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

Hong Kong police can now demand phone passwords under new security rules

gadgetreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 173 posts

Re: Hong Kong police can now demand phone passwords under new security rules

#141

Post by AlecSchueler »

gruez wrote: post #130
cortic wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its 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.

>Its five years with no limitations, so when you are due to be released Doesn't double jeopardy prevent this? Has this actually happened?

It 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.

Re: Hong Kong police can now demand phone passwords under new security rules

#142

Post by AlecSchueler »

beambot wrote: post #50
pcdevils wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police must obtain appropriate permission from a judge to obtain a s.49 RIPA notice. Before a judge grants the notice, they must be satisfied that: The key to the protected information is in the possession of the person given notice. Disclosure is necessary in the interest of national security, in preventing or detecting crime or in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK. Disclosure is proportionate. I…

So you're saying it's still at the discretion of a single magistrate? I'm sure China could find some judges to rule in the name of national security if it would give everyone warm fuzzies. Judicial checks and balances only function when they're independent of the executive and parliament

> So you're saying it's still at the discretion of a single magistrate?

A judge isn't a magistrate, but also: No, of course not. There are different layers of legal protections in the UK. You would be able to appeal the notice itself, you would be able to argue at the court against the decision, and you could make an appeal to a higher court if your were convicted. Furthermore you could make an official complaint about the investigation afterwards.

Re: Hong Kong police can now demand phone passwords under new security rules

#143

Post by AlecSchueler »

halJordan wrote: post #124
pcdevils wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police must obtain appropriate permission from a judge to obtain a s.49 RIPA notice. Before a judge grants the notice, they must be satisfied that: The key to the protected information is in the possession of the person given notice. Disclosure is necessary in the interest of national security, in preventing or detecting crime or in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK. Disclosure is proportionate. I…

An interesting observation of the West is that people have an innate trust in the authorities/institutions. It's largely because the institutions have been well run for so long. But as that fades we're left in this twilight zone where you can point to a law like it prevents something. As is often pointed out, the Soviet constitution was much more free than the US one. Even the Romans knew this distinction

> people have an innate trust in the authorities/institutions. It's largely because the institutions have been well run for so long.

There isn't trust of the institutions in the UK. That's why there's so many layers of checks and balances like various courts of appeal and the two houses in the parliament. It's designed with the idea that a rogue player can't go wild.

It's also not true that British institutions have been well run for a long time. Bloody Sunday would be a very visceral and obvious example. Interesting case as well because obviously it took almost half a century but at least there was official recognition and apology from the prime minister after the courts and parliamentary investigative bodies did their thing.

Re: Hong Kong police can now demand phone passwords under new security rules

#144

Post by ceejayoz »

halJordan wrote: post #123
ceejayoz wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed]

[flagged]

> People have been jailed for hate speech in the uk

The parent poster claimed "for liking a post".

The cases I've seen of "jailed for hate speech" tend to wind up having a harassment or incitement component to them. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy76dxkpjpjo as an example. Hence the request for a cite.

"Parlour, of Seacroft, Leeds, who called for an attack on a hotel housing refugees and asylum seekers on Facebook, became the first person to be jailed for stirring up racial hatred during the disorder."

Wikipedia's "selected cases" for plain old hatefulness, similarly, seems to be all fines, no jail terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United...

Re: Hong Kong police can now demand phone passwords under new security rules

#145

Post by gruez »

QuantumFunnel wrote: post #140
gruez wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No citation needed, it should be common knowledge like stopping at a stop sign. Sounds like you can't (or are unwilling) to produce evidence, and you're trying to handwave that issue away with "it's common knowledge'.

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/select-communications-off... How convenient that the government doesn't make the numbers public and then have to issue statements like this when journalists do some digging on the matter

I don't get what you're trying to say here? Yes, there are real issues with the government arresting people for speech, and the number is going up, but that's not proof for the specific claim of "you can be imprisoned for liking a post [...]". You can't just tack on spurious claims onto a more well supported claim on the basis that the former is directionally the same as the latter.

Re: Hong Kong police can now demand phone passwords under new security rules

#146

Post by nerdsniper »

gruez wrote: post #14
vrganj wrote: post #10

The horrible bastion of despotism that is China-run Hong Kong has now caught up to the rule of law utopias of enlightened thought in the US and UK.

>in the US and UK ??? Of all the issues with the US justice system, being compelled to disclose passwords isn't one of them. It is an issue for UK, though.

Upon entering the US, CBP can ask you to unlock your phone, then connect it to a little box that hacks into the phone and downloads everything. Search for "Cellebrite Universal Forensic Extraction Device (UFED)" or "Grayshift GrayKey". The border agent doesn't have to know anything about phones/computers, it's just "plug in, press button". With modern phones, they really only work if you unlock your phone before handing it to them, and they'll make you do that. If you don't unlock the phone and let them walk off with it for awhile, they'll refuse you entry into the USA and send you back.

US citizens are, of course, allowed in even if they refuse, but they will confiscate a citizen's phone in exchange for a custody receipt (Form 6051-D) and they are supposed to return it to the US citizen after they break into the phone / crack the encryption. If they can't crack it, they can choose to never return the phone to the US citizen. And it can be a very stressful situation in which citizens may not know what their rights are in the moment (or can't afford to replace their phone or lose access to it because how would you even get an Uber from the airport or coordinate a pickup if you don't have a phone).

You can choose to bring burner phones or make sure your phone is freshly factory reset, but if you're a non-citizen that can also be a reason to be refused entry, and if you are a citizen that can "get you on a list", leading to getting "SSSS" stamped on every boarding pass for every flight you take, in every country in the world, for the next many years. If your boarding pass gets "SSSS" written on it, you will get pulled aside by security and all your bags get individually hand-searched prior to every single flight (even transfers/connections/layovers). This will be a global thing, not limited to USA flights.

Non-citizens are also sometimes asked for a list of your social media accounts and the passwords to their social media accounts. Refusing to provide your passwords can be used as a reason to refuse entry to the USA. If the USA believes you have a social media account that you failed to tell them about, that can also be a reason to refuse entry.

Re: Hong Kong police can now demand phone passwords under new security rules

#147

Post by nerdsniper »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #135
Scaled wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a US citizen, I believe they can seize your device indefinitely, and detain you for up to two days. They are required to let you eventually back into the country though. (If you're not a citizen, all bets are off)

Here's what the ACLU says: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/can-border-agen... I think the 48h detention is across the board (without a judge involved, border or not the border). ACLU says device seizure is up to 5 days barring "extenuating circumstances", whatever that means.

The same article says they can fairly arbitrarily do repeated 7-day extensions. And:

> We’ve received reports of phones being held for weeks or even months.

Re: Hong Kong police can now demand phone passwords under new security rules

#148

Post by iamnothere »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #141
gruez wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Its five years with no limitations, so when you are due to be released Doesn't double jeopardy prevent this? Has this actually happened?

It 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.

Laws 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.

Re: Hong Kong police can now demand phone passwords under new security rules

#149

Post by AlecSchueler »

iamnothere wrote: post #148
AlecSchueler wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It 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.

Laws 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.

> 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.

Re: Hong Kong police can now demand phone passwords under new security rules

#150

Post by ericd »

john_strinlai wrote: post #56
ericd wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible to cross the border many times and not have this happen.

okay, but it is also possible to have it happen.

For sure, but we need to stop hyperbolizing constantly, it's really not helpful.
Post reply on HN