Amiga.org

Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Science and Technology => Topic started by: the_leander on October 06, 2010, 01:22:50 AM

Title: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: the_leander on October 06, 2010, 01:22:50 AM
Well, it was only a matter of time...

But thanks to RIPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000), a 19 year old (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11479831) is to spend the next 16 weeks in prison for refusing to hand over the password to his computer.

Thanks to slashdot (http://it.slashdot.org/story/10/10/05/2038219/British-Teen-Jailed-Over-Encryption-Password) for picking this up.
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: KThunder on October 06, 2010, 08:18:21 PM
I'm from the us so I don't know much about the law, but how is this different than refusing a search warrant?
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: the_leander on October 06, 2010, 09:08:35 PM
Quote from: KThunder;583305
I'm from the us so I don't know much about the law, but how is this different than refusing a search warrant?


It has no provision for forgetting a password for starters. It also goes against the principle of not being forced to incriminate oneself.
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: whabang on October 06, 2010, 09:24:13 PM
That's just... wrong.
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: Karlos on October 06, 2010, 09:30:33 PM
Quote from: the_leander;583309
It has no provision for forgetting a password for starters. It also goes against the principle of not being forced to incriminate oneself.

Yeah, now you can instead incriminate yourself by wishing to keep what little privacy you do have left. You could be innocent of any crime except that of allowing complete strangers access to your personal belongings (I don't see why personal data shouldn't count).
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: the_leander on October 06, 2010, 09:40:06 PM
Quote from: Karlos;583315
Yeah, now you can instead incriminate yourself by wishing to keep what little privacy you do have left. You could be innocent of any crime except that of allowing complete strangers access to your personal belongings (I don't see why personal data shouldn't count).


Suddenly, I can hear David Blunkett saying "if you've got nothing to hide you've nothing to fear"...
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: Karlos on October 06, 2010, 09:42:31 PM
Quote from: the_leander;583318
Suddenly, I can hear David Blunkett saying "if you've got nothing to hide you've nothing to fear"...


See no evil...


(ok, I admit, that was a pretty low blow)
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: the_leander on October 06, 2010, 09:47:18 PM
Quote from: Karlos;583319
See no evil...


(ok, I admit, that was a pretty low blow)


I still giggled like a loon :)
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: Karlos on October 06, 2010, 09:51:45 PM
I did think twice about posting it, but meh.I doubt he'll read it any time soon anyway...
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: the_leander on October 06, 2010, 09:55:27 PM
Quote from: Karlos;583325
I did think twice about posting it, but meh.I doubt he'll read it any time soon anyway...


Suddenly, wild groaners appear!
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: Firedawg on October 06, 2010, 09:58:09 PM
That youngster must of had his entire hard drive(s) total encrypted if they could not use basic tools for data recovery and needed his password to gain access.  Maybe, they need another law to allow them to open the case and extract the hardware? :roflmao:
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: the_leander on October 06, 2010, 10:00:51 PM
Quote from: Firedawg;583329
That youngster must of had his entire hard drive(s) total encrypted if they could not use basic tools for data recovery and needed his password to gain access.  Maybe, they need another law to allow them to open the case and extract the hardware? :roflmao:


kubuntu 10.04 offered up the option of encrypting the home partition as part of the install process.
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: Karlos on October 06, 2010, 10:07:54 PM
Quote from: the_leander;583327
Suddenly, wild groaners appear!


Serious poster, I choose you!

Serious poster uses "return to topic".

It's not very effective.
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: Heiroglyph on October 06, 2010, 11:09:56 PM
Quote from: the_leander;583309
It has no provision for forgetting a password for starters. It also goes against the principle of not being forced to incriminate oneself.


But isn't this the same as opening your door when served with a search warrant?

I don't quite understand how you are being forced to incriminate yourself.
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: the_leander on October 06, 2010, 11:28:56 PM
Quote from: Heiroglyph;583344
But isn't this the same as opening your door when served with a search warrant?


Refusing to open your door will result in your door being taken off of its hinges by a dainty set of size 11s. It will result in a fine as the council either board up or replace the door or simply the cost of the door itself. It will result in the officers who deal with you being much more short with you.

It will not result in an automatic prison sentence.

Quote from: Heiroglyph;583344

I don't quite understand how you are being forced to incriminate yourself.


Really? Are you actually saying the threat of imprisonment and all that entails isn't a form of coercion?

"I do not recall"

It is a tried and tested legal defence. One this law specifically forbids. It also denies you the right to remain silent, even if that has been significantly weakened in the UK.
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: Heiroglyph on October 07, 2010, 12:17:49 AM
If you refuse a normal search warrant (a court ordered document), you are in contempt of court, which does carry a fine and potentially a jail sentence at the judges discretion.

That's why I don't see a difference on this particular point.
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: Karlos on October 07, 2010, 12:25:27 AM
Quote from: Heiroglyph;583353
If you refuse a normal search warrant (a court ordered document), you are in contempt of court, which does carry a fine and potentially a jail sentence at the judges discretion.

That's why I don't see a difference on this particular point.


Technically perhaps, but in reality, the police are far more likely to gain forceful entrance to the property and since they gained entrance, you are extremely unlikely to be prosecuted for denying it.

They can't take a battering ram to your hard disk. Well, they could, but it wouldn't be an effective way of recovering the data...
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: whabang on October 07, 2010, 06:40:12 PM
The European court of human rights says that this is a big no-no. I see a debate about EU's right to meddle in domestic affairs in the close future; elected officials are generally quite upset when the EU is used against them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders_v_United_Kingdom
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: the_leander on October 07, 2010, 07:56:05 PM
Quote from: Heiroglyph;583353
If you refuse a normal search warrant (a court ordered document), you are in contempt of court, which does carry a fine and potentially a jail sentence at the judges discretion.


As Karlos said, you'd be damned unlikely to get fine much less a prison sentence for not opening the door during a raid. To refuse access to your computer is an *automatic* prison sentence. That is one hell of a difference.

Worse, there a removal to the right to remain silent implicit in this law.


Quote from: Heiroglyph;583353

That's why I don't see a difference on this particular point.


I'll bet.

@whabang

Good.
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: whabang on October 07, 2010, 10:06:34 PM
The problem is that this conflicts with the famous "right to remain silent". If one can suddenly sentenced to prison for exercizing the rights granted by the European human rights charter, then there is a huge problem.

The next logical step would be to threaten suspects with harsher punishment if they don't confess.
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: the_leander on October 08, 2010, 10:09:06 AM
Quote from: whabang;583476
The problem is that this conflicts with the famous "right to remain silent". If one can suddenly sentenced to prison for exercizing the rights granted by the European human rights charter, then there is a huge problem.


Lets face it, it wouldn't be the first law brought in under the last lot that came a cropper due to it being incompatible with human rights.

Quote from: whabang;583476

The next logical step would be to threaten suspects with harsher punishment if they don't confess.


Well they got rid of the presumption of innocence and the right to a trial by jury, so yeah, that sounds about right.
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: whabang on October 08, 2010, 11:13:40 AM
Presumtion of innocence is also in the EU human rights charter, FYI. :P
Title: Re: Ripa bags it's first victim
Post by: the_leander on October 08, 2010, 11:58:13 AM
Quote from: whabang;583567
Presumtion of innocence is also in the EU human rights charter, FYI. :P


And yet, it didn't stop the digital economy act becoming law...