Hacker News Reader

Comment by didntcheck | Hacker News Reader

Devil's advocate: we accept compromise of people's basic freedom of movement (via arrest) when under investigation. Even though we know a non-negligible amount are innocent, virtually everyone considers it a necessary compromise

Perhaps part of the difference is that the public acknowledge this as a necessary _evil_ and get rightly outraged when they hear of people being detained without good cause. But with privacy, especially electronic privacy, almost nobody cares when "we will only allow a small number of agents to use this for imminent terrorist danger" inevitably turns to "we will let any random council worker casually pull up every website you've been to with no warrant"

View on HN

A compromise here is not technically possible. There is no half crypto. Crypto with a backdoor is not crypto.

Someone's encrypted files should be regarded to be in the same category as material they memorized in their brain. Off limits.

Find some other way to get evidence about their wrongdoing to convict them.

So, strictly speaking, that's not how UK law, at least, works. The court can absolutely compel you to say things you memorized - in fact, including encryption passwords. You can of course, physically, refuse, but you can be held in contempt of court, and jailed until you reveal the information, indefinitely. So not at all off limits.

Indefinitely jailing people to get a confession sounds like a midevil torture tactic. Is that a good balance of the Average Joe's right to privacy and privacy restrictions for fighting crime you speak of?

> Indefinitely jailing people to get a confession sounds like a midevil torture tactic.

That's very clearly not what I wrote. You can demand information this way, not a confession... People in the UK generally have a legal obligation to answer any questions the court has, unless they are themselves the accused. There are a small few other exceptions.

To get back to the point.

Just because UK law allows compelled disclosure doesn’t make it right—it makes it a bad law. It creates a self-incrimination loophole, shifting the burden of proof onto individuals instead of the state. Leading to erosion of due process and a presumption of guilt, forcing people to either comply or face punishment, even when no crime has been proven. Civil rights advocates have lambasted this law.

So I ask: Do you believe it to be balanced?

Using flawed laws to justify more erosion of privacy only deepens the problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com