RIPA is objectively flawed legislation, but it definitely doesn't "outlaw encryption" by anything less than a very long stretch of the imagination (as appears in this article).
But it's not all that unusual for the gov't to really "have it in" for someone, but not be able to pin the crime on them, as with Al Capone.
In his case, the government didn't think it could pin the true charges on him, so he was actually convicted on tax charges. The tax code is big, obscure, and no expert agrees on the detailed interpretation, so it's not too hard to find some technicality that will convict anyone.
This encryption thing could easily be misused the same way: they can't prove you're a bad guy, so they trump up some technicality charges just to get you locked up.
You would ahve to go back to the bad old days of the star chamber to find the UK law system doing anything as doddgy as Al Capone (not exactly the USAs Legal systems finest hour)
And how did that work out for the Guildford four for example?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four_and_Maguire_Seve...
In the UK, the term "government" refers to the executive branch. Outside that use, it encompasses the legislative, executive and judiciary power of a state. Wikipedia gives the following definition:
Government consists of the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and the system by which they are organized.
Judges are part of that by definition, even if there's some separation from the other components.
I dubt wikipedia edited by a large number of Non UK People woud get the subtle destiction I am making here.
In the United States, we use the term "administration" to refer to an executive, his cabinet, and other associated officials. However, we still recognize the (not-so-subtle) distinction between the administration and the government as a whole; our government, as yours, is divided into three separate branches, and then again into many departments, agencies, committees, circuits, districts, and other subdivisions thereof.
I suppose you mean Silicon Valley, but I live on the East Coast (~3000 miles away). Also, our "tripartite separation" is based on yours, with the President taking the place of the Monarch/Prime Minister, the Congress taking the place of Parliament, and the Judiciary being roughly the same (we even use the same style of law, called common law, whereas most non-English-speaking countries use civil law).
I suppose that explains the eye of newt in the recipes.
You are correct. However, suppose you encrypt some data and forget the key, or you store some radio noise in a file, or whatever.
Later, you are accused of a crime. The judge issues a warrant.
The data/noise is now evidence against you. You are presumed guilty, and it is impossible to prove your innocence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Stock_trading_c...
Are you suggesting that the courts would somehow just believe, with no evidence, that it's encrypted data relevant to the case and you're wilfully withholding the keys?
"Being found guilty... regardless of evidence" makes no sense. Part of 'being found guilty of breaking the law' involves the prosecution giving evidence that a jury thinks proves your guilt beyond reasonable doubt (inc. proving that you were in possession of a key, and so that it was actually encrypted data). s.53(3).