British Police Demand Access To Encryption Keys 814
flip-flop writes "In the wake of recent terrorist attacks, police here in the UK have asked for sweeping new powers they claim will help them counter the threat. Among these is making it a criminal offense for people to refuse disclosing their encryption keys when the police want to access someone's files." From the article: "The most controversial of the police proposals is the demand to be able to hold without charge a terrorist suspect for three months instead of 14 days. An Acpo spokesman said the complexity and scale of counter-terrorist operations means the 14-day maximum is often insufficient."
They already have a law for this (Score:1, Informative)
Encryption Keys? (Score:5, Informative)
Already an offense? (Score:5, Informative)
It's already an offense (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Encryption key (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Oh yeah, that's why we threw their tea away (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Right to Prevent Self-Incrimination (Score:1, Informative)
This differs from a case where someone is held accused of something, but there is no particular evidence associating them with the accusation.
In this case, there is a specific item to which the defendant is tied. However, this item is encrypted. Basically, the court is saying that it assumes that this information is relevant and incriminating.
By way of analogy, consider someone who has been accused of murder, with no evidence. Contrast this with someone who has been accused of murder who has a locked box they refuse to open.
In the second case, the court could argue that the items in the locked box are relevant, and demand the defendant hand over the keys.
In reality, the locked box could contain any number of items, relevant or not. The defendant may have any number of reasons for not wanting to open the box, which may or may not be relevant to the particular case.
So it's not quite the same as being convicted "solely due to their silence", although there are similarities.
Re:Won't be long now (Score:2, Informative)
Reducing Everyone's Defensibility by Collectively Obstructing and Abating Terrorism
Re:demand encryption keys ? *yawn* (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh yeah, that's why we threw their tea away (Score:3, Informative)
a) When you're arrested the Officer will say "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later come to rely on in court". Note the part in bold - when questioned means when you are in a police interview room being tape recorded, not standing in the street talking to some moron in a blue uniform. Coppers will often hope to bluff you with this.
b) If you request a solicitor the police are not allowed to question you until you've seen one.
c) When you do see a solicitor all you have to do is persuade him to agree that it would be a good idea not to say anything you don't have to. Then you can answer questions with "on the advice of my legal counsel I have no comment to make at this time".
d) It's almost impossible for a prosecuting lawyer to make anything out of a statement like the above in court.
e) If the police have sufficient evidence to support a case against you they are required by law to stop questioning you. Conversely - if they're questioning you then you know the case against you is iffy. Consequently you're onto a winner as long as you keep your mouth shut.
Re:Guantanamo Bay? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Already an offense? (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, that was my immediate thought also. The RIP act [homeoffice.gov.uk] was actually past in 2000.
One interesting point I remember from it was that if you were no longer in possession of the key then you had to prove you didn't have it. In other words proving a negative! Besides, I'm sure any criminal wouldn't disclose the keys and take a shorter prison sentence if what they were encrypting was more damaging.
I'd advise anybody working in the computing profession, in the U.K., to be aware of this law and others.
Re:Oh yeah, that's why we threw their tea away (Score:1, Informative)
British nobility grant their peasants some rights, because after all, like a carrot on a stick.
The United States constitution identifies the rights of man given by God. It's not a statement of rights granted by the government, it's a statement of rights that the government doesn't have a right to touch.
Re:Is it possible to build in a decoy? (Score:3, Informative)
You're asking about 'rubber hose encryption.' Google for it.
Sunset: May 26, 2005 (Score:4, Informative)