HD erase quickie
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 6 Apr 2010 20:36 On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:22:09 +0100, Phil Taylor <nothere(a)all.invalid> wrote: >In article ><1jgjrp4.1kgiwxd1j7fp9jN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, >Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> > In the same situation, GCHQ would simply arrest you and then imprison >> > you for refusing to release passwords, btw. >> >> GCHQ isn't the home of the British Supra-Legal Secret Police Service, >> you know. They can't do that. They can give the cops a hint, though. >> >> Then the cops'd arrest you based on the evidence they had of your >> alleged criminal behaviour (should such evidence be available to the >> cops, that is), hold you in the cells in accordance with the law, then >> if and when given the go-ahead by the DPP deciding that the case against >> you was both likely to succeed and was in the public interest, they'd >> present a case to a court of law and *that* is what'd get you sent down >> or fined. Thanks for your pedantry. >Has anybody yet been prosecuted for refusing to give up the password >for an encrypted file? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/11/ripa_iii_figures/ >It would seem that "I've forgotten it" would be >a perfect defence. Ho ho! What's the point of a good police-state type law like RIPA if it's so easy to get around? Failure to comply with a RIPA section 49 notice can lead to up to two years in priz plus fines, if convicted. Nice. Cheers - Jaimie -- "If we do not change the direction we are going, we are likely to end up where we are headed." - anon
From: Peter Ceresole on 7 Apr 2010 03:13 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > Ho ho! What's the point of a good police-state type law like RIPA if > it's so easy to get around? > > Failure to comply with a RIPA section 49 notice can lead to up to two > years in priz plus fines, if convicted. Nice. Not so nice- especially as the first person to be imprisoned under the act turned out to be schizophrenic, and was sent to gaol because the judge didn't call for a presentencing report which would have revealed the fellow's state of mind. However, the claim that they need these powers given the threat, is persuasive. People such as animal rights terrorists have apparently used encrypted communications. I don't see that they should have a right to conceal these from the police. You may call it a 'police state type law', but that's just the usual facile nonsense; proportionality is the important thing. If it were used unreasonably, or often, then it would be a cause for alarm, but it doesn't seem that it has. -- Peter
From: Pd on 7 Apr 2010 05:18 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > You may call it a 'police state type > law', but that's just the usual facile nonsense; proportionality is the > important thing. If it were used unreasonably, or often, then it would > be a cause for alarm, but it doesn't seem that it has. Then why not just give the police permission to kill or torture anyone anytime? If it turns out they do it too often, or unreasonably, then we can be alarmed, but otherwise it's fair play. After all, it's *criminals* we're talking about here. Think of the children! And of course, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. -- Pd
From: Peter Ceresole on 7 Apr 2010 06:03 Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > Then why not just give the police permission to kill or torture anyone > anytime? That's ridiculous too. The police certainly do misbehave; Gareth Peirce told me that the police routinely behaved in a criminal way towards her clients. But that was before the Police adn Criminal Evidence Act; things have got better since, because it's more difficult for them to do, but of course that will happen no matter what the law says. You just do the best you can to keep it under control. However the threat is real, terrorists do exist, encouraged of course by the actions of our own government in the Middle East (but especially by those of the USA). The law has to provide the police with the means to pursue them. Since forever it was (still is) legal to intercept mail. Technology moves on, and all it does now is to recognise later (and more useful) ways of organising crime, and easier and stronger ways to hide criminal intentions. -- Peter
From: David Kennedy on 7 Apr 2010 07:28
Peter Ceresole wrote: > Jaimie Vandenbergh<jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > >> Ho ho! What's the point of a good police-state type law like RIPA if >> it's so easy to get around? >> >> Failure to comply with a RIPA section 49 notice can lead to up to two >> years in priz plus fines, if convicted. Nice. > > Not so nice- especially as the first person to be imprisoned under the > act turned out to be schizophrenic, and was sent to gaol because the > judge didn't call for a presentencing report which would have revealed > the fellow's state of mind. > > However, the claim that they need these powers given the threat, is > persuasive. People such as animal rights terrorists have apparently used > encrypted communications. I don't see that they should have a right to > conceal these from the police. You may call it a 'police state type > law', but that's just the usual facile nonsense; proportionality is the > important thing. If it were used unreasonably, or often, then it would > be a cause for alarm, but it doesn't seem that it has. Weren't the first deportees under the terrorist legislation the Nat West three; and, wasn't the same act used to freeze the Icelandic Bank assets? -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com |