dahat wrote:


SecretSoftware wrote:
but how does the police get a warrant in the first place? They have to suspect something in the first place to get a warrant after convincing the judge.


Which is how they get the encrypted data in the first place and know that they need to ask for an encryption key or the decrypted data!



You are confused. Unlike a locked box, the encrypted file does not tell anything about its content. So how can the police think or suspect that it contains anything illegal? How can they go to the judge and say, well judge, the encryted file has sometihng we think will help us in prosecuting a case, please give us a warrant.

The judge asks well, what makes you think that this is going to help you?

What will they answer? Is it simply because of the fact that its an encrypted file that they are "curious" to searching?

Did they see a bit of something that made them went to reveal the rest?

An encrypted file is a closed System. Thus legally, you cannot use probable cause to ask for a warrant.

In the case of the car, if the police sees a dead cadavar in the back seat, then they can, and have every right to get a search warrant and search the car.

But if they see absolutely nothing, then they cant suspect anything or use the probable cause argument either.

In fact the police would be charged with violating the person's 10 ammendment rights, or Fundamental human rights laws.

That is why the police would ask you " if your okay with letting them search it, and if you dont agree, they will just give you a ticket, unless they see something that gives them probable cause to search".


dahat wrote:


SecretSoftware wrote:
Well, many can argue that Patriot act is illegal if one challenges it against the 10 amendment rights.


Just stop with your anti-Americanism and paranoia. We know you hate this country, we get the point, shut it.

More so... the UK doesn't have the '10 amendment rights' or even the Bill of Rights... so once again you are arguing in the wrong jurisdiction!

Again, you have a warped view of people who think differently than you do. You hold the view that they are anti-American, even though they are not.

You see, We , as the citizens of this country, have the right to remain valiant and alert, as per President Eisenhower's speech on the military industrial complex, to what the government does. We the people have the right to audit every thing the government does and to be critical of it, for that is how we maintain our democratic way of life, and our civil liberties.

Its easy to charge and say people who look different and think different are hateful of the country we live in. But without descent , the very existence of this republic as a democratic republic is threatened.

Hence I am critical of everything this government does. and that is as it should be.

dahat wrote:


SecretSoftware wrote:
The only reason its active, is for reasons of national security, which the government claims. That is why it has to be renewed, because its fundamentally antithetical to democratic value systems,and is outright illegal when measured against the 10-Amendment laws.


Again, this is a UK law, not a US one and I guarantee you that even without the Patriot Act that a person who refuses to give up keys (like a reporter who has been ordered to give up their sources) will be jailed until they comply and it would all be perfectly legal.


However, what if the reporter decrypted a dummy message, that says "Dahat is a lunatic", when the real message says "Attack D-Day at 10"?

I mean will that satisfy the people? Just to see a decryption of the message despite if its a true decryption or not?

When does it stop? What if the police thinks that this is the dummy message and not the real one? When does it stop?Wink

My $0.02

PS: suppose Alice uses the One Time Pad, and Alice encrypts a message. The police says to ALice, give us your key or decrypt the message, Alice goes and use a dummy Key to get the dummy message. Given that for an OTP encrypted message , there are an infinite number of possible decryption, how does the police know if the decrypted message is what was in the encrypted message?

You see , there is a fundamental shift of the onus of proof here. Alice has to proof to the police that she is not hiding illegal stuff in the encrypted file. According to the Law, the onus of proof is upon the police and the prosecutors not the accused.

Hence the law is illegal if measured against higher laws (10 amendment , or Fundamental Human rights acts), which takes precedent over any other lower applicable laws.