UK Government Can Demand You Hand Over Encryption Keys 426
iminplaya writes "The UK government can now demand that citizens hand over their data encryption keys - or face jailtime for obstructing justice. The law only applies to data on UK shores, and doesn't cover information transmitted via UK servers across the internet. 'The law also allows authorities to compel individuals targeted in such investigation to keep silent about their role in decrypting data ... The Home Office has steadfastly proclaimed that the law is aimed at catching terrorists, pedophiles, and hardened criminals--all parties which the UK government contends are rather adept at using encryption to cover up their activities.'"
hmm (Score:4, Funny)
Life without public key cryptography (Score:3, Interesting)
People forget that the U.S. Senate came close to outlawing Public Key Crypto back in September of 1991. This is why there was a rush to release PGP back in the summer of that year. It negated anything the Senate could do.
One has to wonder what life would be like without public key crypto toda
Re:Life without public key cryptography (Score:4, Interesting)
From: Anonymous Stranger (someone@outsidetheuk.com)
To: Patsy (someone-else@inside.co.uk)
CC: Law Enforcement HQ (help@police.co.uk)
Subject: Confession
Dear Patsy,
I was just approached by an acquaintance who says he committed a crime for you. Not believing it, I asked for proof. He showed me this picture:
(insert photo of apparent crime in progress)
I was horribly disturbed when I saw this. Apparently, according to him, it's just a screenshot from a video of the crime and him talking about all of the details of it for you. When I asked why he felt safe keeping a video around, he said it's encrypted and that only you and he have the keys. I managed to swipe his USB memory stick, and sure enough, there's some big encrypted file on it. I'm attaching it below for you. Since the police will certainly be interested in what it shows, I'd advise that you hand over your encryption key to them immediately.
Zeitgeist says it is rich people wanting control. (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue, of course, is that systems are being put into place that can be used against citizens who protest. By using "terrorism" to create fear, those who want corruption and control are building systems that can be used to give them more control. Laws that required centuries to build are now being thrown away with as little awareness by citizens as can be designed.
The movie Zeitgeist explains it: The movie Zeitgeist (2007) [zeitgeistmovie.com] claims to explain it all, from an example of how people are controlled by myths, to how people who control government use fear to get more control, to why the U.S. government is pursuing a policy of hyper-inflation of the dollar now.
The movie is free and can be downloaded using a BitTorrent client, burned to a CD (a DVD is not necessary), and most modern DVD TV players will play it.
The Zeitgeist movie is very poor in some places, such as the opening sequences, and excellent in most places.
Don't expect emerging consciousness of very difficult subjects like those in the movie Zeitgeist to be free of error. The movie correctly says that "resurrection after 3 days" is part of many ancient myths, with an astrological background. However, the movie also speculates that Jesus Christ may never have existed. That is beside the point. In fact, whether Jesus Christ existed or not, many people in the world thought that his ideas and the ideas of his follower Paul of Tarsus were an improvement over what they had before. Even many people who do not claim to be part of a religion think that.
Those who want more information about how corrupters use fear can watch the free 3-Part BBC movie: The Power Of Nightmares: The Rise Of The Politics Of Fear (2004) [moviesfoundonline.com].
For those who don't know, and want to know what is happening and why, those movies are an excellent and entertaining way to start.
For people and their friends who invest in weapons and the manipulatable parts of the oil business, such as Cheney and the Bush family, controlling the government is how they make money and get more power. People from rich families often grow up believing that it is acceptable for them to kill people to get what they want. It is difficult, however, for the average person to believe that someone who already has a lot of money would kill others simply because he wants more money.
I am surprised at how much conflict of interest is allowed in the U.S. and U.K. governments. Why are weapons and oil investors like Cheney and Bush allowed to decide about starting wars in countries that have oil? (Afghanistan may not have oil, but oil investors want to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.)
Now the U.S. and U.K. governments are planning to start a war with Iran, another oil-rich country.
TrueCrypt has "plausible deniability. I wondered why TrueCrypt [truecrypt.org] encryption software has "plausible deniability". I guess that is why. We will soon all be needing it.
Re:Zeitgeist says it is rich people wanting contro (Score:4, Interesting)
If you have Truecrypt installed it just means you're going to rot in jail till you can either:
1) Convince the police that some random file you have that they are interested in is not encrypted.
2) Decrypt the file somehow (even if it wasn't encrypted in the first place
You'd be better off downloading some legal porn (or something similarly frowned on but legal) and encrypt sets of them (without truecrypt) and write down the keys somewhere so you never forget or lose it. Then if the Gov says "hand over the keys" you hand over the keys, rather than say "I have no keys".
A Gov like that is going to presume you're guilty of something.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The gov thug comes and says "Ah you're using Truecrypt, we know about that cool feature they mention in their website, so hand us all keys".
And if you're stupid you go "Uh I only have one key".
Then:
a) If you're not telling the truth, you're in deep shit.
b) If you're telling the truth, you're in deeper shit, since there's no key #2 to give them.
Think Truecrypt is so great now? Truecrypt's "plausible deniability" feature is crap.
What I call plausible deniability would be if a very po
Search is a legitimate police tool (Score:3, Informative)
No, it is when search [wikipedia.org] — the practice long accepted as a legitimate law-enforcement tool — is not enough.
If we allow police to search houses (including safes — demanding keys, when needed), it is only logical to allow them to also decrypt data (demanding keys, when needed).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are required to provide the key to your safe, so it can be searched.
"Obstruction of justice" can be thrown in as an extra charge. It rarely happens, I guess, because it is a very minor offense compared to the murder itself.
Interestingly, in the US, one can, probably, refuse to provid
Its very important that we all do this. (Score:3, Funny)
After all, if you've nothing to hide then whats the problem? I for one will be printing out all of my data in hardcopy to send to the government, as I am a PATRIOT.
After all - there was no terrorismisticals before the internet.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"After all, if you've nothing to hide then whats the problem? "
The problem is that people who SHOULD be hiding things, don't - like the whales on the beach (both sexes) who squeeze into too-tiny bathing suits.
As for the encryption keys - "Gee, I forgot it." Prove otherwise. How many passwords have YOU forgotten?
Re:Its very important that we all do this. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have the key for the TC volume in my head and nowhere else.
Should I be compelled to divulge my keys I can honestly say I don't know them and that they are stored in a secure volume.
Should I be compelled to divulge the "one key to rule them all" then I can either:
a) divulge the main volume key, thus granting access to what I deem to be low risk keys.
b) serve jailtime for "forgetting" the keys.
there is no option c) as I deny all knowledge of using th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Six months in the county lock-up will do wonders for your memory - which is what thi smart-ass response to the judge will get you.
Re:Its very important that we all do this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Six months in the county lock-up will do wonders for your memory - which is what thi smart-ass response to the judge will get you.
I happen to have something on my drive right now which for the last half year or so I have been *trying* to remember the password. I would delete it but for the slim chance I might be able to remember the password some day, or that a relevant cracking program might eventually be developed.
Nazi fuckers like you and these UK government government deserve a chainsaw enema. Being "tough on crime" is a mental defect when you are blind/unphased about imprisoning innocent people in your Crusade.
Oh wait, I forgot. Anything which makes it more difficult to catch and convict criminals must itself be made criminal. The fact that anyone ever posesses anything encrypted means they must already be a criminal.
-
Re:Its very important that we all do this. (Score:5, Interesting)
This law was passed 7 years ago, and the home office has been quietly waiting for the original outrage to die down to see if they could get away with actually using the powers they were granted before 9/11 or 7/7. Of *course* they'll only use it against terrorists and pedophiles. Nothing to fear citizen, sleep soundly in your bed, safe in the knowledge we're only imprisoning bad men. After all, only bad men use encryption then forget the password...
Of course, if you're a pedophile you're far better off taking the 2 years for failure to hand over your encrypted data, than to take the potentially decades in jail if you have incriminating photos and a sex offender offence that might well get you killed there. I don't think it'll be too long before the maximum sentence gets raised to be in line with the worst crime you might be assumed to have committed and hiding via encryption...
Laws Against Self-Incrimination (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems to me that anyone banged up for 'forgetting' their pass phrase would have excellent grounds for appeal, and overturning the law. And let's face it, this morally corrupt, authoritarian Labour government has had it's nefarious laws overturne
This is simply false (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This is simply false (Score:4, Informative)
That's not actually true. Here're the relevant sections, with added emphasis:
The only precondition for issuing a notice is reasonable belief. The only condition necessary for an offence to occur is that the recipient of the notice didn't act on it, knew what he was required to do and knew he was not doing it. The only time it is required for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is in posession of the key is if the defendent has produced evidence that he is not.
I believe you are in posession of a key with fingerprint 33a08b9d1e07, because somebody sent you a message that was encrypted with that key, and they wouldn't do that if they didn't think you could read it (reasonable belief). You have been issued with a section 49 notice requiring you to either decrypt the message or surrender your key. You can't do this because you don't have the key, and have no idea who sent you the encrypted message. Can you provide any evidence that you don't have the key? Because if you can't, I'm not required to prove that you do have it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but you fail to address the basis for that law. Encrypting your files is not illegal. However, it might as well be now.
The *purpose* of the law is to make hiding your data an offence, so that you don't hide your data, or if you do they can still nail you for something.
The *effect* of the law is that if you encrypt your files, regardless of whether you've done anything wrong - and I emphasise, encryption is sti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the encryption keys - "Gee, I forgot it." Prove otherwise.
They don't have to. If you don't provide a key they believe exists, for any reason including the fact that it doesn't really exist or that you really have forgotten it, then you are automatically guilty under the RIPA. It's a bit of law to make those behind the USA PATRIOT Act proud — and our glorious government even wrote it before 9/11.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Been like this for years (Score:5, Informative)
It had setup the system so that there could never be any confidence that ALL the encryption keys have been turned over.
Re:Been like this for years (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I use a somewhat secure method to protect my personal data. Its a thing I like to call 'burning to dvd and not keeping it on my pc'.
Yes I know dvd's can be stolen, but they have to find them first. Anyway, most of what I'm worried about isn't ephemorous threats of government snooping, but the far more likely possibility of my machine being hijacked by criminal types over the tubes.
Re:Been like this for years (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You have 2 computers, A and B. The HDD's in both are encrypted, the two systems network boot off each other, with the encryption key stored on the other machine. i.e. A's key is on B, and B's key is on A. You'd obviously need a third computer whilst building this system, but once built, as long as A and B aren't powered off at the same time you would have 2 fully encrypted servers with
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The legislation was passed in 2000, yes. However the law was phrased so that it wouldn't become active until parliament provided a code of practice and announced a date for it to become active on. The last I heard there was a draft code planning to commence the law on 1 October 2007. I hadn't heard about th
Re:Been like this for years (Score:4, Informative)
hidden volumes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:hidden volumes (Score:5, Informative)
This aspect of the law is routinely ignored on Slashdot to try and enhance the "evil" reputation of the law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) They violate your rights against self incrimination. Per the US constitution, I cannot be compelled to testify or offer evidence against myself. What this law says is that I MUST testify against myself, in the form of giving up *knowledge* that I have for the state to use against me.
2) While the warrant may be issued for a small piece of information, it has the potential to lay all your secrets bare. Let's say I am accused of child pornography, and tha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For criminal court, the charge for not handing over the keys, like claiming you forgot what the key was, due to all of the emotional stress of these accusations, is generally a lesser charge than the real crime (pedophilia, embezzlement, murder, copyright violation, whatever). of course if you're held in contempt you can be kept in a local jail indefinitely until y
Slashdot law (Score:2)
Not true.
The warrant will be for a search of your hard drive.
The consequences won't be pleasant when a judge asks why you withheld the key to a hidden volume that was known to others or was exposed in forensic analysis.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not exactly news (Score:5, Interesting)
Hand the keys over (Score:4, Interesting)
Are we surprised that digital keys have the same requirement?
And as for all the other (physical) keys you can refuse and let the courts (and a jury) decide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hand the keys over (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd imagine that depends on the punishment (and whether they can get away with it or not)---they can certainly break your head, just as easily as they break locks.
Re:Hand the keys over (Score:5, Insightful)
But...
Unfortunately, as soon as computer technology is involved, even some otherwise highly intelligent people instinctively turn off their brain and may be convinced that the existence of an encrypted file on your hard drive is tantamount to being found in possession of a giant underground bunker complete with piranha tank, spy-bisecting laser and fluffy white cat.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are we surprised that digital keys have the same requirement?
The requirement is not the same. If a judge orders you to do something, and you state that you cannot, it is usually up to the judge (or prosecution) to show beyond reasonable doubt that you could do it before you can be punished for that offence. Under the RIPA, it is up to you to show that you c
Truecrypt (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, you should assume your adversary is fully conversant with every aspect of your encryption system except the key. Any "secret process" it relies on is a good sign that you don't have an encryption system, you have a filing cabinet with a very expensive picture of a padlock painted on the side.
Your friends know about it. That's not the point. What they can *do about it* is the point.
Re:Truecrypt (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is not that they don't know it is possible. The point is that it cannot be proven that there is a second encrypted volume within the first one.
This makes it plausible to deny that it exist at all. If store some sensitive information in the outer volume, like some very embarrassing but not illegal pornography you can make a claim that this was the sole purpose of the outer Truecrypt volume. The law enforcement agency will have a hard time getting a judge to order you hand over keys to a hidden volume they cannot prove exist.
Hidden volumes in Truecrypt got nothing at all to do with "security through obscurity", it's all about "plausible deniability". You can ask your friend in the police about that, if he has any experience with the security community at all he should be very well acquainted with this term.
Of course, if you admit or in other ways make it provable that there exist an inner volume then all bets are off
This will probably work in societies like USA and UK where the police have to follow certain procedures. In countries like Burma or China where they will just torture you until you confesses or dies, I'm not so sure about the value of this scheme.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My God, it's brilliant. A matryoshka-doll-like layered encryption scheme full of porn!
Three Words (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly the sort of situation that hidden volumes were created for. The government asks you to hand over your encryption keys? "Well sure officer, here's the key to my encrypted volume, but there really isn't anything on there besides some harmless porn (or anything else that might be plausibly embarrassing enough to keep hidden away)" Of course, it's probably only a matter of time before someone decides to make it illegal to possess programs that can create any sort of hidden volume, but that's another issue.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So, lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Tell them to get bent, go to jail for a year as a symbol of government run rampant (face it, some "activist" will pick up his "cause")
or
b) Immediately hand over the key, which is then used to procure the evidence of his computer, putting him in jail for 20 years as an ACTUAL terrorist/pedophile.
That's not even getting into the situation if one is NOT an actual pedorist. Terrorphile?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you refuse to obey to a law is not proof that you are breaking other laws.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because no judge, without very convincing evidence, is going to believe that you *cannot* breathe into a tube to prove your innocence or guilt...ergo obstruction. However the entire thread of this discussion revolves around thoughts or knowledge in your head which is intangible and very difficult to prove or disprove. If you say, "I don't know" or "I don't remember" or
Solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, you should establish an encrypted connection, use it to exchange private information, then destroy the keys after the connection is closed. SSH is one protocol that does this automatically. That way, although a wiretap can record the ciphertext, the authorities cannot retrieve the encryption keys because they no longer exist. Your democratic right to privacy is preserved.
I wonder if any instant messaging programs have implemented this? If so, do they consider the possibility of man-in-the-middle attacks as SSH does?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not very well informed either.
Governments have a nasty habit of taking innocuous data and trying to make something sinister out of it. They can either try to make something out of the information itself directly or choose to draw strange inferences out of it.
Oppose the wrong law. Support the rights of the wrong types of people. Practice the wrong religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like when they spy on you in the airport for having a "bad" book [wired.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes. The old "I have nothing to hide, so I don't mind you violating my privacy argument". My response is that this assumes that the government is perfect, i.e. competent enough to interpret all information correctly, 100% of the time, without bias. I don't want to be placed on a no-fly list because of something inopportune I might have said to a friend.
Re: (Score:2)
For an example of how the government can get completely out of control over absolutely nothing, look at those kids in Florida who were arrested for distributing kiddi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, don't stick your nose into my business. If I wanted you to read my super secret double delicious chocolate chip cookie recipe, I would have Cc'd you.
Wow, well I guess it takes all kinds really. Personally I'd want to help the police in an investigation anyway I can (as I have no plans on breaking any of the current laws. If future laws are enacted I felt the need to break my voluntary aid might come to a halt) so they can eliminate me as a suspect and move onto catching the real criminal.
After all, why do you send anything in an envelope instead of on postcards?
1) I don't send letters. I have however sent postcards
2) You can fit more onto letters
3) Postcards can be read by anyone (including the mail staff). I might not feel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Saying you forgot the key, as someone mentioned, only gets you put in jail for perverting the course of justice.
Truecrypt Hidden Volumes can possible give you plausible deniability. I guess that is the only way.
Re: (Score:2)
I regard the keys to my encrypted filesystems as being secret, but I would still produce them if I was forced to do so by the UK police. So the layer of encryption doesn't provide security against the Government, but it does protect the data from thieves and tampering, and it forces officials to ask me for the keys if they want to see what's on the disk. I think that's about as good as things can get.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Intended usage (Score:3, Insightful)
That's right, I seem to recall that Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman wrote about providing protection for pedophiles and terrorists in the motivation section of their paper on RSA.
What if...? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't have a problem handing the keys to the authorities provided they can give me a good reason they need them (I really don't enjoy handing out trade secrets, you know...), but what if I just simply and plainly cannot?
Dead-mans handle saves (Score:4, Interesting)
When you are asked for the keys, refuse until you are arrested and unable to save the keys from being revoked.
The revocation is the trigger that you have been asked.
Sam
Variant (Score:3, Interesting)
You have the password to unencrypt your offshore keys. This password cannot be demanded of you (jurisdiction). But when you want to use your encryption keys, your application asks for the password, retrieves the key, and performs your data decryption (locally or remote?).
Decidedly more trouble than it's worth, but an interesting thought exercise.
How to screw someone (Score:4, Interesting)
2. Tip off the authorities to their "terrorist plans"
3. Watch them get five years for "refusing" to decrypt the "data"
You can have my encryption key... (Score:2)
...when you pry it from my cold, dead, mouse hand.
Search warrants? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know everyone gets their panties in a wad about the guvmint decrypting their data, but I'm somewhat okay with it if a court is involved in the issuance of a valid search warrant. It's not fundamentally different from the court-overseen right to come into your home and search the premises.
You can't completely declaw the police or they'll be useless at any type of law enforcement.
Plausible deniability (Score:2)
The really evil part (Score:5, Insightful)
This law is NOT directed against terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)
If te maximum jail time for not divulging encryption keys is significantly less than the time for actually being convicted of terrorism, then it should be obvious that real terrorists would never divulge such encryption keys.
No, this law, and others like it in other jurisdictions, are simply there to give the police one more reason to force regular citizens to hand over their keys.
If you actually do have something to hide from the authorities, the best idea is probably to look into http://truecrypt.org/ [truecrypt.org] and the capability of having hidden encrypted volumes.
When forced, either by legal threats or by rubber hose interrogation, you can then divulge the primary key. On the primary volume you should store potentially embarrassing, but not really critical information. This should be sufficient to show that you had reason to hide said info, but not enough to put you in jail for a long time.
If you happen to be located in a place like Myanmar/Burma, then you should also use TrueCrypt, for exactly the same kind of reason.
Terje
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
What if your password incriminates yourself? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was wondering how the court would rule if your password contained information that would incriminate you in a different crime.
For example, if your password was: "my_murder_victim_is_buried_under_my_patio" or "I_embezzeled_20million_into_account_123456789", wouldn't revealing the password violate your right against self-incrimination (at least in the US)?
Provable deniability (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Setup fil disk encryption with a random password (Linux dm-crypt)
2. Overwrite mounted encrypted volume with random data (not cryptogtaphically strong)
The result cannot be distinguished from an ordinary encrypted disk, and that can be mathematically demonstrated. Also there is no way I can prove there is really no data there. Again mathematically proovable that I cannot demonstrate this.
May other secure deletion utilities produce results much like this, i.e. not distinguishable from encrypted files or whole disks.
So, everybody that does secure deletion of this type now goes to prison? I don't think so. What I think is that it requires a conclusive explanation of this impossibility to get this law restricted to cases were the authorities first can proove the presence of encrypted data. This will be the cases where the users do not understand crypto. All eth others will szucessfully evade this exceedingly incompetent law.
Re:Old News (Score:5, Insightful)
Since part of the law prohibits telling anyone that you have had to hand over the keys, how can you be sure about that ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, the law was *made* years ago. It has yet to be used because it first entered into force yesterday. Give them time!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, a lot of us did do things about this at the right time, thank you. Lot of good it did us, of course, but at least we tried rather than just complaining about people who aren't trying.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is "Freedom" is a very abstract concept that can be easily twisted to mean both opposites. Speeches by infamous dictators like Hitler and Pol Pot often feature words like 'Freedom'. Most of the time it's not that people wish to deny Freedom, but that they disagree on what freedom is.
i.e. Freedom to buy addictive drugs or Freedom from addictive drugs?
Freedom from Self-Incrimination (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are still people who think that freedom is too precious to be given to the people they are protecting it for. Damn.
Indeed. Look no further than any GPL vs BSD discussion for evidence of that.
/Couldn't resist.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. We have plenty of written documents that provide our rights, dating back to the Magna Carta [wikipedia.org] and most recently the Human Rights Act 1998 [wikipedia.org] (which forms part of several international treaties so is not something the government can back out of easily). Most of the British constitution [wikipedia.org] is written, however it isn't written in a single document li
Troll. So easy to threadjack. (Score:2, Interesting)
Yay! The Four Horsemen! But they forgot the Money-Launderers.
This reminds me, some guys had sent a PGP-encrypted email to the (Autstralian?) Prime Minister, then reported him to the police. His house was searched for the crypto keys; the next day the law project was put under
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Can not recall your key
2. You have no recollection of ever setting up encryption
Unfortunately they seem to have thought of this. Not being able to recall your key is not a defence, unless you can provide evidence that you've forgotten it. And they only have to show reasonable grounds to believe you ever had it, not that you actually did.