dahat wrote:


Wow, you don't even read or think about the crap you post here do you?

SecretSoftware wrote:
From the article, it seems like she is just a random individual that they wanted to test the new law on.


Yes, because the police had absolutely no authority or reason to seize her PC in the first place and said "oh what the heck, lets grab her PC when she's not looking, sit on it for a few months and then demand her keys."

SecretSoftware wrote:
But I could be wrong.


Could be? I honestly cannot say there has been a case here where you HAVE NOT been wrong.

SecretSoftware wrote:
My problem here is, why force someone to give their encryption keys, under threat of jail time?


That's not your only problem... cause another one of them is your not reading what is said here.

It has been said numerous times by multiple people that this is little different than a regular search warrant. Don't want to let the police into your house? Fine, you'll be charged with obstruction and your door will be broken down. This is just a codification of that for the digital age.

... or are you saying that a person should be able to prevent the police with a warrant from searching their house because the purpose of the locks on the doors is to keep people out?

SecretSoftware wrote:
Does not that defeat the whole purpose of cryptography?


Again you miss the point. Cryptography (just like locks and safes) are intended to keep out most people... but NOT make it impossible for duly authorized law enforcement agents to search them and their contents.

If we are all very lucky... one day you will be ordered to do something by a judge... and either refuse or be unable to do so (possibly due to another order from that or another judge) and be charged with contempt and see how all of this works.
 
SecretSoftware wrote:
Private keys needs to be private.


So don't let anyone into that safe when the police show up with a search warrant and see what happens, more so:

TFA wrote:
it allows police to demand encryption keys or provide a clear text transcript of encrypted text.


Funny how you missed the easy way pointed out by the article that a person could go without giving up their encryption keys.

SecretSoftware wrote:
What if a Company has secrets, and they are suspected by Police, to have committed a crime (think Exon Mobile or the others).


It's called a warrant.

SecretSoftware wrote:
Why should anyone be compelled to "give evidence against themselfs"?


Just as a person can refuse to answer a question in court, a person can refuse to give up the keys or let the police into their house... there may however be penalties. I'm sorry that you do not see that this is not an isolated type of law.

SecretSoftware wrote:
or break the whole purpose of cryptography use?


It's sad that you are so worried about encryption but don't care that police can force their way into your home or a safe with a warrant.

And yet... you have yet to explain why ones encryption keys and a safe are any different as you are effectively arguing.

SecretSoftware wrote:
You see it does not make sense to me.


That happens when you refuse to think.
 
SecretSoftware wrote:
How do they suspect that an encrypted file has anything to do with a given crime?


Same reason they will ask to look behind a locked door when they come to search your house with a warrant (funny that word coming up again isn't it?), they have reason to believe there is evidence of a crime and will look everywhere they have authority to do so to find it.

SecretSoftware wrote:
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.


Again you show your refusal to think. This has nothing to do with 'plain site', if they have a right to search your house, they have the right to read every single peice of paper with in it and search every nook and cranny... including seize your PC and read everything on it (if it is part of the warrant in most places).

SecretSoftware wrote:
So this law is anti-antithetical to a democratic system's values.


Yes, because you are such an expert on "a democratic system's values" Given you have yet to prove anything on this issue and keep screaming about "rape"... you really are in no position to make such an assertion.



You are a certified retard.

In law, the police tells you "You have the right to remain silent". This comes from the law that says "No one should be compelled to testify against themselves".

So, this protects "witness evidence" that exists in the person's head (locked in a brain wave of thought). And you should not be compelled to decrypt the brain wave thought, using your tongue.

The same thing in the Computer "Brain". You should not be compelled to decrypt thoughts in electronic form. Your computer has the right to remain silent, and not display what ever thoughts you have, saved in an encrypted form.

Many can argue that the brain is complex, and its thought patterns are encrypted and decrypted using the tongue of the person.

If the brain has the right to not be compelled to reveal "witness testimony" that could be incriminating, then the computer should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Its not a gestapo.

Tomorrow, MS wants to be able to backup your brain, does that mean that your most intimate thoughts can be deciphered just to figure out if they have incriminating evidence or not?

This officially will end the meaning of privacy that we ought to enjoy in democratic systems.

Common man, you don't have to be that dense.