Slashdot Mirror
Man Jailed For Refusing To Reveal USB Password
judgecorp writes "Syed Hussain, already serving time for helping to plot attacks against UK targets, got another four months for refusing to divulge the password of a USB stick the police and GCHQ wanted to examine. The USB was believed to contain data about a suspected fraud unconnected with national security, and Hussain claimed to have forgotten it under stress, He later remembered it and it turned out to be a password he had used on other systems investigated by the police."
No, just an ordinary fraudster, not terrorist.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Chalk said the USB contained material linking the defendant to an alleged fraud. He added that it was only when investigators told Hussain he was being investigated for fraud that he gave up the password. Investigations into the alleged fraud are ongoing.
The memory stick did not contain any information on potential threats to national security.
It's right there in the article summary:
Human beings are capable of doing multiple things, and thus getting multiple criminal charges against them, at once. He may well be a terrorist, but this particular story deals with fraud.
Maybe the point wasn't to get into the USB stick? Maybe the point was to find a reason to incarcerate him longer?
Cynical, yes. Feasible, quite yes.
OTOH, Hanlon's Razor does favor your reasoning.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
There is no 5th amendment by in the UK.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
From TFS: "already serving time for helping to plot attacks against UK targets"
You didn't even need TFA.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Even so the law was brought in intended for dealing with terrorism threats. Although the suspect was involved in terrorism this specific investigation was not. Therefore this is that police power being used in a broader sense than it had been intended. Got no problem with the guy being sentenced for terrorism or for fraud, but the slippery slope of the usage of this power is disturbing.
In the UK, the right to remain silent has been around since the 17th Century. However, it was removed by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1984.
Since the UK doesn't have a written constitution, it's impossible to argue that a law is unconstitutional. The question cannot be taken to the European Court of Human Rights, because the tight to remain silent is not mentioned in the European Convention on Human Rights, although the majority of E.U. countries have laws giving that right.
Further, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 make it a crime not to disclose an encryption key to police when asked.
Yes, we can choose to not testify in court. However, once you turn up at court to testify, you cannot then refuse to answer some questions.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
That's not the moral of this story. He was given 4 months because he wasted police time - that was because he actually gave them the password in the end.
If he had continued not to give them the password, even if it were actually true that he had forgotten it, they could have imprisoned him for considerably longer, the current maximum is 10 years, which is more than you get for cutting someone's throat with a smashed beerglass in the pub, and considerably more than the slap on the wrist you get for killing an unarmed civilian if you're a police marksman.
This warped and clearly unfair legislation was brought to you courtesy of this total bastard.
There are two scenarios in forcing someone to hand over information on an encrypted disk.
1) With no evidence of wrong doing they make you hand over information that's encrypted. There is no court order, because there isn't any evidence. It's like passing through security and they want to view secret documents in your locked briefcase. That's not warranted. It's a violation.
2) Court has evidence against you there is an investigation and they court orders you to hand it over. It's the same as asking for the key to your briefcase because they have a warrant to search it. The only difference is, is that if you don't give them the key they can't smash the lock to open it up. If you don't give them the key and they can't open it up they will throw you in jail for disobeying the court. I see that as nothing different than what has happened here.
Now it has been argued I believe successfully that encrypted data should be treated just personal speech which should be protected by the 5th. Now this wasn't the U.S. so this has no barring on the current case. It's quite interesting to think of how this falls. Is it the same as making someone testify or make a statement or is it more like locked files in a cabinet.
So while the scenario in part 1) isn't debatable the scenario in part 2) is. Was this a violation of freedom it's hard for me to say.
The EFFs thoughts https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/new-eff-amicus-brief-argues-fifth-amendment-prohibits-compelled-decryption
The question cannot be taken to the European Court of Human Rights, because the tight to remain silent is not mentioned in the European Convention on Human Rights, although the majority of E.U. countries have laws giving that right.
Actually, it can: the ECHR have ruled that:
"Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention, there can be no doubt that the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6 (art. 6) (see the Funke judgment cited above, loc. cit.). By providing the accused with protection against improper compulsion by the authorities these immunities contribute to avoiding miscarriages of justice and to securing the aims of Article 6 (art. 6). "
In other words the European court considers it so fucking obvious it doesn't matter if it's not said. The American consitiution apparently considered it important enough to put down in writing. Sadly our (the UK) government considers it neither important nor obvious.
That ruling was brought against the UK when it was taken to the ECHR for violating the whole "right to silence" thing. Sadly the wankers in power will not get the message.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Since it defines what is and isn't criminal it cannot, by definition, be a criminal organization.
The Constitution defines what is criminal and what is not.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!