Dear UK. WTF are you doing ?

[Loop Stricken]

I don't care really, I have nothing to hide.

Who, besides criminals and legitimate organisations, needs to encrypt any data.

If you have nothing to hide, why do you close your curtains at night?
Ooh, if you have nothing to hide, can you send me your bank account details and sort code?
Can you send me your address and let me rummage through your house? If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear, right?

Have a scenario;
You're using a shared family PC, but you like pornography. Nothing particularly deviant, but still not something you'd show your family.
You want somewhere to hide it and you hear about a thing called Truecrypt. Sounds good, so you whack your whacking material into an encrypted partition.

Ding-dong, avon police calling! They want to look through your hard drive and they see this truecrypt file!
Ashamed, you give them the key when they ask for it, and they see your vanilla pornography.

... then they ask for the second key.
What second key, you ask? See, you didn't know Truecrypt can hide multiple sections in the one partition!
But you knew how to use Truecrypt so you must be aware of that function ergo you MUST have a second encrypted partition, you MUST have the key and thus you're blatantly trying to feign ignorance! And only dirty terrrrists and paedos would do that! Boom! Five years.

 

[maninahat]

Okay, wow... Follow the link to that article you gave for that website, which gives a link to here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53

Which is a website that says, first and foremost:

Changes to legislation:There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.

Basically the very first thing it says on their source is that the source itself is out of date. I'm quivering in my shoes, really.

Oh, and secondly:

(2)In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it.

So the whole article is based on an incorrect assumption. Especially if you read on from that point, through sections 3 and 4, that seem to be saying that someone will only get in trouble for not providing the key if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that they do have it. In fact, sections 3 and 4 seem to be nothing but safety nets to stop people getting in trouble over this regulation.


Oh, and I do wish people would stop scaremongering over a 'possible' situation. The government could 'possibly' send in an SAS team to kick down my door and hose me down with bullets and the only thing they'd have to worry about are the repercussions that come afterwards. You know, the same repercussions that they'd have to deal with when choosing to specifically enforce a law in as absurdly unjust manner as possible. Which, since the article you linked has failed to provide an example, I will assume isn't happening.

Good work there. Saved me the job of close reading both the legislation and this retarded conspiracy website.

 

[maninahat]

I don't care really, I have nothing to hide.

Who, besides criminals and legitimate organisations, needs to encrypt any data.

If you have nothing to hide, why do you close your curtains at night?
Ooh, if you have nothing to hide, can you send me your bank account details and sort code?
Can you send me your address and let me rummage through your house? If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear, right?

You close your curtains to hide your naked body from public view, not to hide illicit operations (though I suppose you could do both if you like to multitask). You don't give out bank details to prevent people from stealing your property or abusing that information. If a stranger wanted to rummage through my house, I don't see anyone having a problem with objecting to that.

Do you really think these examples of day to day privacy are comparable to using data encryption to facilitate and cover up illegal activities?

Have a scenario...

It's a bullshit scenario, not least because the police have no interest in coming around to your house. Not unless there was something illigitimate about your choice of pornography, in which case, you're going to get arrested for owning paedo pics anyway. If you're using encryption to hide the crime, that clearly makes you all the more devious and unrepentant (and thus deserving a more severe punishment). The only time this law is ever going to come up is if the police are already in the process of booking you for some other software crime, and you've gone to the lengths of hiding the crime from them.

 

[Darkmantle]

People do talk a lot of shit about the misery of living in America, and many of those criticisms remain perfectly valid. However, it's obviously evil shit like this commonly legislated by European nations that makes me glad to live in a country where the protection of law for individual citizens remains more important and more enshrined in law than the government's reach.

You can't be forced to self-incriminate in the US. This UK law enshrines into legal code a method by which the judiciary can force you to self-incriminate.

You are aware that you can be tossed in "detention" indefinitely under NDAA eh? They don't even need to incriminate you, self or otherwise :/

 

[Loop Stricken]

I don't care really, I have nothing to hide.

Who, besides criminals and legitimate organisations, needs to encrypt any data.

If you have nothing to hide, why do you close your curtains at night?
Ooh, if you have nothing to hide, can you send me your bank account details and sort code?
Can you send me your address and let me rummage through your house? If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear, right?

You close your curtains to hide your naked body from public view

Why?
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!

 

[maninahat]

Seeing as I fear many in this thread cannot comprehend the reasons to fear the ever-growing reach of the government, and the judiciary by proxy let me provide the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination

The fifth amendment, the one regarding protection against self-incrimination is relevant for the following (derived FTA) "Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination is directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions."

The fifth exists precisely to prohibit torture and to also prevent the miscarriage of justice by compelling false confessions. OP even mentioned that this UK law criminalizing data encryption is very likely to give rise to miscarriage of justice as law enforcement could demand encryption keys to either totally unencrypted information, or encrypted information whose key the subject does not possess.

There's a reason the protections exist. I genuinely sympathize with those who lack such protections.

We don't have a constitution as such (though various other documents serve vaguely similar roles), and as such, we don't have to abide by the 5th ammendment. In the UK, you have a right to remain silent, but the silence can be used as evidence against you; if you won't tell a court where you were on the night of the murder, it stands to reason that jurors may find this suspicious.

But really; Software keys are comparable to torture? Really?

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

I don't care really, I have nothing to hide.

Who, besides criminals and legitimate organisations, needs to encrypt any data.

*Scenario snip*

Except for the fact that in order to sentence you to that time under this regulation, they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have an encryption key which you are intentionally refusing to provide. And presumably to do that they have to, at the very least, prove beyond reasonable doubt that there's anything for there to be an encrpytion key for at all.

Good work there. Saved me the job of close reading both the legislation and this retarded conspiracy website.

In fact, I considered it further, and I realised something else...

This regulation is not the sum total of UK laws on the subject. This is only one regulation on the specific treatment of encrpyted information, and it would only be invoked at all if they have the rights to view the information at all, whether it's encrypted or not. Unless someone can demonstrate to me that the police also have the right to look at whatever information they want whenever they want, this is meaningless.

If someone can prove that they have the power to look at whatever they want, whenever they want then yeah, I'll be worried. But until then, this is just a regulation detailing the specifics of one scenario involving encrypted information.

 

[maninahat]

I don't care really, I have nothing to hide.

Who, besides criminals and legitimate organisations, needs to encrypt any data.

If you have nothing to hide, why do you close your curtains at night?
Ooh, if you have nothing to hide, can you send me your bank account details and sort code?
Can you send me your address and let me rummage through your house? If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear, right?

You close your curtains to hide your naked body from public view

Why?
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!

Your pedantic reading of the quote misses its point: "if I haven't committed a crime, I don't have to worry about this new regulation". The colloquial phrase has nothing to do with being bashful about public nudity. Don't be silly.

 

[Spygon]

Umm have you actually looked at the website you have just sourced OP? This is the same site that has stories on the USA starting a full on trade war with the rest of the world and refrigerator fees.

Keep banging your head on that lamppost as i know it's getting bad here but promoting insane websites like these.Is just going to make every person that protest an actual factual attack on human rights to be in the insane camp as well.

 

[The White Hunter]

OT - Meh, It's not as cool as the law about Welshmen and longbows.

Or the Scottish Law which allows the defendant to challenge the Queens' Champion to single combat.

I will totally do that if ever I have the chance.

 

[CentralScrtnzr]

Seeing as I fear many in this thread cannot comprehend the reasons to fear the ever-growing reach of the government, and the judiciary by proxy let me provide the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination

The fifth amendment, the one regarding protection against self-incrimination is relevant for the following (derived FTA) "Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination is directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions."

The fifth exists precisely to prohibit torture and to also prevent the miscarriage of justice by compelling false confessions. OP even mentioned that this UK law criminalizing data encryption is very likely to give rise to miscarriage of justice as law enforcement could demand encryption keys to either totally unencrypted information, or encrypted information whose key the subject does not possess.

There's a reason the protections exist. I genuinely sympathize with those who lack such protections.

We don't have a constitution as such (though various other documents serve vaguely similar roles), and as such, we don't have to abide by the 5th ammendment. In the UK, you have a right to remain silent, but the silence can be used as evidence against you; if you won't tell a court where you were on the night of the murder, it stands to reason that jurors may find this suspicious.

But really; Software keys are comparable to torture? Really?

Use of compulsion to produce self-incrimination is illegal, period and is a severe miscarriage of justice. Slippery slope in this case, but nevertheless I maintain it's valid. And I'm sure I can't find the link, but this specific issue I'm arguing, that is the use of compulsion to demand keys to unlock encrypted information is illegal in the US according to the fifth amendment according to some relatively recent ruling.

 

[CentralScrtnzr]

People do talk a lot of shit about the misery of living in America, and many of those criticisms remain perfectly valid. However, it's obviously evil shit like this commonly legislated by European nations that makes me glad to live in a country where the protection of law for individual citizens remains more important and more enshrined in law than the government's reach.

You can't be forced to self-incriminate in the US. This UK law enshrines into legal code a method by which the judiciary can force you to self-incriminate.

Wow so in America you can just tell the police ( who have warrants ) to just fuck off no wonder its so good over there

The police cannot force you to give up any password to encrypted material; that would be equivalent to forcing you to sign a confession. This doesn't stop them from trying other methods to access the material; this just means that they cannot compel you to aid their investigation against you.

It's no good being thin-skinned and apt to give quarrel to those who intended none.

Then the police can't force you to open the door they can just break it down. Not following
the logic on why one is better than the other

Edit wow I should proofread better

But merely opening the door to one's house doesn't lead directly to being indicted or convicted of a crime. And even then, there's nothing to stop the police from entering forcefully.

 

[Brandon Workman]

It's simple really, if you are doing illegal things, don't encrypt your drive else face the consequences

its not a problem of people doing bad things its that they could say your doing bad things when you haven't they can basically throw you in prison for having any files at all on any device

 

[CentralScrtnzr]

The police cannot force you to give up any password to encrypted material; that would be equivalent to forcing you to sign a confession.

No.
Its like unlocking the door when police produce a warrant to search your house.

The only time its remotely like signing a confession is when the encrypted data contains indisputable evidence that you have comitted a crime, even then you have the ability to argue against it in a court of law if you choose to plead innocent.

So you would argue that if the government had the power to probe your mind to determine your guilt in the manner of some crime, but required a password to do so, it could be compelled to demand the password to determine your criminality directly from your memories?

That certainly would change our conception of jurisprudence, wouldn't it. So you're saying that the government has the rights to anything of yours, in a judicial matter, as long as it requires a key?

I can't say I would agree with that assessment.

 

[Call me Baz]

source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53

"In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it."

If you NEVER had it; you are safe.

If you lost it, removed it or had it deleted, you are safe - as long as it can be proven that you still have it.

The article is complete bull. For some reason people never even look at the src material.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Okay, wow... Follow the link to that article you gave for that website, which gives a link to here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53

Which is a website that says, first and foremost:

Changes to legislation:There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.

Basically the very first thing it says on their source is that the source itself is out of date. I'm quivering in my shoes, really.

Oh, and secondly:

(2)In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it.

So the whole article is based on an incorrect assumption. Especially if you read on from that point, through sections 3 and 4, that seem to be saying that someone will only get in trouble for not providing the key if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that they do have it. In fact, sections 3 and 4 seem to be nothing but safety nets to stop people getting in trouble over this regulation.


Oh, and I do wish people would stop scaremongering over a 'possible' situation. The government could 'possibly' send in an SAS team to kick down my door and hose me down with bullets and the only thing they'd have to worry about are the repercussions that come afterwards. You know, the same repercussions that they'd have to deal with when choosing to specifically enforce a law in as absurdly unjust manner as possible. Which, since the article you linked has failed to provide an example, I will assume isn't happening.

Hurrah!

Now that that's been sorted let's play a game: Go back to the Website the article was taken off, look through the webpage it was on and take a shot of Vodka every time you see the word "ACTA". Go on, I dare everyone!

 

[Jamieson 90]

Things just keep getting worse and worse in the UK I'm afraid, as soon as I have enough money I'm either moving to Australia or Canada, most likely Canada since I don't like the idea of thousands of isnects and bugs being able to kill you, I jest

 

[Dogstile]

I don't care really, I have nothing to hide.

Who, besides criminals and legitimate organisations, needs to encrypt any data.

Employees of said organisations? Government workers? Game dev workers who don't want their source code nicked? Personal information you keep on your computer (Such as passwords to various websites, etc).

Honestly, your mindset is rather short sighted

 

[Weaver]

As other's have pointed out, the law doesn't really make encryption illegal. It simply means you have to give authorities encryption keys if you have them and they need them.

Making encryption illegal is the a stupid thing because it then means everyone communicating with encryption is now a special person; likely government and the communication is likely important. If everyone is encrypted, it means the special people can't be easily pinpointed.

If I were a government MASS encryption would be what I would want, to be honest.

 

[Dogstile]

source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53

"In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it."

If you NEVER had it; you are safe.

If you lost it, removed it or had it deleted, you are safe - as long as it can be proven that you still have it.

The article is complete bull. For some reason people never even look at the src material.

Here's a problem with that. You've never had the key. The authority's think you do. How do you prove them wrong?