[Ben]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7102180.stm

I'm shocked! Sod the animal rights protesters, it's this insane law I'm worried about!


Animal rights activists are thought to be the first Britons to be asked to hand over to the police keys to data encrypted on their computers.

The request for the keys is being made under the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).

Police analysing machines seized during raids on activist's homes carried out in May have asked for the keys.

The activists could face jail if they do not comply and snub a further formal request to hand over the keys.
It's just ridiculous, as while the innocent will be forced to hand over keys to unlock their personal data, which is theirs and nobody else's, by the threat of two years in jail, those who are guilty of heinous crimes will of course opt for two years in the slammer rather than unlocking their data and facing many, many more.

Commentators pointed out that sSection III, which is aimed at serious criminals, such as paedophiles and terrorists, is flawed because those involved would much rather serve a few years for refusing to hand over keys than provide them and potentially incriminate themselves.
What retarded monkey gave the government the right to view our encrypted data?

[gorilla]

What retarded monkey gave the government the right to view our encrypted data?

Assuming you vote, then you? Or to be more precise, those of you who voted Labour. ;)

[3g-g]

Although I don't agree with the snooping the US, erm I mean UK government is proposing, and by the looks of it starting to carry out, if you've done nothing wrong then there's no need to worry.

Unless Ben, you're a animal rights activist or terrorist in your spare time?

[Ben]

So people who have done nothing wrong should submit their private selves to the scrutiny of the 'perfect' Government upon its request? And if they refuse to do so, they should go to jail?

[3g-g]

No, no. It's not just a blanket "anyone with encrypted data please hand over the keys to it so we can have a look" is it? Is it not a case of if the Police have a reason to arrest you, or suspect you may have information that may lead to whatever, in this case animal rights activists (which in some severe cases have resulted in the murder of individuals) I think it only right that the information they have should be privy to those upholding the law.

[Hands0n]

Although I don't agree with the snooping the US, erm I mean UK government is proposing, and by the looks of it starting to carry out, if you've done nothing wrong then there's no need to worry.

A very common misconception. The law has nothing to do with right and wrong and everything to do with the fact that the Police and Government officials can now ask you for your encryption keys - should you fail to do so you fall foul of the law. That, and that alone, is what you "do wrong" and so have everything to fear.

Scenario; you have an encrypted file on your computer (we all could) and are asked for the key. You don't have it. Busted! Given that data can now be concealed in images - if they decide that you are storing data that they want in such images they can ask you for the key. It will be no good you protesting your innocence - so long as you have been targeted then you are in the frame.

Nothing to fear? Done nothing wrong? How about if someone reports you for being involved in terrorism, or kiddie porn, or anything that is the topic of the day. The first place they'll go will be your computer/s - and they'll ask you for the encryption keys which, of course, you will not have. But again it is your failure to hand the keys over whether or not they exist that puts you foul of the law.

We now all have plenty to fear. This is such a badly written law that they can apply it to a not only animal activists but even the little old lady at the Cats Protection League if they wanted to!

The really sad thing is that there is not a single opposition party that has yet said that it will repeal this awful law! We're all Friar Tucked!

[Ben]

Thanks Hands0n, you put that eloquently.

The same argument can be put to ID cards. The ultimatum of an ID card scheme is that everyone can prove their identity and is required to do so in order to access services, and even make purchases. Your ID gets you healthcare, banking, everything - you are a digital identity that exists on a computer system.

But it's ok - if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about, right? Wrong.

So what happens if somebody accuses you of something? If there's a mistake? Perhaps, God forbid, corruption with the sprawling government institutions and somebody takes a dislike to you. Well, to put it bluntly, they switch you off. They disable your ID, prevent you from accessing healthcare, money, transport, the list goes on.

We are all innocent until proven guilty. Blair's 'War on Terror' government has already used the threat of terrorism to strip us of many civil liberties, and as such any one of us can now be held as a suspected terrorist with no evidence and no access to a lawyer. Since when did we submit to being controlled in this way? When did being safe become more important than being free, and why do we now all believe that we can't be free and safe at the same time?

[gorilla]

I'm against ID cards for the simple reason that I already have 3 - Passport, Drivers Licence and electoral card. All carry the same basic info.
The ID card will not replace any of these, so what is the point?

"The law's as an ass" is a famous quote by a not so famous person, but this thread is a good example of what is wrong with legislation being produced by governments the world over.

What about terror detention? 58 days or so when compared to the 2 days in the US. When did Britain become a dictatorship?
There's so much good about our country and so much wrong with it. At least we have 3g to unite our thoughts!

[Hands0n]

At least we have 3g to unite our thoughts!

Hmmm, interesting thought :) The transmission used for GSM and UMTS is all encrypted. Although to be fair no one really has control of the encryption tokens used. But in a wild not-necessarily-too-distant future could we anticipate even that being used against all 65,000,000 of us terrorists here in this country? For that is the equivalent of this new law - every single person in this land is a suspect and, if accused, no longer has the protection of Habeus Corpus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus) although I cannot recall when that fundamental protection was stripped from us in the UK. But as sure as eggs is eggs it most certainly has been. And we allowed it by sleepwalking into this situation that, again, no single opposition party has said they will reinstate. We have, in effect, slipped ever so quietly into a state of Totalianarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism). Future historical commentators will proclaim astonishment at how a founding nation of free society quietly fell for this mass deception.

Now, all the above may seem like political ranting. But ask yourself the simple question - do these two terms not perfectly describe where we now are. Not heading towards, for we have pretty much arrived there. Can anyone honestly recall precisely when it all started to happen? How, very discretely, a steady and systematic ratcheting of policy and law (3,000+ new laws since this Government were voted in) has introduced Totalianarism into the UK.

What we can next expect to occur is for the officers of these laws to use them with ever-increasing frequency against what would have previously been deemed as normal people. Little old men of 85 at party political conferences being arrested and ejected under anti-Terrorism laws is a start. Shooting an innocent and unarmed member of the public sat in a subway train is another step.

It would be too easy to go on - there is far too much ammunition out there. And that, for me, is what is so very scary :eek:

Thank gawd for the distraction of 3G mobile telephony :D

[gorilla]

I assume that all telephone calls are monitored to some extent or can be at great ease.

Certainly, if I was planning to rob a bank I wouldn't use a contract phone to organise it or use an email account attached to my isp, or for that matter do anything from my own home, or anywhere with CCTV. So that leaves where exactly?

Isn't it funny that in such a security conscience country that criminals can still operate successfully? Indeed the Police service of NI have a great record in solving crimes a meagre 20% or 1 in 5 as the media pointed out, for those that don't do percentages :rolleyes:

[Ben]

Indeed, surveillance is, to some extent, a myth as a crime prevention and and solving force. What it is, though, is a mechanism of government power and control and a removal of our personal freedoms.

Am I right in saying that phone tapping still isn't admissible in court? I know there was babble about it some time ago now, but I don't think it was ever allowed to be used as evidence.