RIPA Part III

[Nicholas Bohm]

Owen Lewis wrote:
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>[mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of
>>Casper.Dik@sun.com
>>Sent: 14 June 2006 12:06
>>To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>Subject: Re: RIPA Part III
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>If I may say so, that's a neat summation of the case. The key
>>
>>concern is one
>>
>>>of proportionality and not of principle. Can the use of the
>>
>>powers be fixed
>>
>>>to investigation of offences of an established grade of seriousness? E.g.
>>>offences punishable by a maximum sentence of (say) not less than
>>
>>five year's
>>
>>>imprisonment?
>>
>>The problem with any form of proportionality, especially where cooperation
>>of the suspect is concerned, is that it does away with the presumption
>>of innocence.  You are taking measures because you /suspect/ a person
>>of a particular crime, not because the person was convicted.
>>
>>That way, the police state lies.
> 
> 
> I do not disagree with what you say only that 'presumption of innocence' is
> and always has had limits. No one likes searches. They are, at the very
> least, intrusive, upsetting and liable to make one's neighbours curtains
> twitch. Nevertheless, by general consent we accept that search - by force
> majeure if necessary - is required where there is a prima facie case on
> implication in a serious crime. This is what the procedures for the issue of
> warrants has been about for a *very* long time.
> In short, search, under duress if need be, of a data store is nothing new in
> principle. What is relatively new is the growth of the means and their use
> effectively to thwart such searches by the use of cryptography.

If you hide something so well the police cannot find it (with or without
a warrant), the ECtHR has held (I forget the name of the case) that you
cannot be compelled by law to say where it is.  It is at least arguable
that encrypting something is analogous to hiding it where it cannot be
found, and that compelling key disclosure or decryption are like
compelling revelation of the hiding place.  If the ECtHR were persuaded
of the validity of this analogy, it would hold much of Part III
incompatible with the prohibition on self-incrimination.  In time we may
find out.

Nicholas
-- 
Salkyns, Great Canfield, Takeley,
Bishop's Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone   01279 871272    (+44 1279 871272)
Fax      020 7788 2198   (+44 20 7788 2198)
Mobile  07715 419728    (+44 7715 419728)

PGP public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF