Slashdot Mirror
Canada's Police Chiefs Want New Law To Compel People To Reveal Passwords (www.cbc.ca)
Reader DaveyJJ writes: CBC is reporting that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, has passed a resolution calling for a legal measure to unlock digital evidence, saying criminals increasingly use encryption to hide illicit activities. The chiefs are recommending new legislation that would force people to hand over their electronic passwords with a judge's consent. RCMP Assistant Commissioner Joe Oliver is using the usual scare tactics "child-molesters and mobsters live in the 'dark web'" in his statement today to drum up public support in his poorly rationalized privacy-stripping recommendation. A few years ago, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that police must have a judge's order to request subscriber and customer information from ISPs, banks and others who have online data about Canadians. I guess that ruling isn't sitting too well with law enforcement and Canada's domestic spy agencies.
The next thing they want is the ability to torture in extra-ordinary circumstances. Then it turns out that someone stealing a car is an extra-ordinary circumstance.
The right to not self-incriminate should be absolute.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
"What's your password or you go to jail?"
"I don't remember what's my password."
"He's lying, throw him in jail!"
Five years later, released from jail because they crack the password, finding embarrassing porn, but nothing illegal.
But no compensation for throwing a man in jail for the 'crime' of a poor memory.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
No, the next thing they'll want is the ability to compel people to hand over the password without even the nicety of a court giving them the nod.
I'm still not sure why such a law is required. In general judge has the power to compel evidence to be turned over, and refusal to do so can lead to a finding of contempt, which could, if the accused did not comply, could lead to rather serious sanctions. This smells more like a trojan horse.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The Government whining about encryption protecting guilty parties by going dark from scrutiny is flawed. Governments now have more information gathered daily than they could ever have dreamed of in the cold war, and yet they are still baiting and spreading fear and uncertainty that they can't see it all so bad people are getting away with bad things. Did they run around saying in the late 80's that citizens need to carry walking spy devices wherever they roam to make certain their actions can be monitored? The fact is governments have more information available to them about every aspect of life including citizens and non alike, and they are still saying if they had more then they could do their jobs.
The problem is that if you let the police make the law, you get a police-state. By their very mind-set, most police-persons cannot help it and will place individual rights and freedoms second to law enforcement. In a free society, the police must _not_ be able to deal with all crime. Instead they must be limited to the minimum necessary to keep society functioning reasonably well. That idea is alien to most members of the police (if all you have is the law, everybody looks like a criminal...), yet it is critical to keep society free.
Hence while I understand why they are asking for this, it must not be granted to them and they must be put into their place forcefully. Anything else will result in a catastrophe.
Remember that all enforcement (including law enforcement) is evil by its very nature and unless it is necessary to fight a significantly larger (!) evil, it must not be done.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.