Timeline for Is refusing to decrypt data for the police illegal in England and Wales?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 9, 2019 at 8:44 | comment | added | komodosp | Just wondering now if the police need a warrant to demand the encryption key? It would seem to be analogous to letting them search your house. | |
| May 8, 2019 at 3:45 | comment | added | jwenting | @DJClayworth as we often say on this site, it's impossible to prove a negative. That indicates clearly that it's impossible to prove conclusively (in the legal sense) that you don't have the means to decrypt the data, just as you have no means to prove conclusively that the data that appears to be encrypted isn't. Remember that even a seemingly random phrase can be an encrypted message, making sense only to the people who know what actual message that phrase refers to in some list or code book. This mechanism was used extensively by the British themselves to radio coded messages in WW2. | |
| Oct 17, 2016 at 2:14 | comment | added | Joshua | SSH provides perfect forward security. Since actually not having the key is a valid defense, use of SSH is not illegal by this statute. | |
| Jun 25, 2014 at 16:55 | history | edited | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 32 characters in body
|
| Jun 25, 2014 at 0:07 | history | edited | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 192 characters in body
|
| Jun 25, 2014 at 0:01 | comment | added | DJClayworth | @KonradRudolph On reflection, I believe you are right about the burden of proof. If no evidence is presented either way, then the police are entitled to presume that the key is in your posession. However as far as I can tell, that is the only thing they are allowed to presume. They cannot assume that there is encrypted data on a laptop without evidence. | |
| Jun 24, 2014 at 23:59 | history | edited | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 356 characters in body
|
| Jun 17, 2014 at 13:07 | history | edited | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 108 characters in body
|
| Apr 4, 2014 at 6:58 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @DJClayworth But that is the default: Here, I have to show evidence before I am declared not guilty. Until that moment I’m assumed guilty. | |
| Apr 4, 2014 at 3:12 | comment | added | DJClayworth | @KonradRudolph No you have the sense reversed. You are not guilty if you can show any evidence to indicate that you don't have the key and the police can't prove you do have it. You are guilty only if the police can prove it OR you have no evidence at all that you don't have it. | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 22:59 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @MMM The claim is certainly paranoid, but it’s not quite as clear cut as made out in the answer. The conjunction used is “and”, not “or”: You need to show that you don’t have the key and the police must not be able to provide counter-evidence. This is much more vague and liable to abuse (how does one show that one is not in possession of the key?!) than the usual presumption of innocence, which has certainly been subverted here. The answer seems to be incorrect in claiming otherwise. | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 21:48 | history | edited | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 202 characters in body
|
| Mar 27, 2014 at 17:38 | vote | accept | MMM | ||
| Mar 27, 2014 at 9:59 | comment | added | Owen C. Jones | Oh and another note - The maximum penalty is 2 years for non disclosure of keys, which may well be less than the offence that decryption would reveal. In weighting terms, it could well be worth it | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 9:57 | comment | added | Owen C. Jones | I'm not going to write out the full explanation as an answer, because I've only got a few minutes, but the TL;DR; of this is: If they can prove you have the key, then you are likely to be charged with obstruction or contempt of court, but if, for instance, you memorised it, and 'forgot' then although it'll go on a bit, there's not a great deal they can do. | |
| Mar 26, 2014 at 21:33 | comment | added | MMM | In other words, Falkvinge's claim is false, or rather an exaggeration of the truth. | |
| Mar 26, 2014 at 21:15 | history | answered | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |