Dear UK. WTF are you doing ?
- Thread starter JesterRaiin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Midgeamoo said:
Nah, only about half of us. Sort of like you guys and "Sir Blatherton Monocle-Crumpet the Fifth".
Modern democracy. Has nothing to do with actual democracy, but for the sake of convenience we'll keep calling it that.
At least read the fuckin' article before writing such nonsense. The entire issue is that you CAN be sent to jail even if you DIDN'T do anything wrong.SonOfVoorhees said:
What a terrible source, others have already pointed out all the flaws, to re-iterate it's 12 years out of date and the law was you were only liable if you were in possession of the key to the encryption and then mysteriously lost it once it was requested. If you don't have it before the request is sent you're fine. In other words it makes sense, that's just a sensationalist article. What a shocker.
Also why do people do this with thread titles? I've seen it for countries/sexes/races...I don't make the rules for white, male Englishmen uni goers everywhere. Nor do I have much of a say in those decisions. Not many people do. Less than half of us elected this government for goodness sake and much less than that want it now, even if this was a legitimate thing (and it's really not) thread titles like this just...they make no sense.
Also why do people do this with thread titles? I've seen it for countries/sexes/races...I don't make the rules for white, male Englishmen uni goers everywhere. Nor do I have much of a say in those decisions. Not many people do. Less than half of us elected this government for goodness sake and much less than that want it now, even if this was a legitimate thing (and it's really not) thread titles like this just...they make no sense.
But if you read the law itself which the article is trying to scare monger from, it's closer to if they have the right to check encrypted information you own and if they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have the encryption key and if you then refuse to give it to them, then you might be in trouble. Basically if you purposefully impede them from examining information that they have the right to access then you may face a prison sentence for it.Adam Jensen said:
Having said that, I do agree with your main point that modern democracy seems to be getting worse over time. I just don't think it's as bad as the OP article wants to paint it yet. Stuff like this is what we need to be keeping an eye on, but we need to keep things in proportion as much as we can.
Right for all the people jumping the "civil liberties" and "human rights" bandwagons.
Too access ANY information stored on an electronic source the police in the UK require a search warrant from a magistrate otherwise any information gathered can not be used in a court and the forensic reports must show that the police did follow correct procedure in gathering evidence (no data modified, created or destroyed on the confiscated medium), and if it doesn't none of the evidence can be used in a court as part of a prosecution.
What this part of the RIPA act is referring to is if it is found that the drive is encrypted, the defendant must produce the key to it. This is perfectly reasonable as the police can be found responsible for any damage (physical or otherwise) to the defendant's property (e.g. tampering with the data on the drive). Oh and by the way the warrant the police can only be given if:
a. They state clearly what they are looking for (not specific file names)
b. They cannot take evidence that is not related to that case and must apply for another warrant if they find any to use that data in another case.
Now is that an infringement of human rights? In this case its more a case of not obstructing an officer in the course of his/her duty
Sources:
Digital Forensics Module at Uni
Computer Law Module at Uni
Too access ANY information stored on an electronic source the police in the UK require a search warrant from a magistrate otherwise any information gathered can not be used in a court and the forensic reports must show that the police did follow correct procedure in gathering evidence (no data modified, created or destroyed on the confiscated medium), and if it doesn't none of the evidence can be used in a court as part of a prosecution.
What this part of the RIPA act is referring to is if it is found that the drive is encrypted, the defendant must produce the key to it. This is perfectly reasonable as the police can be found responsible for any damage (physical or otherwise) to the defendant's property (e.g. tampering with the data on the drive). Oh and by the way the warrant the police can only be given if:
a. They state clearly what they are looking for (not specific file names)
b. They cannot take evidence that is not related to that case and must apply for another warrant if they find any to use that data in another case.
Now is that an infringement of human rights? In this case its more a case of not obstructing an officer in the course of his/her duty
Sources:
Digital Forensics Module at Uni
Computer Law Module at Uni
I'm in scotland, I've heard a little about this law.
The gist of it (as my limited legal knowledge has it) is this: if you are being questioned by police for something they suspect you of doing and they either seize a data device from your person or get a warrant to confiscate your computers, and *then* find something that is encrypted, and you refuse to provide either the encryption keys or the login details (delete whichever is applicable) then there is potentially some jail time in it for you.
I've only heard of this law actually being used once, and even then it didn't wash in court. The guy had serious paranoia issues, hence the encrypted drives and absolute refusal to be cooperative when questioned - the coppers tried to do him for it but it didn't stick becuase of aforementioned mental problems as far as I remember - he might have gotten a reduced sentence or something, can't recall.
Essentially, what you need to remember is that this isn't an everyday occurrence, and that although it's a rather empowering law and might seem quite draconian, it's really only the equivelant of you being obliged to give the police the keys to your car if they want to search it.
I do acknowlegde the point that your linked article makes about documents that *appear* to be encrypted, but you have to remember that the burden of proof is with the law. Any half decent solicitor would argue that they need to prove that the file is infact encrypted before they could send you to jail for not decrypting it, and if you can demonstrably prove how you could make a file that looks encrypted but isn't, you would have a strong case.
I have kept encrypted drives for work in the past (software development) but never bothered with my own personal data; I know this argument is hideously flawed but if you don't have anything to hide then don't hide it. Of course prudence would dictate encrypted drives for something portable or easily stolen if you were concerned enough to do it.
It's worth pointing out I think that America have a similar law where the authorities are allowed to search any and all data devices at airports / borders etc if they see fit; plenty other countries have stepped up the whole 'we need this law to fight bad guys' routine.
In conclusion - this law has been in effect for a couple of years now and so far the world has continued to revolve unimpeded - as always, common sense applies.
I won't try to say that the police are always just or that they are incorruptible but you can't expect to be allowed to hide things from them if you are being investigated - the maximum penalty for perverting the course of justice is life imprisonment - so by comparison a maximum 5 years (and that's if you're already a pedo) is quite tame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverting_the_course_of_justice#England_and_Wales
The gist of it (as my limited legal knowledge has it) is this: if you are being questioned by police for something they suspect you of doing and they either seize a data device from your person or get a warrant to confiscate your computers, and *then* find something that is encrypted, and you refuse to provide either the encryption keys or the login details (delete whichever is applicable) then there is potentially some jail time in it for you.
I've only heard of this law actually being used once, and even then it didn't wash in court. The guy had serious paranoia issues, hence the encrypted drives and absolute refusal to be cooperative when questioned - the coppers tried to do him for it but it didn't stick becuase of aforementioned mental problems as far as I remember - he might have gotten a reduced sentence or something, can't recall.
Essentially, what you need to remember is that this isn't an everyday occurrence, and that although it's a rather empowering law and might seem quite draconian, it's really only the equivelant of you being obliged to give the police the keys to your car if they want to search it.
I do acknowlegde the point that your linked article makes about documents that *appear* to be encrypted, but you have to remember that the burden of proof is with the law. Any half decent solicitor would argue that they need to prove that the file is infact encrypted before they could send you to jail for not decrypting it, and if you can demonstrably prove how you could make a file that looks encrypted but isn't, you would have a strong case.
I have kept encrypted drives for work in the past (software development) but never bothered with my own personal data; I know this argument is hideously flawed but if you don't have anything to hide then don't hide it. Of course prudence would dictate encrypted drives for something portable or easily stolen if you were concerned enough to do it.
It's worth pointing out I think that America have a similar law where the authorities are allowed to search any and all data devices at airports / borders etc if they see fit; plenty other countries have stepped up the whole 'we need this law to fight bad guys' routine.
In conclusion - this law has been in effect for a couple of years now and so far the world has continued to revolve unimpeded - as always, common sense applies.
I won't try to say that the police are always just or that they are incorruptible but you can't expect to be allowed to hide things from them if you are being investigated - the maximum penalty for perverting the course of justice is life imprisonment - so by comparison a maximum 5 years (and that's if you're already a pedo) is quite tame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverting_the_course_of_justice#England_and_Wales
I don't see a problem with this. If you're not giving up your encryption keys then you're obviously up to something illegal. They're not selling it on, and it wont become public knowledge, so your data still remains safe and secure from the bad guys (which is the point in encryption).
For a start, you won't even be asked to give it up unless you're under investigation.
I think this is great as it increases the powers of the law around cyber-crimes, which are ever increasing. SOPA bad, PIPA bad, ACTA bad; but this? This is good.
For a start, you won't even be asked to give it up unless you're under investigation.
I think this is great as it increases the powers of the law around cyber-crimes, which are ever increasing. SOPA bad, PIPA bad, ACTA bad; but this? This is good.
Well, you'd only go to gaol if you were a suspect in terrorism. Average Joe Public wouldn't be in the sights of the police if he's just being Joe Public and not someone with links to Al Qieda or the IRA that's under investigation.
Encryptions can be decrypted by police forces, you know... You won't be locked up for the hell of it. Once again, they'd only jack your photo's if you're a suspect of large-scale internet bank fraud, or terrorism, etc. No need to worry if you're not under investigation, why would police waste their time going door-to-door asking for encryption keys when they've got bigger fish to fry.
For one: I do not believe that the threat of an aerial attack is credible.SonOfVoorhees said:
For two: Shooting down a 747 over central london would cause catastrophic damage anyway. Anyone with half a brain can see that. The missles are simply there to make people, like you, feel a bit better.
For three: You put a missle installation ontop of a building, you turn that building into a target.
For four: I am utterly opposed to turning civilian structures into military installations.
Terrorism is stopped by our intelligence services. Who, over the last few years, are doing a pretty fucking amazing job at preventing attacks. Which is why we have not seen a second round of 7/7. Now, I am not saying that all the security is a waste of time. Checking peoples bags for guns, knives and bombs is a pretty good idea (Although the training that G4S has been providing its recruits is less then adequet to say the least).
But missles on roofs and the like? Utterly pointless, incredibly expensive bullshit.
And as for my tax-payer money? Well, I would rather that 9.5 billion pounds (Conservative Estimate) including more than 500 million on the security budget alone was spent on schools, hospitals, welfare programs. And not on some glorified egg and spoon chase.
I am almost certain that something is going to happen during the olympics. Anything from a pipe bomb to a nutter with a knife, all the way to something major. And I simply do not think it is worth it.
And as for a civilian building getting turned into a military installation "Not affecting me"? That is utterly subjective. Personally, I hate guns. And, whilst I support the military in their sterling efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, I hate seeing them on the streets of Britain.
For the duration of the games we are in effect living within a policed state. Factor in the fact that I am utterly disgusted by this colossal waste of resources and I see no benefit.
Move up north and check out how bad things are up here. Then preach to me why billions of public funds should be wasted on a "Legacy" that will not leave London.
*AHEM*Midgeamoo said:
BEER BELLY BILLY BOB REPORTIN FOR DUTY
we make up all dem best inventions! the world rely's on our edumacated science people!
OT: wow..really? gonna start one of "these" threads?
wonderful, I suppose it's been about 2 hours since the last one started..might as well keep up dumbass nationalistic bullshit.
I'm not familiar with the case but in the UK you can drink anything you want in your own home and you can have certain alcoholic beverages with a meal from the age of 14 in public.
I believe his point stands, it's really quite difficult to get a firearm in the UK.
We don't pledge allegiance to the Queen unless it's at the start of certain jobs, for example the Army, and certainly not everyday.
She's a ceremonial figurehead. She performs roles such as "assembling" the government after an election. But she has no real power, if she strongly disagrees with a law that is passed all she can really do is abdicate. Furthermore she makes a shitload of money for the country due to tourism which I believe mostly comes from the states (thank you), which is rather nice of her.
Theoretically she could oust our government, but it's just that, theoretical. I like to think of her more as a safeguard incase one of our prime ministers goes all facist on us.
OT. Every country in the world has stupid laws, but I'd rather our leaders deal with problems which negatively affect peoples lives rather than go through the very long list of all the laws and change them so they can't be used to scaremonger on the internet.