Wow, what a free society! In the UK if you refuse to unlock your device you can be imprisoned indefinitely! In HK it's just one year!
Yes, it can be a criminal offence. But the maximum tariff for this under RIPA 2000 is five years. If it’s not about nation security or CSAM, it’s two.
(Incidentally, the USA is a real outlier in this topic)
I'm not even sure how much practical difference there is between 5 and indefinite in practice, 5 years is a long time. I imagine it is pretty life-destroying. Especially for the crime of having something on your phone that you want to keep private.
> If it’s not about nation security or CSAM, it’s two.
I am sure we all get what you mean, but there is a comic interpretation in vaguely-Soviet style here where if someone hasn't done anything wrong they only get 2 years. I'm going to spend some time this weekend making sure my encryption is plausibly deniable where possible.
Doesn't double jeopardy prevent this? Has this actually happened?
Legislators should force future would-be tyrants to flagrantly violate the law, as this is more likely to generate popular resistance.
The point is that these laws aren't badly written. There's already protections in place for what's described above.
A great example is the CFAA. It has been judicially narrowed after court battles, because in its original form it was overbroad and criminalized basic, common things. Prosecutors abused it in order to get political wins until they were finally stopped.
This is unfortunately fairly common. Legislators either push for too much or don’t understand how the law might be applied, and innocent people suffer until someone wins a big expensive set of appeals.
Edit: I realize now you may be talking about the UK in particular, in which case you don’t even get this shoddy level of protection as “Parliament is sovereign” (lol).
But arguing these theoretical untested-because-they-never-happen edge cases isn't exactly pushing forward a good case for this law having been "badly written." There's seemingly no problem with it in practice.
Why the "for crying out loud?" That's an example of the law being well written in a way that covers the knee jerk reactions to "it's too broad, it's badly written!"
> the government's own advisors that are the ones raising concerns with the broad applicability
What's your issue with this? They're advisors, it's their job to raise concerns that lead to the inclusion of exemptions like the one you're "crying out loud" about.
> it wasn't even considered in the original drafting of the bill.
That's why bills go through various stages of drafting and debate, and why parliament seeks out and considers the advice from industry. It's "laughable" to judge the quality of a law by the original draft, just as it would be too judge a piece of software by the initial commit.
Has it happened? Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 has a secrecy requirement built into it, where if you tell anyone that you have been issued a Section 49 you can get an additional 5 years (treated as a separate crime). This, as you can imagine, makes your question difficult to answer.
Before a judge grants the notice, they must be satisfied that:
The key to the protected information is in the possession of the person given notice. Disclosure is necessary in the interest of national security, in preventing or detecting crime or in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK. Disclosure is proportionate. If the protected information cannot be obtained by reasonable means.
I'm sure China could find some judges to rule in the name of national security if it would give everyone warm fuzzies.
Judicial checks and balances only function when they're independent of the executive and parliament
A judge isn't a magistrate, but also: No, of course not. There are different layers of legal protections in the UK. You would be able to appeal the notice itself, you would be able to argue at the court against the decision, and you could make an appeal to a higher court if your were convicted. Furthermore you could make an official complaint about the investigation afterwards.
There isn't trust of the institutions in the UK. That's why there's so many layers of checks and balances like various courts of appeal and the two houses in the parliament. It's designed with the idea that a rogue player can't go wild.
It's also not true that British institutions have been well run for a long time. Bloody Sunday would be a very visceral and obvious example. Interesting case as well because obviously it took almost half a century but at least there was official recognition and apology from the prime minister after the courts and parliamentary investigative bodies did their thing.
>in preventing or detecting crime
If the police are requesting a s.49 notice it goes without saying that it will be for preventing or detecting crime, but notices can also be issued to ensure the exercise or performance of public bodies, statutory powers, or statutory duties without such a requirement.
>Disclosure is proportionate.
In regards to what is sought to be achieved by the disclosure. It is not disproportionate to request disclosure for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime regardless of how benign that crime is.
>If the protected information cannot be obtained by reasonable means.
The law has been used against people for failing to give up Facebook passwords. The police routinely ask companies for information without a warrant and they're usually legally denied such requests based on GDPR grounds. 'Reasonably practicable' means nothing if it can be bypassed by police trying their luck without a warrant.