Charged for failure to comply with Section 49 Notice
jfk2...@googlemail.com
told the police that after 20 months non-use of a long passphrase,
that I simply could not remember it.
My solicitor says it will have to be fought out in court, but
personally, I don't think I should have even been charged, let alone
having to go to court, especially considering the circumstances.
So, I am wondering what my legal options are? I believe my defense is
good, but can I appeal against the charge and get this case dropped?
How can the CPS hope to secure a conviction when the circumstances
show that it is very likely I have forgotten the passphrase.
Juan Kerr
You're guilty until proven innocent, that great foundation of the UK
legal system.
Oh hang on, that's not what we keep telling the sheeple is it......?
Random Noise
Les Invalides
You've posted this recently and got detailed answers. What's changed?
--
Les Invalides
jfk2...@googlemail.com
> "jfk200...@googlemail.com" <jfk200...@googlemail.com> posted
Well, I have been charged. My previous post was simply stating I had
been
served the notice.
Brave New Britain
Fight it. This ridiculous law needs a test case.
--
Brave New Britain
Peter Crosland
Your solicitor is correct. The whole essence of the system is that the CPS
assess the likelihood of a conviction based on the evidence that they have
been presented with. If, as in your case, they decide that there is a case
to answer then it will proceed to trial. The purpose of the trial is to
closely examine the evidence and the case for the defence. That is how the
criminal justice system works. Of course the defence may produce evidence
that will persuade the CPS to drop the case or indeed the case may be
stopped by the judge part way through if (s)he thinks the case should not
continue.
Peter Crosland
Les Invalides
>On May 15, 9:21 pm, Les Invalides <L...@invalid.es> wrote:
>> "jfk200...@googlemail.com" <jfk200...@googlemail.com> posted
>>
>> >I have been charged for failure to comply with a Section 49 Notice. I
>> >told the police that after 20 months non-use of a long passphrase,
>> >that I simply could not remember it.
>>
>> >My solicitor says it will have to be fought out in court, but
>> >personally, I don't think I should have even been charged, let alone
>> >having to go to court, especially considering the circumstances.
>>
>> >So, I am wondering what my legal options are? I believe my defense is
>> >good, but can I appeal against the charge and get this case dropped?
>> >How can the CPS hope to secure a conviction when the circumstances
>> >show that it is very likely I have forgotten the passphrase.
>>
>> You've posted this recently and got detailed answers. What's changed?
>
>been
>served the notice.
Ah. Very interesting. Can you give us more detail on what actually
happened leading up to the charge?
I don't think there is any way you can appeal against a charge. As your
solicitor says, that's what the criminal court is for. You should be OK
if what you say is true, but if I were you I would start collecting some
solid evidence to prove it. And also find an expert to help with your
defence.
There is a mailing list specifically about UK crypto law and its
implications, especially RIPA part III. There are many experts (both
technical and legal) reading that list and they might be very interested
to hear about your case, and may also be able to offer you advice.
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ukcrypto
--
Les Invalides
Alasdair
> with a Section 49 Notice
What is a Section 49 Notice? Section 49 of what?
--
Alasdair.
Les Invalides
RIPA 2000. A s49 notice requires the recipient to produce the plain text
of encrypted files on his computer, or to hand over a key that will
decrypt them. It is an offence to disobey a s49 notice unless you have
one of the defences provided in the Act.
It's of great interest because this part of RIPA was only brought into
force recently, and we do not know of any cases where it has reached
court. There is good reason to claim that the law breaches the right not
to incriminate oneself.
--
Les Invalides
Peter Crosland
>
> What is a Section 49 Notice? Section 49 of what?
>
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
The requirement is to divulge the password for encrypted data.
Peter Crosland
Mike Ross
>Alasdair <ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk> posted
>>On Thu, 15 May 2008 13:03:48 -0700 (PDT), "jfk2...@googlemail.com"
>><jfk2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> with a Section 49 Notice
>>
>>What is a Section 49 Notice? Section 49 of what?
>>
>
>RIPA 2000. A s49 notice requires the recipient to produce the plain text
>of encrypted files on his computer, or to hand over a key that will
>decrypt them.
Which begs an interesting question: you could hand over a perfectly innocuous
set of files and claim they are the plain text of the encrypted files. How would
the police manage to prove that they were NOT in fact the 'plain text' that they
had demanded?
(since the wording you use seems to give the recipient of the S.49 a choice
between supplying files or supplying a key)
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Les Invalides
>
>Which begs an interesting question: you could hand over a perfectly innocuous
>set of files and claim they are the plain text of the encrypted files.
>How would
>the police manage to prove that they were NOT in fact the 'plain text'
>that they
>had demanded?
>
>(since the wording you use seems to give the recipient of the S.49 a choice
>between supplying files or supplying a key)
>
The Act gives that choice. But the police can issue a s49 notice that
requests the key itself, under certain circumstances. It must be a
senior officer (chief constable I believe) who signs the notice. He must
believe both that the entire exercise would be defeated if he didn't get
the key, and that the purpose of the investigation is worth the
collateral damage caused to the data owner by disclosure of the key.
This clause (s51) was added after much wrestling between government and
industry, because the encryption keys used by commercial companies may
be extremely sensitive in financial terms, and they don't want the
police marching in and grabbing them just so they can look for some
P2P'd music files on the financial director's computer.
--
Les Invalides