[phnofive]

The legal system in the UK recognizes several rights against self-incrimination, but there is a carve-out for the per se crime of failing to disclose a key to encrypted information - punishable by years in prison.

How is this different than refusing to tell where you've buried the bodies? Why should the police be permitted to assume you're guilty and in possession of vital information under certain circumstances?

[Manuel_D]

And perhaps more importantly, it becomes a de-facto crime to ever forget an encryption key. People forget the passkeys to crypto wallets all the time, losing millions. How can the police effectively prove that someone remembers the passcode? What if someone, after a few months in prison, says they've reconsidered and are willing to comply. They try to decrypt it but fail and subsequently say they the stress of incarceration has made them misremember the passcode?

[psychphysic]

It's also troubling that it's a crime not to disclose right now.

Disclosing those keys is probably a serious legal decision. The police will copy your entire phone including any nude pics, saucy messages etc.

Given the absurd number of UK police who have gotten in trouble recently for sharing pictures of dead bodies it's understandable you wouldn't want to just give them forever access to that or take a decent period to fully consider.

[blibble]

> How can the police effectively prove that someone remembers the passcode?

if they can prove you were using the phone an hour ago that would probably do it

[negidius]

The stress of being arrested and threatened with years in prison if you don't remember your passcode could very well cause someone to forget it.

[ericbarrett]

A few weeks ago my house sprang a massive leak in the roof during a rainstorm, just as I was preparing for a week-long business trip. I got so stressed, the next morning I forgot the passcode I'd been typing into my iPhone for the last five years. Three days of carefully writing down my attempts didn't work—I hit the ten-mistake limit and the phone auto-wiped.

[anonzzzies]

I invalidated my debit card in a similar event. I used it hours before but suddenly for the life of me I couldn’t remember the 4 digits and nor could my fingers. It was after I heard about a death of a relative. Eventually I remembered but the card was already useless and a new one had been dispatched to me.

[carlmr]

Especially that. I forgot my pin once in a stressful situation as well, and that wiped my brain.

I ordered a new SIM card which was luckily enough. But sometimes you store something in muscle memory, not number memory.

[eviks]

Yeah, 10 is a stupidly low limit, it won't save you from some hackers, and it won't help you much when you forget

[plonq]

Something similar happened to me (though I did eventually remember). Now I always save PINs and passcodes in a password manager

[jimmygrapes]

Just today (and many times before) I witnessed a coworker flummoxed by their Windows log in PIN not working. They insisted it was the same thing they used to log in not even 10 minutes ago, before locking it to go pee. However perhaps because I was asking for immediate information, the PIN they used countless times per day simply didn't work. I said "don't worry about it, I'll figure it out" and walked away. Few seconds later they shouted down the hall, "It worked this time, what did you need again?"

[lenkite]

Folks mistype when they are in a hurry. They were likely remembering it correctly but not inputing it properly until you walked away.

[blibble]

the thing is it's not incontrovertible proof, it's "beyond reasonable doubt"

the prosecution would show up with when you bought the phone, how many times you'd used it, that you used it 80 times in the last hour, and so on

and it comes down to whether or not a jury would believe that you had really forgotten it (despite that evidence)

[negidius]

Which means that someone who forgets their passcode because of the stress of being arrested and threatened with years in prison could easily be wrongfully convicted. It's a horrible law, even for those who don't care about privacy.

[yongjik]

IANAL but it sounds like this defense would be received about as well as "Your honor, the defendant was in grave stress of being arrested and threatened with years in prison. That's why he completely forgot why and how he parked his car next to Crosby Lake and was walking in the shallow water, carrying an identified bag, at 3am."

[blibble]

I am not a fan of the RIP Act (and there's plenty more badness in there)

but playing devil's advocate, without this specific offence the disclosure sections would be completely ineffectual

(remember the UK also allows adverse inferences to be made from silence, it is not the US)

[yencabulator]

The lesson to take away from that is to have a smaller compartment (or multiple) inside the computer that contains all the juicy stuff. Unlock the main one, claim to have forgotten the keys for the juicy compartments, and you're keeping it around in hopes of remembering the key one day.

[counttheforks]

right, you are explaining why the law is ridiculous and unfair

[lenkite]

Actually, I forgot the passcode to my phone after being involved in an accident. It was utterly nerve wracking. Got blasted by so many people for not calling up and I was embarrassed to admit that I couldn't remember my passcode.

I had gotten used to putting in the passcode without even seeing the screen and completely lost this muscle memory at the time of the accident - likely due to high stress. I did not remember it later either - it was like my mind just rejected the memory and simply couldn't place out what were the exact digits.

Became far more understanding of my parents forgetting stuff after that incident.

Anyways, the point is that you can un-believably forget the phone passcode at a time of stress. Sure, some cool-as-cucumber humans will never forget anything, but the vast majority of people are not like that.

[causality0]

Right. I stopped using hardware encryption after I forgot the password to my IronKey and had to throw it away.

[yencabulator]

That's just a not-friendly HSM. You should be able to reinitialize things, but not extract secrets from them. For example, you can reinitialize Yubikey's "key slots", without remembering the PIN.

[eviks]

They can do it the same way they prove everything else - ineffectively

[wjnc]

Everybody’s guilty! Got unexplained 0’s and 1’s on a USB? Must be a hidden partition.

[kergonath]

> How is this different than refusing to tell where you've buried the bodies?

They can get away with it because it’s on a computer. The voters don’t care, and the MPs by and large don’t understand. Those who do would love the same principle to apply to the body case as well.

[toyg]

That's because the memory of truly oppressive governments in Western Europe has faded. People who don't remember history, are doomed to repeat it.

[andy_ppp]

I do wonder if the masses always end up voting in fascists every 50 years or so simply because they forgot that there were some things worth fighting for. Does it feel like to anyone else we are on the precipice of extremely big changes that might not be good for anyone?

[Loughla]

I don't think it's forgetting that some things are worth fighting for.

I think it's that, after a fascist government is ousted via violence, people spend so much time and effort to demonize them, that Joe Blow on the street doesn't see them as 'Us' anymore.

We would never make decisions like They made, so We don't have to worry if Our leader is a fascist. Our leader is nothing like Their leader was, other than in absolute power. Our leader has our best interests in mind. Their leader was just a power hungry madman.

When we remove the humanity from the monsters, we fail to remember that we could be monsters, too.

[kergonath]

Primo Levi had a strong argument along those lines. We must not deny their humanity or call them or their actions inhuman. First, that would be doing them what they did to a lot of people (Jews, but not only). Then, it is in a way providing them excuses by holding three to a different standard. Finally, it would make it seem like regular, normal people are incapable of doing the same thing. Historical evidence shows that yes, normal people can do this.

> When we remove the humanity from the monsters, we fail to remember that we could be monsters, too.

I could not agree more.

[all2]

As social creatures, humans tend to defer to authority and go with the flow. Both of these make for disastrous outcomes, depending on the authority deferred to and the direction of the flow.

Why did so many turn a blind eye to the Holocaust? Why did so many ignore the Holodomor? Why did no one stand against great evil?

Presently, there is debate about whether there is true Evil, as well as some absolute Truth. And if there's no foundation on which to build a case of "this is evil", then why would anyone act? Couple that with the fact that -- at least in the United States -- it is legal for the government to propagandize (re lie) the American peoples, and you have a perfect storm of stress and lies that leads to "I'm alone and there's nothing I can do in face of all that is terrible".

What is one man to do?

The one man at Tianeman Square became an emblem of standing up to tyranny. What if there had been another with him? Or ten more?

Solzhenitsyn claims that a little resistance would have completely disabled the Russian Communists.

[justinclift]

> The one man at Tianeman Square became an emblem of standing up to tyranny.

And was never seen again. :/

[vkou]

> Solzhenitsyn claims that a little resistance would have completely disabled the Russian Communists.

The Russian civil war lasted six years, was a bit more than 'a little resistance', killed ten million people, and it didn't quite achieve the desired effect.

If anything, it grew and encouraged the winners' paranoia, and put them on a permanent war footing.

[phpisthebest]

Strauss–Howe generational theory holds that upheaval or major crisis (like a world war) occurs every 80-100 years

If that holds true the next fews years are going to be interesting

[than3]

It will definitely be interesting times.

It usually starts with lack of representation, then coercion and then compulsion. I'd say its probably closer to 60 years, all you really need is one bad large generational cohort to get the snowball rolling, and then it becomes almost impossible to reverse, 2 generations down; with the standard generational time period being 20 years.

[phpisthebest]

Lucky me that I am set to retire (15-20 years from now) about the time this will all kick off on the terrible side of that cycle...

unless ofcourse we get WWIII early due to Russia....

[iepathos]

Can't forget things they never experienced. Most of the voters weren't alive 50 years ago or more like 78 years ago if you're looking to the end of ww2.

[toyg]

Knowledge can be transmitted, if it doesn't happen (or significant distortions happen) is because we have societal failures.

[robswc]

I think this is a big part of it.

I remember growing up reading Harrison Bergeron (in school) and always thinking there's no way such a system would ever come about by the will of the people... yet SF proves people are all too happy to implement such a system (tearing down gifted students for the perceived benefit of everyone else). SSDD.

[vkou]

Of all the insane, repressive and straight-up authoritarian systems in the United States today, you picked... A failed pilot for middle-school algebra in SF?

[cscurmudgeon]

It wasn't just a failed pilot: It was a pilot which prevented advanced students from taking algebra. Lines up with Harrison Bergeron perfectly.

And on top of it they claimed it was a success as failure rates went down. The failure rate went down because nobody was being tested.

https://www.joannejacobs.com/post/algebra-for-none-fails-in-...

> The district had bragged that algebra failure rates had dropped. Families for San Francisco, a parent group, analyzed the data: Failure rates dropped after the district dropped the end-of-course exam.

[cm2187]

The absence of a strong constitution protecting fundamental rights is also an issue. With a 50%+1 majority, the house of commons can vote pretty much any law it wants with no counterpower.

[toyg]

The British system is, indeed, fundamentally insane, from a technical perspective. They nerfed aristocratic power by neutering the House of Lords, but didn't bother replacing it with some other check or balance, leaving the Commons all-powerful - and with an electoral system that disproportionately favours cohesive ideologic minorities. Ironically, this was largely done by self-declared leftists, who utterly failed to anticipate how fascism could easily manifest through such a system.

[orra]

> Ironically, this was largely done by self-declared leftists

Eh, the Parliament Act 1911 was passed by a Liberal Government.

> who utterly failed to anticipate how fascism could easily manifest through such a system.

The Liberal Party, and its successor the Liberal Democrats, has long been in favour of electoral reform.

[toyg]

> Parliament Act 1911 was passed by a Liberal Government

... sustained by Labour MPs, and mostly in order to bust a ironclad Tory majority in the Lords that was effectively "ruining" every progressive bill.

It was then further strengthened in 1949 (Lab) and 1999 (Lab).

I mean, there is no shame in this: it was a worthy and progressive cause to drag a XVIII-century model (kicking and screaming) into modernity. It's just a shame that the execution was fairly poor, particularly in 1999 - when there was a unique chance to build something more theoretically sound, and (unlike 1911) there was a lot of history to learn from.

[blibble]

and the RIP Act was passed by a Labour government

(and the Terrorism Act)

[kergonath]

> The British system is, indeed, fundamentally insane, from a technical perspective.

The best is the unwritten rules. Which are ironclad and “part of the constitution of this country”, except when they aren’t and get just ignored because it’s convenient. But hey, every couple of years journalists can play fun what-if games tracking down ancient customs and speculate whether a 300 years old precedent could be used to behead the PM or some other nonsense.

[cscurmudgeon]

> Ironically, this was largely done by self-declared leftists

And they now want a similar thing in the US:

https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2019/4/9/18300749/s...

[FridayoLeary]

While in theory you are correct the reality is somewhat different. Individual mps are beholden to their local party and would hesitate to vote on anything that may endanger their position. Backbenchers have brought down 3 successive governments. There also exists an upper chamber and a high court to appeal to. It's mostly a pretty stable system.

[toyg]

Individual MPs are not selected by local parties anymore, that ship sailed 30 years ago. Parachuting chums in safe seats it's been the accepted norm since (at least) Blair. Backbenchers do what they do because they're fighting among themselves, organized in gangs (sorry, "think-tanks" or "research groups") to bolster their own career opportunities.

There is no upper chamber that I know of (the Lords is legislatively dead, a strong government can simply ignore it), and the powers of the High Court, already diminished by recent reforms, are likely to be further curtailed very soon (read the tea leaves: the debate on "abusing judicial procedures to make law", once the remit of right-wing Americans, was the subject for an entire Reith Lecture cycle only a couple of years ago; after the Brexit saga, Tories will take an axe to the HC as soon as they can afford to do so).

[zamnos]

Ah! Not to worry, those who do remember history are doomed to watch others repeat it, so I think it's a bit of a wash in the end.

[pengaru]

I wonder if Berlin's society is already atrophying in this department.

[toyg]

Germans are actually the most inoculated against that type of virus, they will be the last to fall. They are at the forefront of anti-authoritarian efforts in technology, for example.

US/UK/France, on the other hand...

[account42]

The fuck are you basing this on.

[cscurmudgeon]

Wasn't Germany actively supporting Russia despite US warnings before the Ukraine war?

https://elamerican.com/germany-mocked-trump-dependence-on-ru...

[midoridensha]

They were supporting Russia economically by purchasing energy (gas mainly) from them. They basically had the crazy idea that economically intertwining themselves with Russia and making themselves dependent on Russia would magically turn Russia into a modern, democratic European nation, basically "if we bring them into our club, they'll come around to our way of thinking". It didn't work, just like economically integrating with China hasn't turned China into a western-like nation either, it's only enabled the authoritarians.

[vintermann]

The voters don't know. It has received very little coverage. From what I can see, only Guardian and BBC have covered it, and neither show it on the front page (for me) right now.

Of cases they consider more important are the late Aaron Carter's drug use, a mystery spiral in Alaskan skies, Russian ships accused of spying in Norway, how to combine Ramadan fasting with fitness, potholes in Uganda to name a few.

[OkayPhysicist]

I can definitely see how instead of viewing a device as an extension of a suspect's mind, you can view it as just another piece of property. If you had a dairy noting where you buried the bodies, or some receipts for your illicit arms deals, locked in a closet somewhere, the cops could reasonably break in and search it, or more relevantly compel you to hand over the key.

Now, I definitely prefer the US's stance of a password being illegal self-discrimination, but I don't think it's unreasonable to have built legal precedent around that other view.

[beezle]

Suppose the hypothetical diary were itself encrypted? And what if it was done with a one-time pad?

[kevviiinn]

If you hand wrote diary entries in an encrypted scheme, could police compel you to decrypt it?

[southernplaces7]

I think you meant diary. Unless you really are referring to a dairy farm filled with buried bodies, nourishing all that grass with their putrescence, which then distills into delicious milk for hungry people...

[ddalex]

How many cycles does a molecule of protein need to go through to be acceptable for human consumption?

[sdfghswe]

> Now, I definitely prefer the US's stance of a password being illegal self-discrimination

Is that true though? Never heard that before.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

It's somewhat up in the air. The prevailing theory is that the 5th protects against compelling what amounts to testimony... but it's only been tested a few times in court, never by SCOTUS. With mixed results.

[sdfghswe]

Is there a way I can learn more about this? A resource for non-lawyers.

[P_I_Staker]

btw, I think OP meant incrimination

[sdfghswe]

I understood what he meant, and in fact I even missed the typo until you pointed it out.

[PragmaticPulp]

> How is this different than refusing to tell where you've buried the bodies?

It would be more equivalent to refusing to let the police search one room in your house after they’ve established a reason to believe that you might be hiding bodies in it.

> Why should the police be permitted to assume you're guilty and in possession of vital information under certain circumstances?

They haven’t assumed guilt of the suspected crimes. However, if they have sufficient reason to believe that evidence of a crime exists in a certain location then they can compel someone to provide access to it. It’s similar to how the police can search your private property if they have sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed

That said, I don’t know the standard of evidence necessary in the UK to get this far.

[hiatus]

Yes but your mere refusal to allow entry to a room is not grounds for arrest if the police already have a warrant and can search it regardless of your permission.

Put another way, the police do not require you to produce the keys to the subject of a warrant, they will enter by force if necessary. It's perverse that technology is different only because the police have no means of forcible entry.

[kevviiinn]

>the police have no means of forcible entry.

Technically they do as seen in the San Bernardino shooter case, it's just expensive

[negidius]

> It would be more equivalent to refusing to let the police search one room in your house after they’ve established a reason to believe that you might be hiding bodies in it.

No, it isn't. The police searching a room in my house doesn't require me to do anything. They can even do it while I'm in a coma or dead. It's nothing like forcing me to tell them my passwords or any other information.

[izzydata]

I suspect the law is not intended to be logically consistent.

[GuB-42]

It doesn't seem to be about self-incrimination.

The way I understand it, they don't accuse him of being a terrorist, they are accusing him of having information about terrorists and refusing to release them. To follow your analogy, the police doesn't think you are the murderer, but they believe you know the location of the bodies and accuse you of covering for the murderer.

[zamadatix]

It's still self-incriminating to say you were guilty of covering for the murderer or, in this case, terrorist.

[PeterisP]

They're probably treating it the same as refusing to open a safe given a valid warrant; the rights against self-incrimination do not extend to protecting the contents of your safe, drawers, private letters, etc, and also to the contents of your smartphone.

[OkayPhysicist]

See, but if you refused to open a safe for the cops, their fallback would be to drill it, not incarcerate you for failure to disclose the combination. Under that precedence, the cops have the right to try and crack my phone's encryption, but not to compel me to give them my passwords.

[Karellen]

> if you refused to open a safe for the cops, their fallback would be to drill it, not incarcerate you for failure to disclose the combination.

Or, more likely, they would do both.

They would drill it, and prosecute you for failing to comply with a valid court order (obstruction of justice, interfering with an investigation, contempt of court, or whatever...).

[PeterisP]

But they can charge and punish you for refusing to open the safe, that's obstruction of justice even if they could drill it and drilled it.

[namdnay]

Because they have a fallback. I presume that if someone were to invent an uncrackable safe they would adopt the same stance as encryption

[MagicMoonlight]

I can kind of see the logic in it. They’ve effectively been given a warrant to search your device and you are preventing that lawful search.

It’s like if they were trying to search your house for the dead children but you say you’ve lost the front door key and accidentally put a forcefield around it. Did you really forget to deactivate the forcefield or are you obstructing justice?

[sjtgraham]

Which rights against self-incrimination? The right to silence has been gone since the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

[TacticalCoder]

> Why should the police be permitted to assume you're guilty and in possession of vital information under certain circumstances?

It shouldn't but... Tacitus, 2000 years ago: "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state".

And we have oh so so many laws.