Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK anti-encryption law

falkvinge.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 198 posts

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#121

Post by tzs »

aqme28 wrote: post #20
nathan_long wrote: post #4

His argument is: 1) They can lock you up for refusing to decrypt something. 2) Encrypted data looks exactly like random noise. 3) Encrypted data can be hidden in any file. 4) Therefore, they can allege that nearly anything is encrypted and lock you up on that basis. I'd say that's terrifying. Another thought: doesn't this make it possible to frame someone by writing random data to their hard drive?

Yes. From the comments (credit to http://www.ktetch.co.uk/p/about-me.html ): "Funny thing about the RIPA act was that in 1999, when the act was first discussed, civil Liberties group Stand decided to show the problem. They sent an email to the Home Secretary (the minister for law and justice) containing a confession (source http://www.zdnet.com/surveillance-straw-petitioned-on-commer... ). That confession was encrypt…

That appears to be incorrect. Looking at the actual law, via the link provided on the submitted site (not just the section linked to, but also the surrounding sections), it looks like in the above situation you would be off the hook.

See section 50(3)(b). Also relevant is 53(1) and 53(4).

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#122

Post by alttab »

SEMW wrote: post #107
reustle wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the email that was sent was a confession, so it was related to the open case and needed to be decrypted.

The law doesn't work like that. It doesn't matter how important it is - if the police haven't given you a notice to decrypt it, the statute isn't engaged.

So they are infringing on personal privacy, and practicing selective enforcement? If this came to America everyone would be brown from the big shit storm.

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#123

Post by DasIch »

theaeolist wrote: post #40

Isn't TrueCrypt's 'hidden volume' feature enough to make this law pointless? Just have two encoded sets of information in the same file. When you are asked to give the key it is up to you the key of which one you give. http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability

It still requires you to give up data for which it makes sufficient sense to be encrypted otherwise someone might get the idea that you are using this feature. While this is a solution it is certainly not as easy a solution as it might seem to be.

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#124

Post by alttab »

PaulAJ wrote: post #119
nathan_long wrote: post #4

His argument is: 1) They can lock you up for refusing to decrypt something. 2) Encrypted data looks exactly like random noise. 3) Encrypted data can be hidden in any file. 4) Therefore, they can allege that nearly anything is encrypted and lock you up on that basis. I'd say that's terrifying. Another thought: doesn't this make it possible to frame someone by writing random data to their hard drive?

Fortunately its nowhere near that bad. The prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the file contains encrypted data and that you have the key. So if you did have a file of random noise then the police would not be able to prove these things. And if you had software for using that file as a random number stream then that would be evidence in your defence. Remember, its for the police to prove your guil…

Does innocent until proven guilty and beyond a reasonable doubt apply to UK criminal law?

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#125

Post by ianferrel »

PaulAJ wrote: post #119
nathan_long wrote: post #4

His argument is: 1) They can lock you up for refusing to decrypt something. 2) Encrypted data looks exactly like random noise. 3) Encrypted data can be hidden in any file. 4) Therefore, they can allege that nearly anything is encrypted and lock you up on that basis. I'd say that's terrifying. Another thought: doesn't this make it possible to frame someone by writing random data to their hard drive?

Fortunately its nowhere near that bad. The prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the file contains encrypted data and that you have the key. So if you did have a file of random noise then the police would not be able to prove these things. And if you had software for using that file as a random number stream then that would be evidence in your defence. Remember, its for the police to prove your guil…

> (and in that scenario it would be a lot easier to frame someone by simply writing some child porn).

Well, you'd have to get some child porn to frame someone that way. Random data is much easier to procure.

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#126

Post by excuse-me »

sdoering wrote: post #115
Zenst wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is in practice the intention, though as it is a law on the book's it is open to be abused down the line against non-terroists. As a rule the UK police tend to have alot of common sence, but they are also human. That all said the whole blackberry encryption affair recently arising due to the riots does highlight further shortcommings. Still this law was instigated prior to 9/11 and in that you do wonder what it w…

Well, if I remember right, the UK had their "fair share" of terror (IRA), long before the US suffered from 9/11. So this argumentation does not strike me so extraordinary. But that does not change the point, that this law really has the possibility to be misused.

Yes but remarkably after 100years of bombings and assassinations by the IRA the response was to carry on as normal, don't give in to them. The only visible sign was removing litter bins from railway stations and some checkpoints on vehicles enter the financial district of London

Yet 5 minutes after the 9/11 attacks on America the UK suddenly needed a whole raft of laws to intercept all phone calls, hold people without trial, random stop and searches etc.

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#127

Post by mike-cardwell »

alttab wrote: post #122
SEMW wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law doesn't work like that. It doesn't matter how important it is - if the police haven't given you a notice to decrypt it, the statute isn't engaged.

So they are infringing on personal privacy, and practicing selective enforcement? If this came to America everyone would be brown from the big shit storm.

Patriot Act

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#128

Post by shocks »

Hidden volumes.

Volume one contains hardcore porn, volume two contains bank job plans. Neither can be proved to exist with their keys.

When asked, hand over the porn keys. Plausible deniability.

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#129

Post by epo »

This article is paranoid ill informed speculation, as are many of the Brit-bashing comments. The police have to show a judge they have good grounds to believe you are concealing evidence from them. Note also that if the powers that be are really determined to stitch you up then they will plant data on you, much simpler.

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#130

Post by Karunamon »

alttab wrote: post #122
SEMW wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law doesn't work like that. It doesn't matter how important it is - if the police haven't given you a notice to decrypt it, the statute isn't engaged.

So they are infringing on personal privacy, and practicing selective enforcement? If this came to America everyone would be brown from the big shit storm.

> and practicing selective enforcement?

This is really a terrible analogy for reasons laid out up above. The law says you must do X when asked. You have not been asked to do X, therefore you don't have to do X.

Search for outrage elsewhere.

Post reply on HN