Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

British Teen Jailed Over Encryption Password

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the yeah-good-luck-with-that dept.

Encryption 1155

An anonymous reader writes "Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool has been convicted of 'failing to disclose an encryption key,' which is an offense under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and as a result has been jailed for 16 weeks. Police seized his computer but could not get past the 50-character encrypted password that he refused to give up. And just to get it out of the way, obligatory XKCD."

cancel ×

1155 comments

Just Awesome (5, Funny)

Xeleema (453073) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800794)

Pfft, Britan. Glad my ancestors were smart enough to split that dive and setup someplace safe for me to live....

Re:Just Awesome (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800824)

Britan. Lolz. Irony.

Re:Just Awesome (4, Funny)

pipedwho (1174327) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800996)

Where did they go? Sweden?

Different in the USA? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33801034)

Pfft, Britan. Glad my ancestors were smart enough to split that dive and setup someplace safe for me to live....

What makes you think it would be any different in the USA?

Computer crime + Contempt of court = jail until hand over the password.

Re:Just Awesome (4, Funny)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801118)

Pfft, Britan. Glad my ancestors were smart enough

If only they were smart enough to teach you how to spell "Britain".

Post needs editing (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800798)

"xkcd", not "XKCD". We really don't need to shout the comic name.

Re:Post needs editing (1)

txoof (553270) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800812)

REMEMBER, in the intertubes, no one can hear you shout unless you use ALL CAPS.

Re:Post needs editing (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800914)

REMEMBER, in the intertubes, no one can hear you shout unless you use ALL CAPS.

REMEMBER, ALL CAPS.

GOT IT. THANKS.

But it's hard to remember... (4, Funny)

txoof (553270) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800800)

But it's hard to remember all those special characters after they beat you with a wrench. Be sure to choose a password that's easy to remember under bludgeoning to limit the number of times they have to hit you in the head.

Re:But it's hard to remember... (5, Informative)

aztektum (170569) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800916)

Never start with the head. It just makes the persons memory all fuzzy.

Re:But it's hard to remember... (3, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800936)

mod this +1 nefarious

Re:But it's hard to remember... (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801112)

I'm more afraid of the people finding it "Informative". In my mind's eye I'm seeing the CIA taking careful notes while reading /.

Re:But it's hard to remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33801022)

True, you can get better results with needles under the fingernails

or he can be like Terry Childs 2 years jail wait t (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800944)

or he can be like Terry Childs sit 2 years in jail waiting for the trail.

Re:But it's hard to remember... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800984)

Maybe the wrench made him figure out he would probably get less jail time, by not telling them the key, if the crypted materials are that bad. If the case falls apart without the key then he only gets 16 weeks of jail vs who knows how many years if he did. They wont spend years cracking the key either. He obviously knows how guilty he actually is and he probably knows what they have on him by now.

Re:But it's hard to remember... (3, Insightful)

txoof (553270) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801088)

Or, he really does care about his rights and truly believes that he should not be compelled to divulge this password. You're probably right, but it is possible.

Word to the wise... (1)

Just_Say_Duhhh (1318603) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801120)

You should set up multi-level encryption. Encrypt your mildly interesting stuff with one key, and the really nasty stuff with another. When they seize your computer, let them beat you for a bit, then give up the mildly interesting key. They'll give you an ice-pack, and when they find the deeper encryption, just say, "that's old junk, I forgot the password to that, and never got around to deleting it."

What is he hiding? (4, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800806)

I wonder what he is hiding.

Re:What is he hiding? (5, Insightful)

jcookeman (843136) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800830)

That's the typical British response. The reason England is in the position it's in.

Re:What is he hiding? (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800832)

His porn collection; like every other 19 year old male.

Re:What is he hiding? (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800838)

Just porn? Or child porn?

Re:What is he hiding? (2, Informative)

Tobenisstinky (853306) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800918)

RTFA - "Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool, was arrested in May 2009 by police tackling child sexual exploitation."

Re:What is he hiding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800940)

It was just porn when I left it there.

Now? Meh - who knows.

Re:What is he hiding? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33801090)

"Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool, was arrested in May 2009 by police tackling child sexual exploitation"

He was probably suspected of having pictures of his 17-year old naked self on his computer. Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about child porn accusations anymore. If somebody tells me to think of the children, I say "fuck the children" (well, not literally). It's an empty argument, a way of saying "I don't want to discuss this, it's going to happen so shut up." I instinctively assume that anyone who brings up child porn accusations is lying. This is just another instance: They want to read his hard disk, so they accuse him of something unspeakable. The punishment for not remembering a 50 character password after 6 months of not using it is atrocious. These people deserve our deepest disdain. THEY have done wrong and parade their deeds in front of us, while Oliver Drage, for all I know, has not been convicted of anything I would consider a wrong-doing.

Re:What is he hiding? (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800894)

His porn collection; like every other male.

FTFY

Well no. (3, Funny)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800900)

DUH. Obviously he's a terrorist.

 

Re:What is he hiding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800848)

CP

downloaded music? games? movies? software? (3, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800998)

downloaded music? games? movies? software?

Re:What is he hiding? (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801012)

As long as it would have gotten him jailed for more than 16 weeks, it was worth it.

Re:What is he hiding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33801036)

Duh. His password.

Obligatory XKCD (-1, Redundant)

inpher (1788434) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800810)

Re:Obligatory XKCD (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800850)

i know this is slashdot, and we dont RTFS, but come on!

Re:Obligatory XKCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33801032)

Nono, just testing the level of grumpiness among the /. crowd today by having my karma modified accordingly.

Re:Obligatory XKCD (1)

inpher (1788434) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801052)

WTF, how was that posted as AC?

Re:Obligatory XKCD (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801128)

It seems you've managed to fail on multiple levels today. Congratulations.

right to not incriminate yourself? (1)

Laxori666 (748529) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800814)

Don't you have the right to remain silent, so as to not incriminate yourself? We have it here in the US.

Re:right to not incriminate yourself? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800842)

You don't have the right to keep your safe locked if there's a warrant for it to be opened. You don't have a right to not provide your fingerprints or DNA if that evidence is appropriate to the case and a warrant is issued.

You have a right to refuse to testify. This only extends to your own testimony, not to everything about you.

Re:right to not incriminate yourself? (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800946)

They can cut the safe open, you can say you forgot the combination. Forgetting is legally great, Reagen forgot iran-contra and look how that turnout for him.

Re:right to not incriminate yourself? (4, Funny)

RaymondKurzweil (1506023) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801046)

He would have died eventually in any case though, I suspect.

Re:right to not incriminate yourself? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800948)

So, can they prove that he hasn't forgotten the password?

Re:right to not incriminate yourself? (0)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800846)

Oh sure, you have that right. The question is whether or not you have the ability to remain silent while that wrench is dangled ominously in front of your face.

Re:right to not incriminate yourself? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800858)

Actually, everyone has it everywhere. What varies from place to place is whether the government recognizes the right and refrains from violating it. This is true of all human rights.

Re:right to not incriminate yourself? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800890)

Don't you have the right to remain silent, so as to not incriminate yourself? We have it here in the US.

No. That right was removed about 10 years ago.

Now, if you refuse to answer questions during your arrest and questioning, the prosecution are allowed to use that silence as circumstantial evidence against you.

Re:right to not incriminate yourself? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33801104)

Correct me if wrong, but I believe this is only if you later choose to not be silent any more.

E.g. you are accused of murdering someone two hours' drive away. You refuse to make any statement. A witness is able to clearly identify your car having seen it a few blocks from the scene of crime. Having been told this you say that you were just driving around randomly to clear your mind. In this case they would be able to use your earlier silence against you and imply that you are now only making excuses.

Which I feel is certainly alright and in tune with commonly accepted notions of justice.

Re:right to not incriminate yourself? (2, Informative)

Ynot_82 (1023749) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800902)

You have the right to remain silent, unless they want something from you, in which case silence is an additional crime you've just committed in full and flagrant view of a police officer

Re:right to not incriminate yourself? (5, Insightful)

Laxori666 (748529) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801062)

Maybe some cops see it that way... but videos such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik [youtube.com] would have me believe that it's always a good idea to plead the 5th and refuse to say anything. It's related to the idea that refusing to consent to a search without a warrant shouldn't be allowed as evidence that a warrant is necessary ("If he has nothing to hide, then he wouldn't mind us looking around..."). What's the precedent where pleading the 5th has been considered a crime? I can see how refusing to talk would get cops to find something to charge you with and arrest you, since it's annoying for them, but when has it been used as the actual charge for an arrest?

Re:right to not incriminate yourself? (3, Funny)

Derekloffin (741455) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800908)

Nope, and even in the US this has been contentious in the courts (not sure on the current status). Basically, the logic goes that the encryption is like a lock when a search warrant is issued. If a search warrant is issued, you have to provide access, and you can potentially get in legal hot water if you don't cooperate with the warrant. It isn't considered self incrimination.

Re:right to not incriminate yourself? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801000)

Which is why you always comply and give them the key you remember. With 50chars it is very easy to mis-remember some, surely being forgetful is not illegal.

Re:right to not incriminate yourself? (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800954)

Short answer: No. Through some creative legal thinking producing your encryption password is now considered equal to handing over the key to your safe, not to compel information from your mind. It's bullshit but Britain takes 1984 as a role model, not a warning.

Re:right to not incriminate yourself? (1)

pipedwho (1174327) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801048)

It works like this: if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear, and if you're innocent then it shouldn't matter that all your base are belong to us.

Or something like that anyway - I'm still too scared to come out of hiding from under my rock.

What do they want? (0)

jmnugent (705421) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800822)

Unless I missed it.. the article doesn't seem to mention WHY they want to see what's behind the 50character password. What does his hard drive contain that's so bloody important?

Re:What do they want? (1)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800872)

TFA mentions it in the first couple of sentances - its part of a child porn investigation.

Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool, was arrested in May 2009 by police tackling child sexual exploitation.

Re:What do they want? (3, Insightful)

gumpish (682245) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800878)

I can see how it's easy to miss, as it is the first sentence in TFA:

Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool, was arrested in May 2009 by police tackling child sexual exploitation.

Re:What do they want? (1)

xaoslaad (590527) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800884)

Really? First sentence: Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool, was arrested in May 2009 by police tackling child sexual exploitation.

Re:What do they want? (0, Redundant)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800986)

I know it's not The Slashdot Way, but the first paragraph of TFA reads:

Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool, was arrested in May 2009 by police tackling child sexual exploitation.

(emphasis mine)

At least, that's what the authorities are after. The guy may be completely innocent of that, or of any criminal activity, but could have anything else he may want to hide. His diary. His little black book. Nothing at all, if he's just standing on principle (or being contrary and obstructionist, whatever you prefer according to your current political biases).

Re:What do they want? (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801070)

I'm pretty sure that's where they think he hid the stolen diamonds.

Oblig: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800828)

xckd [xkcd.com]

50 character encrypted password? (1)

Tsarnon (4195) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800836)

The article says "encryption password" which makes way more sense.

Re:50 character encrypted password? (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800960)

No, you see, the mystery is what the encrypted password decrypts to!

Only 16 weeks? (5, Interesting)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800840)

He's getting off easy. In the USA, the cops would get a court order and the judge could order him jailed for contempt of court until he gives up the password.

Re:Only 16 weeks? (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800964)

Which is why you never refuse. You simply forget it. It is not illegal to forget something 50 chars long, it could easily happen.

Re:Only 16 weeks? (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800968)

Given the charges, its an easy tradeoff considering he could face years if they had pics of him committing the crimes he's accused of. Of course, who's to say that if you were innocent they couldn't accuse you of having some hidden partition they can't see?

Re:Only 16 weeks? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800976)

Is this the whole 5th amendment thing?

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

If my laptop is full of trade secrets, and kitty porn, I'm not going to tell you my password... Because it would incriminate me.

Shaved Cat porn is HAWT!

(Ironically, my pass-phrase was decrypt for this message!)

Re:Only 16 weeks? (1)

Chaonici (1913646) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801064)

> Is this the whole 5th amendment thing?
No, because this is in the UK. *shakes head*

Re:Only 16 weeks? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800994)

Just to be clear: "until he gives up the password" means "forever" if he never gives it up. And yes, the judge can do that.

Bleh (5, Insightful)

Chaonici (1913646) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800844)

Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool, was arrested in May 2009 by police tackling child sexual exploitation.

Well, I guess that makes it okay, then. After all, we can't allow people accused of child sexual exploitation to be free, can we?

On a more serious note, this sucks.

Det Sgt Neil Fowler, of Lancashire police, said: "Drage was previously of good character so the immediate custodial sentence handed down by the judge in this case shows just how seriously the courts take this kind of offence.

"Computer systems are constantly advancing and the legislation used here was specifically brought in to deal with those who are using the internet to commit crime.

"It sends a robust message out to those intent on trying to mask their online criminal activities that they will be taken before the courts with the ultimate sanction, as in this case, being a custodial sentence."

I guess insisting on your privacy is taboo now. Even if you're a good kid, if you refuse to let the police into your private files just on principle, you're boned.

Re:Bleh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33801006)

Indeed, they might download pictures again *shock, horror*

perspective (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800874)

Considering what he's charged with if they can't prove their case without what's on his computer and if they can't get past his crypto he'll have gotten off light.

Re:perspective (2, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801040)

They haven't tried him on their other evidence.

When they do, they'll use his refusal to give up his password as evidence, added to whatever else they have.

He can get years anyway. But he may know he has hundreds of files on that computer and that each one can be counted as a single crime, so years in lieu of centuries may be his best defense.

Of course, if he's guilty, I don't much care what they do to him.

Got it wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800880)

everyone gets this wrong - just say - "dang it i made it so long i forgot it, now iv'e lost all the family photos because I am so stupid"

Miranda rights (2, Interesting)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800886)

I know It's the UK, but couldn't this be defended as the right to not self incriminate? IANAL, but I'm just throwing that out there.

Re:Miranda rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33801008)

I don't right to not self incriminate allows you to withhold evidence when specifically demanded to provide it via a court order.

Re:Miranda rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33801078)

then what's the point of said right?

Re:Miranda rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33801060)

No, that's no applicable. That particular law makes it clear you are assumed guilty if you do not hand over passwords and the like.

Just give them something? (2, Interesting)

Fanro (130986) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800898)

Could he have given them a random password, and then act dumbfounded when it does not work?
Maybe even accuse them of breaking his system?

It is hard to prove that the header of an encrypted disk has not been corrrupted.

Would that work with the current law? Has anyone already tried it?

Re:Just give them something? (2, Funny)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800992)

Could he have given them a random password, and then act dumbfounded when it does not work?
Maybe even accuse them of breaking his system?

It is hard to prove that the header of an encrypted disk has not been corrrupted.

Would that work with the current law? Has anyone already tried it?

I wonder if it works the other way around? When they take my un-encrypted system, I'll claim it is in fact encrypted, and all the apparent data on the disk is just random garbage that happens to look like a windows 7 file system full of furry midget porn. I'll provide them with the 'real' encryption key and they'll see that all I was keeping on the disk was random garbage data.
-Taylor

Re:Just give them something? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801084)

This is why you hire a lawyer. To tell you that any judge or jury would see right through that "clever" story.

Re:Just give them something? (1)

wurp (51446) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801002)

And impossible to prove that he hasn't forgotten his password.

Re:Just give them something? (3, Informative)

Mister Fright (1559681) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801100)

TrueCrypt [truecrypt.org] has something where you can set up an encrypted virtual disk that you first put some files you don't care about on there with a password you wouldn't mind divulging. Then you make another virtual drive on that one that will store the files and a password you do care about. When asked for your password, you give the one you don't care about and it only shows files you don't care about. Plausible deniability.

Oblig: (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800904)

xkcd [xkcd.com]

Fool! (1)

JesseL (107722) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800930)

Now they'll just fall back on plan B: Generate a one-time-pad that when combined with his encrypted data will yield whatever happens to be the most incriminating data imaginable.

I Agree With This Law (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800934)

It actually is a good idea to me. If its part of a lawful investigation, I see no legitimate reason why someone would refuse to disclose a password that is related to it.

In this new world of high strength encryption available to all, criminals will eventually just hide behind a password, and we can't let that happen.

I don't see this a "self-incrimination" issue, after all DNA and biological samples can be taken against your will and you cannot refuse to provide it if its called for.

Re:I Agree With This Law (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801004)

I see no legitimate reason why someone would refuse to disclose a password that is related to it.

      You have never ever forgotten a password, right?

Re:I Agree With This Law (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801026)

You don't see a difference between being forced to say something and some DNA being taken?

Why don't we just force them to say they are guilty instead of the encryption key?
That would save the taxpayer a lot of money.

Just to be mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800950)

I'm going to have to make my passphrase "I don't know", maybe see what trouble it causes.

50 char pass (1)

Codename Dutchess (1782238) | more than 3 years ago | (#33800958)

How exactly do they know its a 50 character password? And if they do actually know its a 50 char password, wouldn't that narrow it down a bit for brute forcing?

Re:50 char pass (2, Informative)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801126)

If it is 50 all lowercase letters, that gives you about 5.6*10^70 possible combinations. If you have a supercomputer that can do for example 2.8bn combinations per second (fastest example on this page http://www.elcomsoft.com/distributed_password_recovery.html [elcomsoft.com] ), then it would take 6*10^53 years to go through them all. In other words 50 characters is a pretty secure password.

Add uppercase, numbers and all the symbols on my keyboard to the mix, and you have 3.6*10^99 combinations. You can work out how much longer that would take, but it makes no difference, the world would come to an end long before you did it.

Obligitory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33800962)

XKCD [xkcd.com]

16 weeks is better than (3, Insightful)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801010)

16 years

Re:16 weeks is better than (1)

Kittenman (971447) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801068)

Or 16 centuries. But your point is?

Re:16 weeks is better than (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801098)

He'll get that for whatever they had on him that got him arrested.

They can also just keep asking him for his password. As long as he refuses, he's repeatedly breaking the law against refusing.

As someone mentioned, this process is simplified in America. The judge declares you in contempt and throws you in the hole indefinitely until you make up your mind to cooperate.

investigating what? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801024)

The article says the pigs were investigating some child porn or what not, and they got this kid with his computer.

OK, so now the kid is in jail for 16 weeks based on what evidence? Only based on the fact he doesn't want to give up his password.

GOOD FOR HIM.

I only wonder what they will do in 16 weeks time, will they again ask for his password and if he refuses throw him back in the slammer?

There is no way for anybody to say that he has any child porn on his computer and pigs could come up with any excuse just to look into his computer.

PIGS: -We want your computer files.
KID: Fuck you.
PIGS saying to judge: -We are investigating child porn, we want his computer files.
Judge: -Give us your password.
KID: Fuck you.
Judge: -Off to jail you go for not giving us your password.

--

That's it. No child porn, only a stubborn kid. Again, good for him.

I forgot? (1)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801042)

I wonder what the laws are if you happen to forget the password? I use one-time passwords all the time. Some are 10 characters or more. I count on my ability to either reset the password or re-create the data. Politicians do it all the time. "It slipped my mind" or "It was ten years ago" or "I get so many papers that it's hard to remember what I signed".

How do they know it's encrypted? (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801050)

Is it illegal in Britain to have a disk/folder full of large, strangly named files with random data in it? If not, how do they tell it from encrypted data?

Of course, this is wrong on so many levels that not all of them have to do with encryption or computers. What if he really forgot the password, or the policemen accidentally removed and discarded the sticker on the monitor while seizing the computer? What

Re:How do they know it's encrypted? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801122)

(click)

"Enter password to access encrypted files: "

Oi. Nige. Ge' a load o' vis. I fink we go' a sneaker 'ere.

Should have used steganography... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33801066)

...because using steganograpy buys you DENIABILITY.

"Your honor, these are just snapshots from the countryside. Why are they in 48 bits per pixel "raw" format? Because I hate the lossy JPEG compression, I just like the "raw" format."

Probably what his lawyer advised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33801086)

Considering the sex offenders register is pretty much a life sentence these days, especially with parental notification laws.

Can't photograph policemen on duty... (5, Insightful)

ScientiaPotentiaEst (1635927) | more than 3 years ago | (#33801106)

... yet government cameras are everywhere, can't keep data private (nor, as I understand it - have a full right to remain silent), can't get DNA samples removed upon acquittal (despite EU court directive), proposals for Inland Revenue to take paychecks and forward to the wage earner what's left, proposal to tax graduates at a higher rate, etc., etc., etc.

Of course, the UK is not unique in much of this. But what makes these examples so sad for me is how the UK was the foundation for much of what one might consider Western freedom. It fought the good fight against totalitarianism (let's not Godwin this). I don't think those who struggled back then would consider all this to be what they were struggling *for*.

Will this constant erosion of freedom ever stop?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...