British Police Demand Access To Encryption Keys

flip-flop writes "In the wake of recent terrorist attacks, police here in the UK have asked for sweeping new powers they claim will help them counter the threat. Among these is making it a criminal offense for people to refuse disclosing their encryption keys when the police want to access someone's files." From the article: "The most controversial of the police proposals is the demand to be able to hold without charge a terrorist suspect for three months instead of 14 days. An Acpo spokesman said the complexity and scale of counter-terrorist operations means the 14-day maximum is often insufficient."

Comments

Knee jerk tendencies

[debrain]

Brought to you by the same people who advocate counterproductive warmongering as foreign policy and at the same time refuse to aid development of health, education, and basic infrastructure in debt laiden countries that can foster terrorist ideals (and incentives, given the insurmountable debt owed to the first world and a corresponding lack of aid).

Re:Rights of the accused

[otis wildflower]

How would Mr. Jones feel about being imprisoned for three months so that police could take their sweet time figuring out what, if anything, to charge him with?

If Mr. Jones was a Muslim who attended hate-filled mosques and consorted with terrorist suspects, I'd prefer he actually be killed "resisting arrest", to be honest.

Frankly, a few more bombings or bombing attempts, and I see England rightfully expelling their Muslims, revoking native citizenship and sending the hellspawn to their parent's (or grandparent's) nation of origin.

Let's face it: America interned its citizens of Japanese origin for far less. Better to overreact now and let the historians apologize.

Re:Guantanamo Bay?

[mike77]

It's guilty until proven American.

Actually I think it's:

Guilty until proven Republican.

Easier solution?

[Spy der Mann]

if(user is muslim)
{
do your thing
}
else
{
take it easy
}

Call me racist, antireligious or whatsoever, but if the UK is going to take liberties away from the people, wouldn't it be better to narrow their search so the LEAST people are affected?

Re:Well Chomsky is in order here...

[pete6677]

Hah. Cold hard facts. I don't read enough of his drivel to pick it apart piece by piece, nor do I have the interest in doing so, but his "research" is so tainted by his attempts to drive an agenda it cannot even begin to be considered the undeniable truth. I'm too lazy and uninterested to drag out specific examples and counter-examples, so if you want to use that as an excuse to claim you won the argument, knock yourself out.

Re:Oh yeah, that's why we threw their tea away

[damian cosmas]

If America cared so much about Hussein killing Iraqis, then why did they give him weapons to do it with?

We gave him the weapons to kill Iranians.

Because the middle east has the substance that you need like a crackhead needs crack. You'll do anything to get it. You'll support dictators, you'll support terrorists, and you'll be friends with the country that the terrorists who attacked you came from.

We don't need it nearly as badly as Europe does, and we have plenty of it from other, closer sources. If we did need it that badly, then why not seize the oilfields? Why would the US/UK/etc. have allowed corrupt, autocratic regimes to nationalize oil production in the first place? By your tone, I can only assume that you come from a country with either a completely clean history of foreign relations or that is so poor that it lacks to opportunity to meddle in other nations' affairs. Of course, it's also possible that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You had an opportunity to gain the support of the world after 9/11. You blew it.

There was never such an opportunity. The whole "we are all Americans" thing lasted about a week, after which the Socialists/Continental Europeans promptly returned to their player-hating rhetoric. America will be disliked as long as we continue to be the sole superpower in the world.