How does this work with things like DRM? What if you have media on your phone from something like Spotify or Netflix that's presumably encrypted or protected in some way, that you cannot decrypt if your subscription expires...
Suddenly the Minister[0] possessed a file which he couldn't decrypt on demand. Would he consider amending the Bill to remove penalties for such eventualities? Of course not, nothing was changed.
If you possess the bytes you'll do the time. Delete everything that is unnecessary as soon as its usefulness has expired - big corps learned that lesson, for other reasons, in the early 2000s.
[0] well one of his staff
While I entirely sympathise with this idea abstractly, so much of law depends on the context of actions where it's easy to dismiss this stunt. Merely having encrypted data in your possession is technically not within the scope of the law if the context is "as part of a counterterrorism investigation" and if the person could reasonably be expected to decrypt it (which would imply they were both the person to encrypt in the first place AND with the means to decrypt it - as this politician clearly wasn't).
Wrongful convictions and dragnet searches are the serious consequence of these laws, yes, but the real test comes when it's hateable/despicable people at risk. The problem with these laws isn't that it's fundamentally or potentially arbitrary, it's that it's wrong even when it's not arbitrary. And the mere fact of a police investigation or allegation is not sufficient to cross that line.
People should have the right to encrypt anything they want without being coerced into decrypting it. There are more than enough means for police in our modern technological era to convict terrorists/criminals and prevent conspiracies without having total access to all data. And the costs of removing that right is much higher than the rewards of a few extra convictions.
It then becomes a grey area between having been sent encrypted data, and having used the previously mentioned scheme to avoid decryption.
I also wonder how this interacts with the new 5-tap SOS function on iPhones.
Not quite; the bar is not as high as an existing 'terrorism' investigation. To quote RIPA (2000)[0], if anyone authorized has the belief (upon reasonable grounds), that
(3) A disclosure requirement in respect of any protected information is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary—
(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
[0]: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/pdfs/ukpga_20000...
Interesting point, but I think in this situation they'd be putting pressure on the media provider to decrypt it for them (since the media provider is the one in control of the encryption, not the consumer). That's assuming said media provider is in a jurisdiction that the relevant govt has some control over, and/or media provider is compliant.
Here's a thought experiment: suppose ISIS (or your preferred terrorist organisation of the day) set up a media service for users to share videos (or other media) that are protected by DRM. The media service can disable the viewing of said content on a whim. A person using this service has their phone/computer confiscated, but the authorities are powerless to gain access to the content due to the DRM. Is this person liable under these laws, even though the encryption is outside their control?
I could have a file filled with /dev/random and the law would still apply.
How can you even defend yourself?