41–50 of 70 posts
Same story from three weeks ago with many, many comments. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1760700 It's very likely that any comments here will cover the same ground, so if you're interested in might be worth reading the comments there first.
Three weeks later and this fast food worker is still in jail. I guess in the UK there is no "innocent until proven guilty" and that's why some left to form the USA a while back. This story couldn't occur in the USA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. For example, let's say I have a safe, and I've hidden the key. The police get a warrant to search my safe. I am then legally obligated to allow them to search my safe, which means that I am legally obligated to reveal the location of the key. In the case of the safe, if I refuse they'll just break it open. Strong encryption is not so easily broken so it may not be in my best interest to cooperate (wh…
In this example your safe is the medium in which the data is stored. If the police get's a warrant to search my safe, they may do so, but when they find a notebook full of enciphered text or a tape with "noise" in it I'm not obligated to provide them with means to decipher them. Hell I could just say I forgot the key, how is anyone going to prove I'm lying? Personally I agree with you. My data is my data, and I shoul…
I have a feeling that the transformation argument may fall pray to the "color of bits" problem but perhaps not. I think it may even come down the choice of algorithm - if I use a publicly available encryption algorithm then it might be considered a medium, whereas if I invent my own language maybe it won't.
As for the forgotten key, that's another argument. There is probably a burden of proof somewhere in there (and probably more on the side of the prosecution). If, for example, the police knew you accessed the contents of the hard drive last week, it would be pretty difficult to claim you forgot your key.
2) Call the police.
3) ???
I don't know if a law compelling you to reveal encryption keys to the government/police/courts is valid in the UK. I do, however, know that such a law is morally reprehensible. Quite frankly, it is in the interest of the people to ensure encryption tools are entirely useable by criminals, gangsters, and terrorists, because that ensures they are entirely useable by lawful citizens as well. Unlike guns (something possi…
"It can hide negative things, but it merely provides automation for knowing something you refuse to tell." Encryption doesn't hide negative things, people hide negative things. Almost like guns don't kill people, people do.
✓ Old story (October 6th). ✓ Original article omits context. ✓ US Constitution does not cover the British. ✓ Already covered. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1760700 No discussion required.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is valid, and it is morally reprehensible. In the US, the Fifth Amendment protects us from such travesties.
Has there been a case where the Fifth Amendment protected someone from disclosing a password? I'm not sure that giving up your password is analogous to being forced to testify against yourself. Edit: Indeed there has been a case, and so far the Fifth Amendment is holding strong: http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2010/04/passwords-and-5th-ame...
This one is tricky. It depends on ones beliefs about the true reasons for the anti-self-incrimination laws. If you believe (as I do) that it is a fundamental right to remain silent whenever it could make your situation worse, then it is indeed analogous.
An opposing view is that not being forced to testify against oneself comes from other, more basic reasons. One of the "higher-order" reasons against forced self-incrimination might be that punishment for refusing self-incrimination gives incentive to false self-accusation. This one does not apply to forced revealing of passwords (you cannot falsely self-accuse in this case.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. For example, let's say I have a safe, and I've hidden the key. The police get a warrant to search my safe. I am then legally obligated to allow them to search my safe, which means that I am legally obligated to reveal the location of the key. In the case of the safe, if I refuse they'll just break it open. Strong encryption is not so easily broken so it may not be in my best interest to cooperate (wh…
In this example your safe is the medium in which the data is stored. If the police get's a warrant to search my safe, they may do so, but when they find a notebook full of enciphered text or a tape with "noise" in it I'm not obligated to provide them with means to decipher them. Hell I could just say I forgot the key, how is anyone going to prove I'm lying? Personally I agree with you. My data is my data, and I shoul…
I had the opportunity to attend a public gathering with Jack Straw during the public consultation of this bill (he was the MP who introduced this law).
The issue of "what if you forget your password" is covered in the law, which basically says you have to know and keep control/ability to decrypt all encrypted media you own.
Forgetting the password isn't a defense.
(don't shoot the messenger, I think it's crap too, but I'm just saying they already covered that 'defense').
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this example your safe is the medium in which the data is stored. If the police get's a warrant to search my safe, they may do so, but when they find a notebook full of enciphered text or a tape with "noise" in it I'm not obligated to provide them with means to decipher them. Hell I could just say I forgot the key, how is anyone going to prove I'm lying? Personally I agree with you. My data is my data, and I shoul…
The medium verses transformation is a really interesting argument. I wonder how the law will see it when that day comes. I have a feeling that the transformation argument may fall pray to the "color of bits" problem but perhaps not. I think it may even come down the choice of algorithm - if I use a publicly available encryption algorithm then it might be considered a medium, whereas if I invent my own language maybe…
My opinion: If I write a poem in a notebook (hard drive) using a cipher (encryption) for which only I know the key, the law is able to take my notebook as evidence and process it as they see fit for their investigation, but the data is still mine, it's my set of bits which I'm entitled to not share with anyone unless it's my desire. I'd even say that to force me to share my data is equal to torturing me to get information from me. In both cases the law would be forcing me to reveal something against my consent, which is a violation of my rights however you look at it.
YMMV of course.