I stand corrected.
My belief that Connecticut had such a requirement came from a friend's father getting a ticket for not having proof of ID when we was stopped for carrying an open beer in a public area. Must have been a mitigating circumstance (the consumption of alcohol).
In Oklahoma and a few other states (Connecticut for sure) all adults are required by law to have photo identification on them at all times. If you don't qualify for a DL, you can still get a State-issued ID card.
Except they haven't seized the documents because they don't have access to them. They really can't even prove they exist in the first place. If they could, they wouldn't need the key to convict you.
Why? If the police can convince a judge that defendant has some evidence in encrypted partition, and the person refuses to hand over the data they are Preverting the course of justice.
If a judge can be convinced that evidence exists in an encrypted partition, I'd have to submit that the judge doesn't understand encryption.
The CPS did play by the rules, the rules of THIS country.
That's more of a problem with the rules in the UK than my argument. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
I don't think being forced to obey a valid court order to hand over information is an erosion of civil liberties.
The 5th amendment to the US Constitution is supposed to provide protection from self-incrimination. If the police force you to turn over a password or encryption key and then use the information that was protected to convict you, your civil rights have been violated.
Civil rights are eroded not by the act, but by the People not decrying the fact that the act occurred.
If you have nothing to hide, once a court "asks" you for data, why not give it!
This is exactly the kind of attitude that leads to the erosion of civil liberties.
This is the kind of attitude that leads to lawlessness, every country has their own balance of protecting people from each other vs protecting people from the government. I am happy for my country's courts to force people to disclose information, if what they are found to have breaks laws then they should be punished. And before you get all high and mighty that the USs way is better lets not forget about illegal wiretaps, shipping us citizens of to gitmo where they are "enhancedly interrogated" in a legal limbo.
I'm not about to defend wiretaps or torture used by the US government. As a matter of fact, I frequently and vocally call for the leaders of the previous administration to be brought up on war-crimes charges at the Hauge. That's completely separate from the people allowing the government to subvert the Constitution so that their police don't have to do their jobs.
If a crime was committed, there is evidence of it beyond what may or may not be on an encrypted partition of the alleged perpetrator's hard drive. If the police can't find enough evidence to convict said alleged perpetrator without forcing or coercing them to divulge it themselves, the police haven't done their job and shouldn't get the conviction. It's not lawlessness to require the government to play by the rules they laid out in the first place, it's called "Rule of Law."
Slashdot Mirror
If this didn't happen, it wouldn't be science; it'd be religion.
Your facts are getting the way of the uninformed rage and they are not appreciated.
I stand corrected. My belief that Connecticut had such a requirement came from a friend's father getting a ticket for not having proof of ID when we was stopped for carrying an open beer in a public area. Must have been a mitigating circumstance (the consumption of alcohol).
In Oklahoma and a few other states (Connecticut for sure) all adults are required by law to have photo identification on them at all times. If you don't qualify for a DL, you can still get a State-issued ID card.
Except they haven't seized the documents because they don't have access to them. They really can't even prove they exist in the first place. If they could, they wouldn't need the key to convict you.
Why? If the police can convince a judge that defendant has some evidence in encrypted partition, and the person refuses to hand over the data they are Preverting the course of justice.
If a judge can be convinced that evidence exists in an encrypted partition, I'd have to submit that the judge doesn't understand encryption.
The CPS did play by the rules, the rules of THIS country.
That's more of a problem with the rules in the UK than my argument. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
I don't think being forced to obey a valid court order to hand over information is an erosion of civil liberties.
The 5th amendment to the US Constitution is supposed to provide protection from self-incrimination. If the police force you to turn over a password or encryption key and then use the information that was protected to convict you, your civil rights have been violated.
Civil rights are eroded not by the act, but by the People not decrying the fact that the act occurred.
If you have nothing to hide, once a court "asks" you for data, why not give it!
This is exactly the kind of attitude that leads to the erosion of civil liberties.
This is the kind of attitude that leads to lawlessness, every country has their own balance of protecting people from each other vs protecting people from the government. I am happy for my country's courts to force people to disclose information, if what they are found to have breaks laws then they should be punished. And before you get all high and mighty that the USs way is better lets not forget about illegal wiretaps, shipping us citizens of to gitmo where they are "enhancedly interrogated" in a legal limbo.
I'm not about to defend wiretaps or torture used by the US government. As a matter of fact, I frequently and vocally call for the leaders of the previous administration to be brought up on war-crimes charges at the Hauge. That's completely separate from the people allowing the government to subvert the Constitution so that their police don't have to do their jobs.
If a crime was committed, there is evidence of it beyond what may or may not be on an encrypted partition of the alleged perpetrator's hard drive. If the police can't find enough evidence to convict said alleged perpetrator without forcing or coercing them to divulge it themselves, the police haven't done their job and shouldn't get the conviction. It's not lawlessness to require the government to play by the rules they laid out in the first place, it's called "Rule of Law."
If you have nothing to hide, once a court "asks" you for data, why not give it!
This is exactly the kind of attitude that leads to the erosion of civil liberties.
I'm sorry, the correct Slashdot meme would have been "In Soviet Russia, you filter Websense."
I'll give you a warning this time, but next time it'll be your geek card. Carry on, citizen.
That thing zinging over your head? It was the point.
Famines in China and Russia were caused by the government imposing collectivisation.
Interesting. Do you have any prove for that?
Only a few million dead.