While we disagree, it would be nice if you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss my arguments as nonsense conclusions that I'm jumping to.
The problems with police and photographers in the UK are frequent, and troublesome as I said. I'm not at home at the moment, but there is actually a site indexing complaints about this happening, and it was well over a thousand.
A small percentage perhaps, but a large enough number to be worrying.
As for R v Majid, I shall quote from the Wikipedia page on Reasonable Doubt :
However, juries in criminal courts in England are no longer customarily directed to consider whether there is "reasonable doubt" about a defendant's guilt. Indeed, a recent conviction was appealed after the judge had said to the jury "You must be satisfied of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt." The conviction was upheld but the Appeal Court made clear their unhappiness with the judge's remark, indicating that the judge should instead have said to the jury simply that before they can return a verdict of guilty, they "must be sure that the defendant is guilty".
There is also a reference on that page for the quotes etc, if you need to verify.
Your breakdown of the law as written certainly seems logical and seems to make sense. I'd say I would agree with your conclusion were it not for troubling news stories which seem to contradict it.
I would think this Wikipedia page has a good summary.
The problem with the law is that it is still assuming that the person does have the key. I know that the law is worded to assume the person does not have a key unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but in practice that is apparently an easy thing to prove (and perhaps skirt the intention of that clause), based on prosecutions. The law is flawed...it shouldn't have such a clause at all.
The problem is the burden of proof is reversed. It shouldn't be.
You quoted section 53 (3), but that follows 53 (2), which is why RIPA is disturbing:
In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it.
So basically, they assume you have it.
And what constitutes reasonable doubt? I have true crypt installed, perhaps that is sufficient?
Any such law like that should be written to only persecute people if they are known to have a key and refuse to hand it over. Anything else, even the clause in RIPA, leads to abuses of power. Demonstrably so.
Not to mention, the idea that you can be in jail until you hand over a key is horribly flawed, not to mention injust. The defense you mention that you feel justifies the act? You get to use that after you've already been arrested, jailed, fingerprinted etc...
Another point, what is the criteria for determining ifi information is encrypted or not? Lets say I have an encrypted partition disguised as a garbage file...they can't prove it is an encrypted volume, but what is to stop them from being sure it is and prosecuting me if they don't hand over they key?
If RIPA was nothing as you suggest, it wouldn't be such a cause for concern, domestically in the UK with financial institutions, media institutions etc. And, it is. You need only search to see the reactions to it.
Also of interest:
http://www.techweekeurope.co.u...