subject to FOIA requests. Deleting them is a felony.

Even if it were a crime, you seem to claim that the persons in questions are the perpetrators

Given the title of the leaked file, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the whistleblower was tasked with complying with an FOIA request, and when that request was denied leaked the information compiled to comply with it anyways. And quite rightly so, both as a matter of honour and a matter of law.

> Actually, it was neither.

Strangely enough, the BBC refers to i stolen. The police has been informed and is investigating. Unless you can point out, under which law such an action is legal, my point still stands.

> In fact, *not* revealing it would be a crime!

Hardly, there is no legal requirement to publish ones personal communication, unless there is a court order.

> There is quite clear evidence [...]

I can only reiterate my wish for actual facts, instead of half-baked assertion.

> evade the requirements of the FOIA

Which requirements of the FOIA have they supposedly been trying to circumvent?

> that is a felonious activity, to conceal your knowledge of it is the crime of misprision.

The FOIA is a law pertaining the legal rights of a person in relation to a public authority. I am intrigued, where you derive the legal framework from for judging a person working there. Enlighten me, by pointing out the name of the passed law, and the section.

Even if it were a crime, you seem to claim that the persons in questions are the perpetrators, which in turn would make not publishing it not a crime. The right against self-incrimination is fairly well established.

For info, "CDPA" is this:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_1

Roughly speaking, commercial copyright infringement is a criminal offence in the UK. Precise definition.

UK Citizens have protection under the European Convention on Human Rights, which was to some extent enshrined directly into UK law with the Human Rights Act. This offers freedom of expression as Article 10, but this does allow the state to restrict speech "for the protection of the reputation or rights of others".

Official Apple page advertising Tethering as a feature of the iPhone

Fraud Act 2006 Section 2 (1)(a) and (1)(b)(i)

IANAL

I can cite three sources after just a few minutes of research which seem to indicate anywhere from a 25% to 65% chance of severe defects in father/daughter-brother/sister offspring.

So in other words a 35%-75% chance of having a normal baby, thats more then good enough for me, especially since we have the tech to screen for defects pre-birth. But if you look at the law (64,65), thats not even what is outlawed, there is no mention of making babies, what is outlawed is having sex, even if its the oral or anal or two brothers or two sisters that have no chance of ever making a baby.

It's not a tax.

The TV licence was reclassified as a tax by the OFN in 2006 (read the blue book). It was even talked about in the House of Lords.

Except, it's not a tax, it's collected by the TVLA not the government, and we don't have a federal government at all.

It is indeed collected by the TVLA but the authority to do so is set out in the Communications Act 2003 which makes it a criminal offense to not pay the TV licence fee.

, and despite the fact that the money doesn't pass through the federal government

Or even just our government...

This is false. The licence fee is set by the government. It is paid into the government bank account by the TVLA and then voted on by the BBC trustees before being allocated and distributed to the BBC by a government department.

The BBC is funded by the government as far as any tax is.

The term is Legal Deposit Libraries: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030028_en_1

"Duty to deposit
1 Deposit of publications

(1) A person who publishes in the United Kingdom a work to which this Act applies must at his own expense deliver a copy of it to an address specified (generally or in a particular case) by any deposit library entitled to delivery under this section. "

> It is the UK Law that counts, not the directive.

And (as I understand it) in joining the EEC, the UK agreed to abide by council directives, even those introduced after the fact. The relevant law is the European Communities Act of 1972:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1972/ukpga_19720068_en_1

passed by a vote of 356 to 244.

The details are a matter for lawyers, but they did adopt a treaty. I haven't dug out chapter-and-verse, so I don't know the details, but I gather that the details do in fact exist.

If the police wish to follow my every movement then they need a court order

No, they don't. They don't even need a warrant to, e.g. break in and put covert CCTV cameras in your home

You raise a very good point. So good, in fact, that I thought I'd take a look at the law myself. Bear in mind IANAL so take everything in this post with a pinch of salt.

The relevant section of the law is here:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb1

I refer you specifically to section 49(2), which governs when a notice under this act may be given:

2. If any person with the appropriate permission under Schedule 2 believes, on reasonable groundsâ"

(a) that a key to the protected information is in the possession of any person,

Further down, we get an idea of what sort of defences are open to someone who receives such a notice - section 53(3):

(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time ifâ"

(a) sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and

(b) the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

I note clause 3a is nicely open to interpretation.

My reading of the act is that the police only need a "reasonable belief" in order to issue a notice. I think that's a much lower standard than "plausibility", but IANAL.

Anyway, if you are compelled to turn over any key, then it's established that the cops have a "reasonable belief" that you possess that data. That reasonable belief does not go away when you present them with your dummy encrypted volume.

Item 2, terrorism is defined in UK law, and judges have to abide by that law. The definition is not "up to the authorities". It is made by Parliament.

Instead of pontificating, why don't you just actually read the law. There is a disclosure requirement if:

(a) in the interests of national security;

(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or

(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.

Those provisions are so vague that police can require you to disclose encryption keys for anything at any time.

What is your proposal to prevent organised crime using encrypted media to conceal their activities? Unless you can point to a workable alternative solution, you are just ranting.

The purpose of this law is not to prevent covert communications because that is impossible in principle.

The purpose of this law it's to give the UK government additional means to force people to obey the government even in areas where the government otherwise has no cause or legal means of forcing you. It's a totalitarian law forced through parliament under the pretext of crime and terrorism prevention.

Two points.

It's not necessary to be suspected of a crime. Read section 49. It countenances industrial espionage, for example.

In your example, complaining loudly after the event, in the market square or in a newspaper, would not have been a criminal offence with a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison and a fine. See section 54 (same link).

Your assertion is probably incorrect. Headers, object design, function organization, and inline code are usually considered to be protected by Copyright.

I'll concede your point regarding inline code and (potentially) headers, although these are only relevant to compiled code - interpreted code would not be affected.

I would be surprised if object design and function organisation were covered by copyright. This would have a dangerous knock-on effect on those attempting to create an alternative API, for example. Also, the following section in the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 could potentially apply when creating a program to interface with an API:

It is not an infringement of any copyright in a design document or model recording or embodying a design for anything other than an artistic work or a typeface to make an article to the design or to copy an article made to the design.

Interpretation required on that one because we're not talking about physical models, but it suggests to me that following a technical design (i.e. the library documentation) does not constitute infringement.

I believe the FSF also disagrees with your interpretation.

And I disagree with their interpretation. Fortunately, neither of us is the ultimate authority on matters of law.

I'd be eager to read about court decisions in which these matters have been decided.

Under English law a monopoly is 25% market share by one person or group of people working together.
Fair Trading Act 1973 (amended) 6 (1) (a)

Your jurisdiction may vary :-)