9 ms·
Why are you misrepresenting about UK law? Yes, it can be a criminal offence. But the maximum tariff for this under RIPA 2000 is five years. If it’s not about
by andylynch 6mo ago
Why are you misrepresenting about UK law?
Yes, it can be a criminal offence. But the maximum tariff for this under RIPA 2000 is five years. If it’s not about nation security or CSAM, it’s two.
(Incidentally, the USA is a real outlier in this topic)
- gib444 6mo agoOh just 5 years, that's OK then.
- gruez 6mo agoIt's not okay to imprison people for 5 years vs lifetime, but at the same time, facts matter, and we shouldn't get in the habit of allowing fibs to slip through just because they're directionally correct.
- roenxi 6mo agoAre we damning the UK with faint praise now? I'm not even sure how much practical difference there is between 5 and indefinite in practice, 5 years is a long time. I imagine it is pretty life-destroying. Especially for the crime of having something on your phone that you want to keep private. > If it’s not about nation security or CSAM, it’s two. I am sure we all get what you mean, but there is a comic interpretation in vaguely-Soviet style here where if someone hasn't done anything wrong they only get 2 years. I'm going to spend some time this weekend making sure my encryption is plausibly deniable where possible.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- idiotsecant 6mo agoYou're unsure of the difference between 5 and infinity?
- deejaaymac 6mo ago5 years in prison can destroy your life easily, so yeah, what's the difference?
- cortic 6mo agoIts five years with no limitations, so when you are due to be released; Whats your password? Another five years... Its such a poorly worded law you could literally spend your life in prison for forgetting your password. And Its mostly used against peaceful protesters.
- gruez 6mo ago>Its five years with no limitations, so when you are due to be released Doesn't double jeopardy prevent this? Has this actually happened?
- AlecSchueler 6mo agoIt does and of course it's different happened. My pet peeve has to be the "it's a poorly worded law" argument about things that have obviously been considered by legal experts. The scares like "the psychoactive substances act will technically make coffee illegal" I've seen on HN are particularly egregious.
- iamnothere 6mo agoLaws that are so poorly worded that they could be easily misused are bad laws. Legislators should force future would-be tyrants to flagrantly violate the law, as this is more likely to generate popular resistance.
- AlecSchueler 6mo ago> Laws that are so poorly worded that they could be easily misused are bad laws. The point is that these laws aren't badly written. There's already protections in place for what's described above.
- iamnothere 6mo agoI don’t believe this is the case, every now and then we see prosecutors using an obsolete unenforced law or an unexpected edge case of some law to come after people. A great example is the CFAA. It has been judicially narrowed after court battles, because in its original form it was overbroad and criminalized basic, common things. Prosecutors abused it in order to get political wins until they were finally stopped. This is unfortunately fairly common. Legislators either push for too much or don’t understand how the law might be applied, and innocent people suffer until someone wins a big expensive set of appeals. Edit: I realize now you may be talking about the UK in particular, in which case you don’t even get this shoddy level of protection as “Parliament is sovereign” (lol).
- davidguetta 6mo agoWow ! Only 2 years !