Slashdot Mirror
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."
Is was put through as part of the criminal justice bill a few years ago. And are considered guilty if you cannot hand over a key for something encrypted in your possession, even if someone sends you a file on a disk. You have no defence and are guilty.
Fortunately we have things like StegFS. But I really shouldn't be disclosing such information, some people in the govA*$%#)D$@#$NO CARRIER
I was pretty sure that the regulation of investigatory powers act (1998?) already made it an offense to refuse to disclose an encryption key?
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
The Brits don't have a constitution. Yes you can live without one.
This differs from a case where someone is held accused of something, but there is no particular evidence associating them with the accusation.
In this case, there is a specific item to which the defendant is tied. However, this item is encrypted. Basically, the court is saying that it assumes that this information is relevant and incriminating.
By way of analogy, consider someone who has been accused of murder, with no evidence. Contrast this with someone who has been accused of murder who has a locked box they refuse to open.
In the second case, the court could argue that the items in the locked box are relevant, and demand the defendant hand over the keys.
In reality, the locked box could contain any number of items, relevant or not. The defendant may have any number of reasons for not wanting to open the box, which may or may not be relevant to the particular case.
So it's not quite the same as being convicted "solely due to their silence", although there are similarities.
Actually the UK version of the PATRIOT act:
Reducing Everyone's Defensibility by Collectively Obstructing and Abating Terrorism
Yes, you do not have a right to remain silent in court. Although in the US you do of course have a right not to say anything which incriminates you.
Freedom is not increased by mere diminuation of government. Anarchy is freedom for the strong and slavery for the weak.
a) When you're arrested the Officer will say "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later come to rely on in court". Note the part in bold - when questioned means when you are in a police interview room being tape recorded, not standing in the street talking to some moron in a blue uniform. Coppers will often hope to bluff you with this.
b) If you request a solicitor the police are not allowed to question you until you've seen one.
c) When you do see a solicitor all you have to do is persuade him to agree that it would be a good idea not to say anything you don't have to. Then you can answer questions with "on the advice of my legal counsel I have no comment to make at this time".
d) It's almost impossible for a prosecuting lawyer to make anything out of a statement like the above in court.
e) If the police have sufficient evidence to support a case against you they are required by law to stop questioning you. Conversely - if they're questioning you then you know the case against you is iffy. Consequently you're onto a winner as long as you keep your mouth shut.
British statutes grant and protect all the same rights that most constitutions do
British nobility grant their peasants some rights, because after all, like a carrot on a stick.
The United States constitution identifies the rights of man given by God. It's not a statement of rights granted by the government, it's a statement of rights that the government doesn't have a right to touch.
You're asking about 'rubber hose encryption.' Google for it.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
It was.