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 Peter
> Fairbrother
> Sent: 18 August 2002 20:22
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Letwin wants increased penalties for refusal to decrypt
>
>
> Owen Lewis wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> A 50:50 chance? So, we aren't talking about justice here, but imperfect
> judging.

One is normally referred for trial if there is a prima facie case to answer.
That is just. There is always pre-judging in the sense that someone makes a
determination as to whether or not there is a case to answer.
>
> > Is it reasonable that:
>
> > -    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?
>
> Not sure what you mean, but I think so. There must be a human right to at
> least attempt privacy, and a right not to self-incriminate. GAK
> denies both.
> Any sentence for GAK "offences" is immoral (and GAK, like content
> protection, won't work anyway for technical reasons).

*This* is the nub of it. X has his hard drive partitioned as a C: and a D:
drive. He chooses only to encipher the contents of the D: drive (where he
keeps most of his data). X is suspected of a crime and the police are
permitted in law to search his house, office, garage and the files in his
computer. Where is the 'human right' that enables him to thwart the search
of his D: drive when he has no such right to thwart any of the other
searches, including that of his C: drive.

There is no logic in this. The 'human rights' argument must be that all the
searches described are oppressive - as in a sense they are. There is a
balance to be struck between an individuals right to privacy and the
people's right to search appropriately for evidence of a crime, most
particularly including the property and possessions of the accused.

I do not say that the power of search should be abused but, if we are to
allow it in the common good, then it must be through and effective. There
can be no logical reason to permit the search of one park of a hard disk but
to disallow the search of another part.

> [...]
> > 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.
>
> Eh? How does a right to privacy and a right not to self-incriminate affect
> "much of our law"? The "revenue raising and trade controlling functions of
> governments" are not part of Law,

Oh yes they are, sunshine :-) They are the fun dental laws by which the
nanny (socially redistributive state) grabs from one to give to another or
else to spend on whatever the politicians fancy. Some of this may be held to
be a part of the fabric of a decent state, such as medical care etc.

and are not immutable anyway.
> Even Income
> Tax isn't that old, and the tax code changes every Budget. If governments
> can't tax the transfer of money they can always tax something
> else, eg land,
> transfer of goods.

There's another puddle to step in. where value is transferred
electronically, as it increasingly is, how is it to be properly taxed unless
government, under the law, may demand to inspect the true records?

> > Hurrah! one might be tempted to shout, until one picks one's
> way carefully
> > through what the full consequences might be.
>
> Yep. Done a lot of hard thinking, posted much of it here, decided GAK was
> far more evil than a few hiccups in the law-enforcement process. Your
> criminal could defeat conviction by just not writing down the encrypted
> information in the first place, or hiding the drive better.

That's playing cute with simple examples and takes us nowhere.

The point is that there is simply no logic in supporting (or at least
acquiescing in search of one area and not of another where the reason to
search each is equally compelling.

Owen