s/forget passphrase for/cause permanent destruction of/ , Re: Letwin wants increased penalties for refusal to decrypt

[Peter Fairbrother]

Nicholas Bohm wrote:
 
> A similar challenge might succeed against compulsory disclosure of
> passwords, although it is argued to be like compulsory disclosure of e.g.
> fingerprints or DNA (assumed OK) and not like compulsory giving of
> testimony (not OK).  There is clearly some hairsplitting involved.

I know of no legal basis for this at all, but I split the hair at Six Burly
Policemen. If they could get the evidence (by force, but without torture)
then it's ok, otherwise not. So fingerprints and DNA (and samples for drunk
driving etc) are OK, but where the compulsion is for the suspect to do
something it isn't.

That we don't actually use SBP but, in the case of drunk driving samples,
have an offence of failing to provide a sample, is probably OK, though I
still have a few doubts about that. It avoids the use of force on a
(presumably drunk) suspect.

just my 2p'worth,

-- Peter