> I expect the language to be broad and the enforcement narrow.
That's the worst kind of law - you can be locked up at a prosecutors whim.
In the UK, it's already illegal not to disclose the key to an encrypted file.
That's the worst kind of law - you can be locked up at a prosecutors whim.
In the UK, it's already illegal not to disclose the key to an encrypted file.
Some people have failed to pass the test of "reasonable doubt" for s.53 (3) / (4) defenses e.g. ( http://www.alphr.com/news/361693/teenager-jailed-for-refusin... ) but in other cases they have succeeded (e.g. Lauri Love had his hdd's taken and the NCA couldn't decrypt them but had to release him on bail; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-31544346 and subsequently returned some of the storage (before arresting him again))
There are also people out there working to help the reasonable doubt argument; https://brasshorncommunications.uk/projects/s53/
This is not ideal, but will probably fail, hopefully with some precedent set.
[http://theconversation.com/hactivists-arent-terrorists-but-u...]
* He was forced ("tortured" was the word used) to disclose the key by the police.
* You can't accuse yourself or direct relatives, and disclosing an encryption key that resulted in incriminating evidence was argued to be a form of "self incrimination".
* "Best" thing about this was that the evidence led to finding a body, but as it was nullified, legally the status of the deceased person changed from "deceased" to "missing" -- because the evidence they had used to find the body had been nullified, then also the finding of the body had to be null (I'm not kidding, people went nuts over this "technicallity").
* Eventually a more reasonable judge turned the previous statement and accepted that the person was deceased indeed.
Working in forensics (I do digital forensics) is weird some times...
That's why the Brazilian police has a hard drive that is known to have tons of incriminating evidence against a number of bankers but they can't do anything about it because, well, TrueCrypt.
It sounds ridiculous that the discovery of a body would be nullified because the evidence leading to it was nullified but this is important because it forces the prosecution to comply with the law. It helps avoid the violation of a fundamental right.
I don't necessarily find that Roman Law is superior to Common Law but all of the silliness about people being forced to type passwords could be avoided with this very reasonable provision. Common Law allows you to incriminate yourself by forcing you to prove your innocence by assuming guilt unless you can prove your innocence via decryption - let's hope we can all remember all of passwords!
You can use what hiq is suggesting, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10097533, but that is a different method.
I wonder what is in a judge's mind when the encrypted evidence turns out to be kitten pictures and the defendant claims that he does not have any other password to provide.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability#Use_in_c...
edit: clarification
What the methods you mentioned are doing, is hiding information in places which are marked as: random data no information here. But in reality there is information there. You then need to have dummy information somewhere else.