Backlash Against British Encryption Law 409
gardenermike writes "The BBC is reporting on some backlash against the British Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) that came into force in 2000, which makes it a criminal act to refuse to decrypt files on a computer. Not surprisingly, the bugaboos of child pornography and terrorism, while unquestionably heinous, are being used to justify a law which does little to protect against either.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury is quoted 'You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell.'"
Stand (Score:1, Informative)
If they could get the provisions approved in 2000, then it'll be even easier for them in the "post September 11th world".
Our Beloved government... (Score:2, Informative)
It is widely acknoweledged that many of these laws are badly thought out and despite the attempts of the House of Lords to revise them, they are actually inneffectual and sometimes impossible to enforce by both the Police and the Courts.
This is one of those laws.
There was huge amounts of SPIN associated with its passage through parliament. Sort of like "This law will save the world"
Now, just a few years later (in legal terms this is still a new law) we get this ack that it is not all it was cracked up to be.
No, what professions did our beloved leaded follow before he became a politician?
He was a barrister. So is his wfie.
So, I ask you, why can't a TWO lawyer family make sure that they get more appropriate laws passed?
The reason is that bad laws make for lots of money coming the way of lawyers who make the bad laws in the first place.
A self perpetuating circle.
I'm posting this annon as I don't want a knock on the door at 04:00 tomorrow from our esteemed police force.
Re:Lord Phillips (Score:3, Informative)
That's fair comment, but it's worth pointing out the first elected parliament was instigated by Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester, in England in 1265. So arguably modern parliamentary democracy was invented by someone with a peerage
Re:Lord Phillips (Score:5, Informative)
The closest parallel I can think of would be one of your Chief Justices... They provide some oversight on Parliament's legislation, tend to be less bound by party politics and rarely bothered by winning votes.
Personally, given the parlous state of your nation, I'd think twice about throwing jibes around about democracy.
Simple enough (Score:3, Informative)
One password decrypts to unimportant data, the other provides your true payload.
Then when they demand your password, you give them the first one. You have met the law and have plausible deniability.
Deviant alternative (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Heinous? (Score:5, Informative)
Um, what? This thread is about a UK law, and thus has nothing to do with the American First amendment.
Re:Why is child pornography as bad as terrorism? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lord Phillips (Score:3, Informative)
right along with electors being chosen by popular vote (it ought to be done by the state legislatures).
Technically, it is being done by the state legislatures. It's just that all the legislatures have decided to base their decision on a popular vote. There's no federal or constitutional requirement that they hold a vote, though.
Re:As comapred to the US? (Score:3, Informative)
This works for and against the British. Politicians, knowing that they will receive leniency, are more inclined to abuse power. So there's a vast amount of low-grade abuse. But actual high-grade in-your-face abuse is less common than, say, in America. It happens, but it's not quite as frequent and politicians are less likely to escape the consequences.
That the Lords are beginning to wake up to what is happening is interesting and significant. The Lords, for those not familiar with the British system, have no right to vote for politicians and cannot create bills. However, they CAN veto bills and a select group of Lords (the Law Lords) CAN overturn laws during trials. (Lords are neither elected nor are they capable of electing. As a result, they tend to be politically independent - there isn't much anyone can do to manipulate, control or blackmail them. There's no lever. They do stupid things, sometimes, but they're a superb stabilizing and rationalizing force.)
Because the Lords have a lot of power that politicians cannot control, political parties are forever trying to change the law to control the second house, and/or try to pollute the house by nominating wealthy supporters for lordships. It has undermined the benefits of having an independent group, but not yet completely.
Lords also tend to have a lot of influence in whatever region they are the Lord of - they often, but not always, have money, status and an excellent understanding of theatrics and the media. This doesn't mean they'll always get listened to, but it DOES mean they'll get listened to more than the average person and it DOES mean they tend to be more aware of public sentiment than most MPs.
Re:Hidden TrueCrypt Volumes (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Why is child pornography as bad as terrorism? (Score:3, Informative)
There is no real Terrorism to speak of, in practical terms. Statistically you have a better chance of being struck by lightning multiple times - or be killed in a random crash with an 18 wheel Deisel, than perishing in a 'terror attack'.
With these real facts, why hasn't the American president lanched a pre-emptive war against Meteorology or Interstate Trucking? Oh yeah these are real hazards, not EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN.
Paedophiles are real, and probably live withinn 2 miles of your house, if you are an American suburbanite.
http://www.mapsexoffenders.com/ [mapsexoffenders.com]
http://www.nationalalertregistry.com/ [nationalal...gistry.com]
They don't stop at kiddie pictures.
Re:Why is child pornography as bad as terrorism? (Score:3, Informative)
Aside from that, though, I worry about the word "unquestionably". Anyone who thinks terrorism is unquestionably heinous should really read 1984, or, if you prefer movies, try V For Vendetta.
Re:Why would anyone give over? (Score:3, Informative)
Whereas Gary Glitter was apparently sentenced to four months [wikipedia.org] for possession of child porn.
That being said, it's probably rather easier to resume a normal life if your CV reads "3 years in prison for not complying with an RIPA demand" rather than "4 months in prison for possessing indecent pictures of small children".
Re:Why is child pornography as bad as terrorism? (Score:2, Informative)
You need to stop buying into the bullshit.
Amendment V (Score:1, Informative)
A court can provide authority to search certain places for something, that's about it.
Afaik, a person is not under obligation to provide information they possess through which they may end up incriminating themselves (ie, they have the right to remain silent). For example, would you think it's ok if a court orders someone to tell the location of stolen items and then fine/convict that person if he doesn't say where they are without even convicting the person of stealing the items in the first place. Otoh, if they were able to prove that the items were stolen, yes then obviously they can ask for the items or equivalent restititution.