Re: U.S. Seeks to Force Suspect to Reveal Password to Computer Files
- From: Anonymous <xor@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:51:21 -0500 (EST)
Anomaly wrote:
No, it's up to 5 in some cases, and proving you know the information or
posses the keys isn't even necessary. Refusal to decrypt is enough.
I have a question for you, did you even read the act? Or are you spouting
I read the entire thing cover to cover. And I actually understood most
of it. You, apparently, did not...
Failure to comply with a notice
(1) A person to whom a section 49 notice has been given is guilty of an
offence if he knowingly fails, in accordance with the notice, to make the
disclosure required by virtue of the giving of the notice.
(2) 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.
You need to read that section again for comprehension. It says in a
nutshell that if you've ever had the keys you're guilty unless you
can *prove* you're not. Guilty, until proved innocent. Period.
The rest lays out what constitutes "proof", and yes it mentions
"reasonable doubt", which leads full circle back to where we started.
Is it reasonable to assume that someone "lost" the keys to something
there's a record of them accessing recently, in a scenario where
there's undeniable evidence that they were at least in possession of
evil content during that same time period.
Not a judge or jury in the world is going to buy it. It doesn't
resemble reasonable in any way, unless you're totally self delusional.
It's an obvious ploy, and since UK law is specifically written to
assign guilt first, you end up in jail for potentially 5 years under
certain circumstances. Period.
The only thing that's going to save your ass in the UK is the law being
overturned. Which could happen. I personally think it's a wretched bit
of legal incompetence, and that in *principal* everything you're saying
is spot on. But at this present time, in that location, it's just not a
matter of fact.
And again, US-bashing is a really popular spectator sport but that
jurisdiction already has legal precedence showing how its subjects
aren't required to fork over keys/passwords *at all*.
Read the 2 years bit? Read the bit about proving the defendant knew the
password at the time the section 49 notice was issued?
The law quite clearly states the conditions where the penalties are
upped in a section you failed to cite.
Ouch. That must be hard to swallow. I wonder if you are man enough to admit
you were wrong, or will you continue, even as every argument you put forward
is shot down in flames.
The fact that you've been struggling win common English words over two
syllables in length all along doesn't cause me any grief at all.
There's nothign to admit, no flames, your own cites simply say you're
dead wrong. You're apparently just unable to understand them. That's
not my problem at all.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: U.S. Seeks to Force Suspect to Reveal Password to Computer Files
- Next by Date: Re: question about logs.
- Previous by thread: Re: U.S. Seeks to Force Suspect to Reveal Password to Computer Files
- Next by thread: Re: U.S. Seeks to Force Suspect to Reveal Password to Computer Files
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
