[mjhall]

The argument isn't totally correct. The Police can't just make allegations and force you to surrender keys - they have to convince a judge that the allegations are true, and that getting the keys to your random noise will produce evidence.

RIPA is objectively flawed legislation, but it definitely doesn't "outlaw encryption" by anything less than a very long stretch of the imagination (as appears in this article).

[CWuestefeld]

Your point is usually true, when the system is working as intended.

But it's not all that unusual for the gov't to really "have it in" for someone, but not be able to pin the crime on them, as with Al Capone.

In his case, the government didn't think it could pin the true charges on him, so he was actually convicted on tax charges. The tax code is big, obscure, and no expert agrees on the detailed interpretation, so it's not too hard to find some technicality that will convict anyone.

This encryption thing could easily be misused the same way: they can't prove you're a bad guy, so they trump up some technicality charges just to get you locked up.

[mjwalshe]

Uk Judges are separate from the govenment.

You would ahve to go back to the bad old days of the star chamber to find the UK law system doing anything as doddgy as Al Capone (not exactly the USAs Legal systems finest hour)

[Zak]

Uk Judges are separate from the govenment.

In the UK, the term "government" refers to the executive branch. Outside that use, it encompasses the legislative, executive and judiciary power of a state. Wikipedia gives the following definition:

Government consists of the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and the system by which they are organized.

Judges are part of that by definition, even if there's some separation from the other components.

[mjwalshe]

No Judges are part of the "establishment" not the "govenment" ask Tony or Dave about the judges who ruled against them over a large number of issues.

I dubt wikipedia edited by a large number of Non UK People woud get the subtle destiction I am making here.

[kbolino]

The term "government" has multiple meanings, but the most direct and common meaning is for the entire apparatus of state power, literally "the instrument which governs". This is true in all places that speak English, the United Kingdom included.

In the United States, we use the term "administration" to refer to an executive, his cabinet, and other associated officials. However, we still recognize the (not-so-subtle) distinction between the administration and the government as a whole; our government, as yours, is divided into three separate branches, and then again into many departments, agencies, committees, circuits, districts, and other subdivisions thereof.

[mjwalshe]

Err the UK does not have a tripartate separation - there is a world out side of SV and the USA

[CWuestefeld]

Here in the USA we like to periodically hold witch hunts. That's how we got Martha Stewart, for example.

[excuse-me]

Martha Stewart is a witch?

I suppose that explains the eye of newt in the recipes.

[mahyarm]

Judges, police and the people who direct the police are all socially close coworkers for the most part.

[batista]

>Uk Judges are separate from the govenment.

And how did that work out for the Guildford four for example?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four_and_Maguire_Seve...

[barking]

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Denning,_Baron_Denning#I...

[nathan_long]

>> they have to convince a judge that the allegations are true, and that getting the keys to your random noise will produce evidence

You are correct. However, suppose you encrypt some data and forget the key, or you store some radio noise in a file, or whatever.

Later, you are accused of a crime. The judge issues a warrant.

The data/noise is now evidence against you. You are presumed guilty, and it is impossible to prove your innocence.

[jrmg]

Why do you make the jump here to "you are presumed guilty"? Your guilt would have to be proved in a court just like for any other crime.

Are you suggesting that the courts would somehow just believe, with no evidence, that it's encrypted data relevant to the case and you're wilfully withholding the keys?

[try-finally]

You are not presumed guilty. But you are found guilty of breaking the new law which comes with a 5 year prison term if you were accused of being involved with terrorism or hiding child porn. Regardless of any evidence.

[SEMW]

> You are not presumed guilty. But you are found guilty of breaking the new law ... Regardless of any evidence.

"Being found guilty... regardless of evidence" makes no sense. Part of 'being found guilty of breaking the law' involves the prosecution giving evidence that a jury thinks proves your guilt beyond reasonable doubt (inc. proving that you were in possession of a key, and so that it was actually encrypted data). s.53(3).

[excuse-me]

No it's very easy. You claim the "key" is a one time pad, ie an XOR of the encrypted data - then you simply take the encrypted data and generate a "key" which XORs it into "the home secretary is a wonderful person and i support him"

[jff]

So, perjury.

[excuse-me]

Not sure you can commit perjury if you are the accused !

[Jtsummers]

In the US you can, and I'd be surprised if many other jurisdictions saw it differently. In the US you have a right against self incrimination, not a right to lie and misdirect. See Martha Stewart as an example, part of her conviction was making false statements to an investigator.

[CapitalistCartr]

Martha "Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigator". The lying to investigators was most of her "crime". If she'd told them to talk to her lawyer and clammed up, she'd have been way ahead. The Feds never did prove securities fraud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Stock_trading_c...