[andylynch]

Why are you misrepresenting about UK law?

Yes, it can be a criminal offence. But the maximum tariff for this under RIPA 2000 is five years. If it’s not about nation security or CSAM, it’s two.

(Incidentally, the USA is a real outlier in this topic)

[cortic]

Its five years with no limitations, so when you are due to be released; Whats your password? Another five years... Its such a poorly worded law you could literally spend your life in prison for forgetting your password. And Its mostly used against peaceful protesters.

[gruez]

>Its five years with no limitations, so when you are due to be released

Doesn't double jeopardy prevent this? Has this actually happened?

[cortic]

Double jeopardy was abolished by Blair in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, Scotland abolished it as well a bit later in Double Jeopardy Act 2011. However i doubt it would apply even if we had it as the wording in Section 49 is so poor it could just be reissued as a new offense each time.

Has it happened? Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 has a secrecy requirement built into it, where if you tell anyone that you have been issued a Section 49 you can get an additional 5 years (treated as a separate crime). This, as you can imagine, makes your question difficult to answer.

[AlecSchueler]

It does and of course it's different happened. My pet peeve has to be the "it's a poorly worded law" argument about things that have obviously been considered by legal experts. The scares like "the psychoactive substances act will technically make coffee illegal" I've seen on HN are particularly egregious.

[iamnothere]

Laws that are so poorly worded that they could be easily misused are bad laws.

Legislators should force future would-be tyrants to flagrantly violate the law, as this is more likely to generate popular resistance.

[AlecSchueler]

> Laws that are so poorly worded that they could be easily misused are bad laws.

The point is that these laws aren't badly written. There's already protections in place for what's described above.

[iamnothere]

I don’t believe this is the case, every now and then we see prosecutors using an obsolete unenforced law or an unexpected edge case of some law to come after people.

A great example is the CFAA. It has been judicially narrowed after court battles, because in its original form it was overbroad and criminalized basic, common things. Prosecutors abused it in order to get political wins until they were finally stopped.

This is unfortunately fairly common. Legislators either push for too much or don’t understand how the law might be applied, and innocent people suffer until someone wins a big expensive set of appeals.

Edit: I realize now you may be talking about the UK in particular, in which case you don’t even get this shoddy level of protection as “Parliament is sovereign” (lol).

[JasperBit]

Dismissing the concerns about poorly worded laws on the basis that they have been considered by legal experts is laughable when it's often legal experts, and in the case of the Psychoactive Substances Act, the government's own advisors that are the ones raising concerns with the broad applicability and unenforceable nature of these controversial laws. The Psychoactive Substances Act has an explicit exemption stating food is not covered by the law for crying out loud, and the exemption for healthcare providers to act within the course of their profession was only added as an amendment, it wasn't even considered in the original drafting of the bill.

[AlecSchueler]

> The Psychoactive Substances Act has an explicit exemption stating food is not covered by the law for crying out loud,

Why the "for crying out loud?" That's an example of the law being well written in a way that covers the knee jerk reactions to "it's too broad, it's badly written!"

> the government's own advisors that are the ones raising concerns with the broad applicability

What's your issue with this? They're advisors, it's their job to raise concerns that lead to the inclusion of exemptions like the one you're "crying out loud" about.

> it wasn't even considered in the original drafting of the bill.

That's why bills go through various stages of drafting and debate, and why parliament seeks out and considers the advice from industry. It's "laughable" to judge the quality of a law by the original draft, just as it would be too judge a piece of software by the initial commit.

[roenxi]

Are we damning the UK with faint praise now?

I'm not even sure how much practical difference there is between 5 and indefinite in practice, 5 years is a long time. I imagine it is pretty life-destroying. Especially for the crime of having something on your phone that you want to keep private.

> If it’s not about nation security or CSAM, it’s two.

I am sure we all get what you mean, but there is a comic interpretation in vaguely-Soviet style here where if someone hasn't done anything wrong they only get 2 years. I'm going to spend some time this weekend making sure my encryption is plausibly deniable where possible.

[idiotsecant]

You're unsure of the difference between 5 and infinity?

[deejaaymac]

5 years in prison can destroy your life easily, so yeah, what's the difference?

[watwut]

Easily something like 45 years of difference. It is really not necessary to lie, no matter how much you hate UK or Europe.

[Gud]

It wasn't a lie. the 5 years can be extended. See the comment by cortic elsewhere in the thread.

[gib444]

Oh just 5 years, that's OK then.

[gruez]

It's not okay to imprison people for 5 years vs lifetime, but at the same time, facts matter, and we shouldn't get in the habit of allowing fibs to slip through just because they're directionally correct.

[davidguetta]

Wow ! Only 2 years !