|
|
|
|
|
|
by CydeWeys
3498 days ago
|
|
|
You can imagine someone being locked up for this though. If you are required by law to decrypt your data, and you chose technology that does not allow this, then that's on you. To use an analogy, if you choose to ride a bike that doesn't have lights, and then get pulled over for riding without lights, the lack of lights is not a defense because you were required to have them in order to be on the road at night. |
|
|
RIPA S49(2) (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/part/III/crosshe...):
If any person with the appropriate permission under Schedule 2 believes, on reasonable grounds—
(a)that a key to the protected information is in the possession of any person,
(b)that the imposition of a disclosure requirement in respect of the protected information is—
(i)necessary on grounds falling within subsection (3), or
(ii)necessary for the purpose of securing the effective exercise or proper performance by any public authority of any statutory power or statutory duty,
(c)that the imposition of such a requirement is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by its imposition, and
(d)that it is not reasonably practicable for the person with the appropriate permission to obtain possession of the protected information in an intelligible form without the giving of a notice under this section,
the person with that permission may, by notice to the person whom he believes to have possession of the key, impose a disclosure requirement in respect of the protected information.
If the technology by implementation never gives you the keys and doesn't retain them, then there can't be a reasonable belief that you're in possession of the keys, so the requirement fails at the first hurdle.