Posted on 08/11/2009 10:23:28 AM PDT by ShadowAce
Even though this is over in the UK, look for this kind of thing to show up here in the US soon, particularly the “domestic extremists” aspect coupled with the current administration’s attitude towards conservatives.
The fifth amendment allows you freedom from self incrimination.
Exactly. We need to be vigilant in regard to laws around the world, as the liberals tend to look to them in enforcing and “interpreting” our own.
Death before decryption!
Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
They not only have a Surveillance Commissioner, but they have enough of them that one ranks as CHIEF? And no one there has a problem with this?
The British are subjects. We are citizens. There is a difference--in reality and in attitude.
The British also repealed their 800 year old prohibition against double jeopardy in 2005.
I can envision this happening here, the way things are going. Of course, for me, most of my encryption goes like: ime-tay oo-tay ive-gay e-thay ats-cay e-thay edicine-may. Unfortunately, my cats often seem to know how to encrypt this...
The solution to this seems to be straightforward. A one use decryption key is generated in another country. If sent to you on request, it will decrypt your files once. Once a week or so, you must provide that foreign source with a ping of some description, or it will no longer provide you with a key. Your files will be locked for good.
Of course this will require all sorts of security additions, maybe even multiple keys from multiple countries. And the hassle of having to ping some address once a week.
The downside is that in some cases, judges are citing for contempt even if you are unable to produce what they want. A man in Philadelphia was just released after being held for contempt for 14 years on the belief that he had hidden money from his ex-wife in a divorce case.
While this is terribly unfair, unless you give them the tools to convict and punish you, you may very well be punished.
That would be H. Beatty Chadwick, a man kept in prison for 14 years on civil contempt charges. A judicial travesty that should have never happened. A victim of a group of black robed thugs.
My heart sank when I read the headline, and then I realized it was in the UK. Don’t worry us like that :)
The district court judge has overruled the magistrate, holding that, while they cannot compel him to provide the password, they can compel him to provide an unencrypted copy of the encrypted volume without violating those rights. Seems like a distinction without a difference. Stay tuned.
One difference: if he uses his (still-secret) password to decrypt a copy of the material in question, the action only affects the material in question.
Whereas if he provides his password, he has effectively lost his privacy on ALL his so-encrypted data, whether it applies to this case or not. A much larger loss.
I use PGP/GPG for encryption of my private data, and while I would fight tooth and nail against relinquishing my passphrase, I would consider agreeing to decrypt selected content in a court case. Depends...
And of course, in any event, the minute I could do so, I would change the old passphrase associated with my private key to something else.
Actually we have been ‘citizens’ since 1981, and the British Nationality Act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.