Letwin wants increased penalties for refusal to decrypt

[Owen Lewis]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Nexus
> Sent: 17 August 2002 01:07
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Letwin wants increased penalties for refusal to decrypt
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "michael (ukcrypto list)" <ukcrypto@ttfn35.freeserve.co.uk>
> To: <ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 11:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Letwin wants increased penalties for refusal to decrypt
> [snip]
> > "The penalty [for failing to decrypt]", states Letwin,
> > should be "as serious as the encrypted material".
> >
>
> That is impressive - deciding on what the encrypted material is
> even before
> it is decrypted !
> What's the point in doing it in the first place ?
> *throws encrypted drive in bin to avoid future self incrimination for
> nonexistant crime*

Letwin should use a better speechwriter.

Fashion it thus.

Plod has (just about) sufficient evidence against X of drug trafficking (or
whatever gets you 30 years) to get a case before a jury. The enciphered
contents of X's PC, if disclosed, will turn his 50:50 chance in front of a
jury into zilch. Is it reasonable that:

	-	X can opt to refuse to disclose and therefore collect 2yrs max (=walk
free on the day because of the time he's already spent on remand).

	-	That, under legal process, the contents of one drive on X's PC may be
searched for evidence but that X shall be permitted the 'human right'
(ROTFL) to refuse disclosure another drive?

	-	That on otherwise identical facts, Y shall be properly convicted and
sentences and yet X shall walk free for no other reason than he has
enciphered certain information?

As said previously, if Plod without a search of enciphered information does
not have sufficient evidence to persuade the CPS that a jury should at least
hear it, *then* if X fails to disclose a maximum penalty of 2 year is
proper. This adequately safeguards X form a malicious complaint etc of
terrorism, drug trafficking etc and, on the strength of no more than
allegation of a 'serious' offence facing a sentence of 30 years for failing
to disclose.


I think it's a hard issue and requires hard thinking. To allow other than as
suggested above must reduce much of our law, including the revenue raising
and trade controlling functions of governments to no more than dead letters.

Hurrah! one might be tempted to shout, until one picks one's way carefully
through what the full consequences might be.


> Does "argumentum ab auctoritate" now become "aut viam inveniam
> aut faciam" ?

;-)

Owen