Dear UK. WTF are you doing ?

Recommended Videos

JesterRaiin

New member
Apr 14, 2009
2,286
0
0
Heeeej !

I'll just leave it here, and return to banging my head against the wall.

http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/12/in-the-uk-you-will-go-to-jail-not-just-for-encryption-but-for-astronomical-noise-too/
 

Ruedyn

New member
Jun 29, 2011
2,982
0
0

Not from the UK, just thought I'd get a good laugh from whatever this was. I was right!
 

Giftfromme

New member
Nov 3, 2011
555
0
0
It's simple really, if you are doing illegal things, don't encrypt your drive else face the consequences
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Well, I'm sure they'll realize their mistake when half of their nation is in jail and the other half is in charge of guarding them.
 

Rainmaker77

New member
Jan 10, 2012
56
0
0
Pretty sure that law is irrelevant. You can just claim that the law is against your human rights and when the judgement goes to Brussels you'll be laughing.

The human right defence is really a get out of jail free card in the UK at the moment.
 

Rastien

Pro Misinformationalist
Jun 22, 2011
1,221
0
0
Just a thought really on this but do you know of anyone actually being convicted of this?, the way i look at it it, it its a pretty old law now and is unlikely to be used on someone by a judge at the end of the day.

I doubt a judge would lock someone away for having something encrpyted and genuinly not knowing how to access it. I would hazard a guess the law is just there when they feel the need to threaten a high profile suspect. You're not gonna get Grandma Dorris in there who downloaded some dodgy music then locked her self out her pc getting thrown in jail for 5 years...

Either way what intrests me is why is a swedish pirate party digging around old UK laws and fear mongering with them :/ what does this acvhieve?
 

ChildishLegacy

New member
Apr 16, 2010
974
0
0
Am I the UK? Am I qualified to answer to the title question?

If so, my answer is, sitting here playing games, eating, watching youtube videos and constantly checking the steam summer sale for new amazing deals.

You see - I don't make the laws here.
 

Geo Da Sponge

New member
May 14, 2008
2,611
0
0
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.
 

Blunderboy

New member
Apr 26, 2011
2,224
0
0
the darknees abyss said:
Not much in school do no work pretending to do work wait for holiday to get out off the uk
Are you high?

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

surg3n

New member
May 16, 2011
709
0
0
Keep banging that head, you'll go numb before very long, and all of this will just be some horrible dream.

Here was me hoping that this was going to be some sort of grim story about peoples rights being abused, or something stupid some stupid polititian stupidly said... but no, it's more hogwash, more outlandish hogwash that means nothing.

I wish The Escapist would introduce a 'FOR-FUCK-SAKE' filter... save some people going full retard and reporting on shite like this.
 

CAPTCHA

Mushroom Camper
Sep 30, 2009
1,075
0
0
Well this law will only be brought out in cases where evidence that could convict a fellon is been withheld willfully by the defendant. I see this as being no different from a warrent been issued to search someones premesis if they are under suspicion of nefarious deeds.

A bigger problem comes from an American law... *riposte*

...a law that allows the govenment to seize all data from a server if it is suspected to contain evidence relevent to a single case. With potentially thousands of individuals storing information on a server, the American government can invade the privacy of innocent people by proxy. Worse yet the law is enacted not by who owns the server, but it's physical location. As it stands, the entirety of, let say... the curiculum, student information, and research logs of Sydney University could be seized by American agents because it also happend to be the server on which an American criminal posted his blog.

Now that is fucked beyond belief and is totally legit at present.
 

CAPTCHA

Mushroom Camper
Sep 30, 2009
1,075
0
0
Blunderboy said:
OT - Meh, It's not as cool as the law about Welshmen and longbows.
Or the Scottish Law which allows the defendent to challenge the Queens' Champion to single combat.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
Jean Hag said:
V for vendetta anyone?
The U.K. seems to be getting there a bit at a time.
When a single person is convicted or suffers because of this stupid law (evidenced by a fantastical conspiricy website) ill start to believe you. Until civilians are killed in the streets people need to cut down on the hypoerbole. It makes everything you say impossible to take seriously.
 

Rawne1980

New member
Jul 29, 2011
4,144
0
0
Djinn8 said:
Or the Scottish Law which allows the defendent to challenge the Queens' Champion to single combat.
That would be fun to watch though..

"Now fight my Corgies criminal".
 

someonehairy-ish

New member
Mar 15, 2009
1,949
0
0
Talk about sensationalising every bit of 'news'. This is only relevant if authorities can make a case that the encrypted files are likely to contain anything. Like how getting a warrant to search a property requires some evidence that they might actually find something first.

Also, please don't phrase it like that, as though every UK citizen said 'please, Mr Government, bend us over and give us the iron fist of the law'. We don't make the rules or agree to them. Don't imply that we do.

Or we'll come over there and nut you in the face.
 
Aug 25, 2009
4,611
0
0
European Court of Human Rights is the greater power. If you appeal to it then the ruling will fall apart. Learn your international law before you go making threads like this.

And America really does not want to get into a 'who takes away the most personal rights from its citizens' debate. Glass houses and stones people, glass houses and stones.