Author: Vic Date: To: hampshire Subject: Re: [Hampshire] [OT] Man jailed over computer password refusal
> Hmmm, is this a problem?
Oh yes. And it's worse that this example, to boot :-(
> Where does the right to privacy meet the need to investigate (alleged)
> crimes?
There is no longer a right to privacy. RIPA 2000 allows a Section 49
notice to be issued by "any person with the appropriate permission under
Schedule 2" if "he believes, on reasonable grounds" that "a key to the
protected information is in the possession of any person".
Note that the people enabled (under Schedule 2) to issue notices are not
necessarily part of the Judiciary - notices may be issued by the Police,
HMRC, and others. And it is a criminal offence not to comply with a
Section 49 notice, punishable by up to two years inside (or 5 years if it
is deemed to be a matter of National Security) and a fine (I can't find
the maximum fine at present).
Being unable to comply with a Section 49 notice because the issuer is
simply mistaken about something being an encrypted dump is not a statutory
defence - the crime is in failing to comply, not in have encrypted data.
But I would hope a court would throw out such an allegation...
Is that lot bad enough for you? It gets worse. Section 54 permits a
Section 49 notice to be ordered to be kept secret. There are now certain
defences within it - but when originally drafted, it didn't even permit
the subject of a disclosure notice to tell his solicitor that he's had a
notice. Failure to comply with Section 54 - another 5 years inside.
> If a man is innocent until proven guilty
Where did you get that idea?
Under the current raft of legislation - to Keep You Safe, of course - you
are guilty until a jury makes the mistake of letting you off on a
technicality. The last decade has been a truly abhorrent time for civil
liberty...
> should he be convicted for an
> act that may or may not be hiding evidence of wrong-doing?
This is what happens when we let politicians loose with excessive majorities.
