Man jailed for refusing to give police password to personal computer files - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15045406
Puffer Fish wrote:Maybe what you're not understanding is there was no warrant here.
And this man is still in violation of the law and punished for not telling them the password.


Oh yes, that is categorically wrong that you do not have a legal expert making the call on these sorts of searches.

Rough stuff over on the Jewel in the Sea, eh? :knife:
#15045442
Pants-of-dog wrote:He was wanted for previous infractions and was crossing a border with suspicious packages.


The problem is that the police couldn't state exactly why they wanted to search the computer. If he's "wanted", then they should be able to tell the guy why they want to search it...
#15045443
The article that's been linked to starts rather haphazardly:

"Again he maintained silence. Police then warned him they would seek a section 49 notice under RIPA Part III, which gives a suspect a time limit to supply encryption keys or make target data intelligible. Failure to comply is an offence under section 53 of the same Part of the Act and carries a sentence of up to two years imprisonment, and up to five years imprisonment in an investigation concerning national security."

"Again he maintained his silence. Police warned him..."

Who is "him"?

Is there more to this article that wasn't linked to here?
#15045508
BigSteve wrote:The problem is that the police couldn't state exactly why they wanted to search the computer. If he's "wanted", then they should be able to tell the guy why they want to search it...


Why do you think the police could not do that?

It seems to me they did.

You should read the entire editorial. THe page cited in the OP is merely the second page.
#15045550
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why do you think the police could not do that?

It seems to me they did.

You should read the entire editorial. THe page cited in the OP is merely the second page.


Well, it's because one detective said this: "There could be child pornography, there could be bomb-making recipes," said one detective. "Unless you tell us we're never gonna know."

What part of that gives you confidence that they knew what they were looking for?
#15045554
Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that one cop said that one thing does not change the fact that other cops may have had good reason and could have discussed it.

You seem to be generalising about all cops from the behaviour of this one.


No, I'm talking about the one detective who they chose to speak with. Presumably he'd have knowledge of applicable laws and would be able to speak intelligently about them...
#15046281
Puffer Fish wrote:Then you believe in a Police State.

The KGB-style policing in the Soviet Union didn't work out too well for the people, did it?

Do you think government is entitled to any information? Even when it involves no judge, no fair & impartial due process, not even any specific reason/justification for them to collect that information in the first place? And punishing people for not willingly handing over that information? (Which goes even one step beyond just the government taking it by force)


The government can only be relied upon to protect an individual's rights up to a point. Whatever system you live under your absolute freedoms as we imagine them in the West are somewhat illusory. I've always felt that personal freedom is freedom to exist as a free man, in one's personal affairs. The real question we need to ask is what the man in this story was doing to even make him a person of interest, how did he even get into such a situation in the first place.

What is personal freedom anyway? It's the freedom to live your life unhindered by problems. That cannot be guaranteed under any system, I'm afraid. All you can do is play your hand well, make the right choices and cherish every moment where you don't have some worries or issues.

By the way, the UK is not as liberal democratic as the USA is. Britain has many centralised and statist tendencies. Remember it is located off the coast of Europe.

But what you have to remember is that the state is never all powerful. Even in North Korea there will come a point at which people would revolt, which they have tried to do in the past. People cannot live under any system, liberal or not, that is not in line with their interest or conscience.
#15058672
I would think that forcing somebody to provide you with their own passwords used to access their own property, intellectual or otherwise, through threat of incarceration would tread very closely to infringing upon the idea that no man can be compelled to testify against himself. Of course, we're talking about the UK and not the USA here, but it is troubling that such a thing is used by law enforcement in any modern, Western nation.
#15058679
Drlee wrote:With respect Godstud, the trunk analogy is not complete. While there are places where one can be compelled to open the trunk (you are correct in this case because customs laws would apply) in almost all other instances the police would have to go to a judge, reasonable grounds, and get a warrant.

If the police obtained an encrypted hard drive and "broke" the encryption without a warrant or permission, any evidence they found would be excluded as evidence from any prosecution for what they found or evidence in another prosecution.

The "secure in their papers" applies here.

You can see in the OP the problem with allowing a search. It strongly appears that the police or customs were just on a fishing expedition.

If I had my way I would not allow the police or customs to open electronic files (or paper ones for that matter) without a warrant.



In think we are going to see this issue argued in the high courts with the new anti driving and texting laws on the books.
#15058694
In think we are going to see this issue argued in the high courts with the new anti driving and texting laws on the books.


Probably will. I would hope they rule that one cannot be forced to incriminate themselves. As long as the police get a search warrant from a judge that would be OK. Otherwise.....No.
#15060404
Puffer Fish wrote:My personal opinion, these are Stasi-like tactics that have no place in the law enforcement of a Free society.

We are talking about arresting and imprisoning people for the reason of refusing to hand over information, in which police have no idea what that information even is.
And, might I add, in which the suspect never even appeared in front of a judge or was able to legally defend himself.

Absolutely! Unfortunately, "western" countries are heading towards totalitarianism, with the US and Britain at the forefront(I would say that these two already are totalitarian - as they're controlling the lives of their citizens in far too many ways, there are far too many laws, too much surveillance, too much state intrusion!)

Absurd and abusive laws built on top of other absurd and abusive laws: the mere idea that possession of certain "data" - whatever it might be - turns you into a "criminal" is beyond wrong and absurd and abusive! Such laws have extremely wrong "reasoning" behind them!
#15061057
Verv wrote:Oh yes, that is categorically wrong that you do not have a legal expert making the call on these sorts of searches.

True, but that's still not the primary point.

Normally a warrant gives police the legal authority to conduct a search, not to force an individual to divulge information under threat. Those are totally two different things.

Normally in cases where a witness is ordered to testify, under threat of being held in contempt, he is at least in a court room with a judge present, and can (at least in theory) present a legal argument to the judge why he shouldn't have to testify.

And if he refuses to divulge the information, that is a contempt, not a criminal charge. Another important legal distinction.
But under this law, refusing to divulge the information specifically becomes a criminal charge.

Imagine freely and willingly giving someone someth[…]

miscellaneous

It was 3AM when Owen stepped off the Greyhound bus[…]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ldb-Om07_k

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/[…]