Letwin wants increased penalties for refusal to decrypt

[Philip Rowlands]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Richard Clayton wrote:

>This is a piece about Oliver Letwin (shadow Home Secretary) calling for
>"grooming" (that's what you and I used to call seduction, but it's much
>more scary if there's a new word for it) to be made illegal.
>
>However buried away in the middle is the single sentence:
>
>        He also wants increased penalties for paedophiles who refuse to
>        unlock encrypted information being stored on the internet.
>
>Since we still don't have Part III of RIP 2000 in force yet I'm unclear
>what sort of increase this would be... but presumably the idea is that
>you'd get more than the 2 years maximum of s53(5) if the information you
>refused to decrypt was said to be illegal images of children.

If I recall correctly, Ann Widdecombe had a similar suggestion at the
time the Bill was "debated" in the Commons. I think it was for 10 years
maximum, on the rationale that a given the choice between a 2-year
sentence for "failure to decrypt" and a 5-year sentence for kiddypron,
an evil-doer would take the lighter offence.


Cheers,

Phil