8 ms·

July 13, 2012 A few of us kicked and shouted about this when this was proposed. If you'd like an example of how this is being abused, El Reg has a good article

July 13, 2012 A few of us kicked and shouted about this when this was proposed. If you'd like an example of how this is being abused, El Reg has a good article from 2009: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/

Ygg2 13y ago
So this is one of those laws that everyone broke.
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  nope, it's one of those laws that the police can use on anyone they don't like, anytime. There was a good article of how this "criminalise everyone, and then only prosecute the ones you don't like" attitude was essentially how the US operates by default nowadays - It was on HN a few months ago but I can't find it now.
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    Think that was the point of the laws everyone broke.
    - tehwalrus 13y ago
      apologies if I wasn't clear; there are plenty of laws "still on the statute book" which everyone breaks but which would never be prosecuted. e.g. copying music from CD to iPod before about 2010, or compulsory archery practise with the parish vicar on the village green on Sundays. I was drawing the distinction between that type, which are simply archaic, and this type, which have been designed to incriminate everyone.
- apricot13 13y ago
  there was a chap who had this law used against him a few years back, I don't remember what happened though but it was a big deal at the time. It was to do with encrypting random data for physics or a game or something and the government got hold of it but because the data was encrypted one way he couldn't give them a key and he was going to go to prison for two years. I've heard nothing about it since though with all this PRISM stuff and people encrypting their emails I'm surprised it hasn't resurfaced sooner.
mseebach 13y ago
The case is absolutely awful, but he was jailed for refusing to hand over the key, which is (according to the article) exactly what he did. The article is very kind to the suspect here, and nowhere does it even suggest that he had lost the key or otherwise wasn't able to decrypt the files.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- cmircea 13y ago
  Since when is refusing to incriminate oneself punishable with jail time? Last time I checked it wasn't. Refusing to provide encryption keys is the same thing. There might be illegal data, there might not be. It's the duty of the police to prove it, not the accused. Innocent until proven guilty? Not in the UK.
  - lotsofcows 13y ago
    We don't have anti-incrimination laws. If you go in front of a judge, the judge has the right to all relevant information with which to make a decision. What happened here is that the judge asked for the keys and was refused them. Plain and simple. If you don't trust your judicial system to (eventually) get to the right answer, you've got bigger problems.
    - tyrion 13y ago
      "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" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and... (and cite-note 15)
      - lotsofcows 13y ago
        It's interesting that the article conflates right to silence and self-incrimination, I thought they were kept separate. It mentions the exception for encryption but doesn't mention any exception for safe codes which is what my line of thinking was based on. That being said, I can't find a reference to that either...
majke 13y ago
Good article! > He returned to Paddington Green station as appointed on 2 December, and was re-arrested for carrying a pocket knife. FTR, carrying a pocket knife is perfectly legal in the UK (assuming it was within a certain size). > Officers bearing sub-machine guns broke down the door of JFL's flat. He rang local police before realising CTC had come for him. [...] JFL maintained his silence throughout the one hour time limit imposed by the notice. He was charged with ten offences under section 53 of RIPA Part III, reflecting the multiple passphrases needed to decrypt his various implementations of PGP Whole Disk Encryption and PGP containers. [...] In his final police interview, CTC officers suggested JFL's refusal to decrypt the files or give them his keys would lead to suspicion he was a terrorist or paedophile. And my favourite paragraph: > "There could be child pornography, there could be bomb-making recipes," said one detective. "Unless you tell us we're never gonna know... What is anybody gonna think?" JFL says he maintained his silence because of "the principle - as simple as that". So he was jailed for remaining silent.
- simonh 13y ago
  He was taken into custody for, among other things: Failing to attend multiple bail hearings; Falsely claiming that a passport that had been legally seized by the police was lost, bearing in mind he'd previous missed bail hearings by traveling abroad; Refusing to comply with lawful requests for access to his computer, etc, etc. There is no '5th Amendment' in the UK, no right of silence and no Miranda rights. There never have been. We do have our own limitations on the rights of police officers conducting an investigation though. If officers have the proper warrants, I think it's reasonable that they are entitled to access to computer records in much the same way they are entitled to access to any other part of someone's property, business and private records. He was willfully obstructive and obtuse, and suffered the consequences for it, but no more than that. The sectioning is of course a matter for concern, but it requires proper medical oversight and bearing in mind his previous history of mental illness there's no particular reason to believe it was malicious.
  - rwmj 13y ago
    Actually there was a Right to Silence, in common law. It was removed by statue in the extremely controversial 1994 Criminal Justice Act (which many of us demonstrated against).
simonster 13y ago
Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4234614 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4234614

Ygg2 13y ago

So this is one of those laws that everyone broke.

tehwalrus 13y ago
nope, it's one of those laws that the police can use on anyone they don't like, anytime. There was a good article of how this "criminalise everyone, and then only prosecute the ones you don't like" attitude was essentially how the US operates by default nowadays - It was on HN a few months ago but I can't find it now.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  Think that was the point of the laws everyone broke.
  - tehwalrus 13y ago
    apologies if I wasn't clear; there are plenty of laws "still on the statute book" which everyone breaks but which would never be prosecuted. e.g. copying music from CD to iPod before about 2010, or compulsory archery practise with the parish vicar on the village green on Sundays. I was drawing the distinction between that type, which are simply archaic, and this type, which have been designed to incriminate everyone.
apricot13 13y ago
there was a chap who had this law used against him a few years back, I don't remember what happened though but it was a big deal at the time. It was to do with encrypting random data for physics or a game or something and the government got hold of it but because the data was encrypted one way he couldn't give them a key and he was going to go to prison for two years. I've heard nothing about it since though with all this PRISM stuff and people encrypting their emails I'm surprised it hasn't resurfaced sooner.

mseebach 13y ago

The case is absolutely awful, but he was jailed for refusing to hand over the key, which is (according to the article) exactly what he did. The article is very kind to the suspect here, and nowhere does it even suggest that he had lost the key or otherwise wasn't able to decrypt the files.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
cmircea 13y ago
Since when is refusing to incriminate oneself punishable with jail time? Last time I checked it wasn't. Refusing to provide encryption keys is the same thing. There might be illegal data, there might not be. It's the duty of the police to prove it, not the accused. Innocent until proven guilty? Not in the UK.
- lotsofcows 13y ago
  We don't have anti-incrimination laws. If you go in front of a judge, the judge has the right to all relevant information with which to make a decision. What happened here is that the judge asked for the keys and was refused them. Plain and simple. If you don't trust your judicial system to (eventually) get to the right answer, you've got bigger problems.
  - tyrion 13y ago
    "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" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and... (and cite-note 15)
    - lotsofcows 13y ago
      It's interesting that the article conflates right to silence and self-incrimination, I thought they were kept separate. It mentions the exception for encryption but doesn't mention any exception for safe codes which is what my line of thinking was based on. That being said, I can't find a reference to that either...

majke 13y ago

Good article! > He returned to Paddington Green station as appointed on 2 December, and was re-arrested for carrying a pocket knife. FTR, carrying a pocket knife is perfectly legal in the UK (assuming it was within a certain size). > Officers bearing sub-machine guns broke down the door of JFL's flat. He rang local police before realising CTC had come for him. [...] JFL maintained his silence throughout the one hour time limit imposed by the notice. He was charged with ten offences under section 53 of RIPA Part III, reflecting the multiple passphrases needed to decrypt his various implementations of PGP Whole Disk Encryption and PGP containers. [...] In his final police interview, CTC officers suggested JFL's refusal to decrypt the files or give them his keys would lead to suspicion he was a terrorist or paedophile. And my favourite paragraph: > "There could be child pornography, there could be bomb-making recipes," said one detective. "Unless you tell us we're never gonna know... What is anybody gonna think?" JFL says he maintained his silence because of "the principle - as simple as that". So he was jailed for remaining silent.

simonh 13y ago
He was taken into custody for, among other things: Failing to attend multiple bail hearings; Falsely claiming that a passport that had been legally seized by the police was lost, bearing in mind he'd previous missed bail hearings by traveling abroad; Refusing to comply with lawful requests for access to his computer, etc, etc. There is no '5th Amendment' in the UK, no right of silence and no Miranda rights. There never have been. We do have our own limitations on the rights of police officers conducting an investigation though. If officers have the proper warrants, I think it's reasonable that they are entitled to access to computer records in much the same way they are entitled to access to any other part of someone's property, business and private records. He was willfully obstructive and obtuse, and suffered the consequences for it, but no more than that. The sectioning is of course a matter for concern, but it requires proper medical oversight and bearing in mind his previous history of mental illness there's no particular reason to believe it was malicious.
- rwmj 13y ago
  Actually there was a Right to Silence, in common law. It was removed by statue in the extremely controversial 1994 Criminal Justice Act (which many of us demonstrated against).

simonster 13y ago

Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4234614 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4234614