Mark Brown wrote:
"Now apparently they have found some encrypted files on my computer (which was stolen by police thugs in May this year) which they think they have 'reasonable suspicion' to pry into using the excuse of 'preventing or detecting a crime'," she writes.
Learning to read, helps
My reading is just fine. Still doesn't explain what crime she committed that the police would need to see encrypted information on her computer.
From the article, it seems like she is just a random individual that they wanted to test the new law on. But I could be wrong.
My problem here is, why force someone to give their encryption keys, under threat of jail time?
Does not that defeat the whole purpose of cryptography? Private keys needs to be private.
What if a Company has secrets, and they are suspected by Police, to have committed a crime (think Exon Mobile or the others). Why should anyone be compelled to "give evidence against themselfs"? or break the whole purpose of cryptography use?
You see it does not make sense to me. How do they suspect that an encrypted file has anything to do with a given crime? They might be non related, and so them asking for her crypto-keys is illegal under the law, because there is no evidence in plain site for the police to see, and suspect something.
So this law is anti-antithetical to a democratic system's values.