Once again our resident terrorist supporting 9er doesn't let pesky things like reality get in the way of his rampant paranoia. Amazingly for once he didn't find a way to link this case to some global conspiracy or the Bush administration. He must be slipping...
he did at least mention the Gestapo so we know it's really him at least.
Oh where to begin the refutation?
You cannot really legislate against technology. Period.
They aren't legislating against technology, they are not declaring the technology illegal, they are simply saying that you must comply with a legal demand for access (ie 'we have a warrant, open the safe').
The hacking underworld have, and will always outsmart everything technologically speaking.
So... if criminals who choose to use weapons during the commission of a crime will always do so be it illegal or not... we should not have it be illegal?
what I think is , how are they going to enforce that law?
Same way they do today, by arresting those who do not comply. Seems pretty simple doesn't it?
What does this say about privacy in the digital world we live in today?
This is little different than the world we live in today. If the police have cause to search your home they will... should you refuse to let them in the door, they will break it down, only here instead of having the means to break down the door they require
your assistance in getting in.
But these laws are fundamentally illegal, because they break the law of privacy that exists in most democratic constitutions.
More so, had you actually read the US Constitution... (you know, the little thing
you claim has a section that makes "defaming a minority group of people's religious system" illegal) you'd run into something we call the 4th amendment which says:
United States Constitution: Fourth Amendment wrote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In short it means that at least in the US such a law would only be applicable with a warrant, which makes sense. As it is today in the US a judge can issue a warrant for the seizure of all PC's and data you own... but without the ability to decrypt the data,
the seizure is almost worthless... making the requirement of surrendering of the keys logical... hell, refusing to turn over keys in such a case could be viewed similarly to actively preventing the execution of a search warrant and as your friend Andrew Mayer
learned... it's good to follow the legal orders of the police.
I want to know what would happen to a British citizen who has a file that is encrypted, and they lost the key to decrypt it? Is it fair to jail these people for something that they cannot decrypt?
I guess you didn't read the second story you linked to which said:
The Second Article wrote:
This law is applicable only to data physically stored in the United Kingdom and does not allow the U.K. government to intercept encrypted materials in transit.
As for what happens if someone loses the key... same thing that happens today if the police come looking for evidence which a subject claims no longer to have (access to)... they (the subject) hope and pray that they can prove to the satisfaction of the authorities
that they are telling the truth.