Man jailed over computer password refusal

Man jailed over computer password refusal

www.bbc.co.uk

A teenager has been jailed for 16 weeks after he refused to give police the password to his computer

(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm not that into the english law system but don't they have something like 'In dubio pro rea' or that as a accused you have the privilege to remain silent if one would incriminate oneself by ones statement?

Unbelievable Story. What if he had just forgotten the password? What if after the 16 months they haven't cracked the password and the teenager still refuses to give it to them? 16 more months in jail.

Even if he's accused or even guilty (remember, in dubio pro rea) of having child pornography on his computer, something is really wrong about this methods.


www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is an interesting bit of law here!

A computer is a physical device and, as such, is open to reasonable search and seizure. The law won't look at binary data as an extension of thought, but rather as evidence stored within a physical device.

In that regard, withholding a password is no different than refusing to give the police the key to, say, a shed or a storage unit. Keys are not considered protected by self-incrimination law.

~Heff

Now what's interesting is that this man has been overtly labelled as a paedophile by the media coverage - despite the lack of evidence, and the fact that he was of good character previously. No matter what the outcome of this investigation, he has been tarred with a reputation, which won't go away and which can be called upon to discredit him no matter what he tries to do in the future.

What if he has unpatented designs for free energy devices on his hard drive - that would be reason enough to deny the password if you suspected ulterior motives in the charges? If he's a hacker who's tapped into sensitive networks, then he might fear extradition to the US, denying the password in order to avoid Guantanamo Bay...

If he is a paedophile, then he deserves more than 16 weeks in prison. If he isn't, I don't know whether he'll ever manage to get free of the stigma associated with this investigation.

It's scary to contemplate that they might stage an investigation of this nature in order to discredit / destroy someone.

I can't even believe this is an issue at all when there are ways around a p/w. Unless they are requesting an 128+ bit encryption p/w. Even still at that, not many entire drives are encrypted but only partitioned segments which still make it accessible in some cases. I must be missing something here.

He was arrested on child sexual exploitation charges.. He doesnt deserve sympathy and is getting off way too lightly...

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

It's scary to contemplate that they might stage an investigation of this nature in order to discredit / destroy someone.

I agree that is a scary thought. I also think that having a person who distributes/collects child pornography running around the streets because the police were unable to break his password is equally disturbing. If we just started letting people get away with encrypting their child porn to skirt the law, NONE would ever be punished.

reply to post by Expat888


Protip: being charged for something doesn't make you guilty.

reply to post by PsykoOps


True story but refusing to unlock the front door of your apartment when the police have a warrant to search it is not legal, and should never be. Of course there is always a possibility for abuse, but in all seriousness what the hell do you expect police to do when tasked with investigating someone suspected of having child porn on the ol' hard drive? Tickle the perp into a confession?

How pathetic. If they were so desperate to see what was on his computer, could they not have just taken out the hard drive and accessed it on another machine?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Protip: being charged for something doesn't make you guilty.

it does in the eyes of public scrutiny.

So it’s just a massive coincidence that he is accused of child exploitation and he also has a 50-character password on his computer which he refuses to disclose?

If I was accused of something so disgusting then I would be pretty keen to prove my innocence and if he forgot the password then maybe he shouldn’t have relied on his ability to remember something 50 characters long.

Originally posted by Brad-H
How pathetic. If they were so desperate to see what was on his computer, could they not have just taken out the hard drive and accessed it on another machine?

The files would still be encrypted no matter what the storage device were attached to. The only ways of getting at it would be to have the key or by brute forcing the encryption.

Originally posted by Brad-H
How pathetic. If they were so desperate to see what was on his computer, could they not have just taken out the hard drive and accessed it on another machine?

yes they can. that is why I said I must be missing something here. some details are being left out. maybe intentionally for some reason. There is an agenda here by the authorities and I'll bet it has something to do with internet privacy and back doors into security protocols.

reply to post by abrowning


It's not about that. The post I replied to and my reply was about the nature of the charge. He is clearly in the wrong for not complying with a search warrant. However the post I replied to said that if he is charged for this offense he deservers no sympathy and should be punished more severily.

Originally posted by Hefficide
The only ways of getting at it would be to have the key or by brute forcing the encryption.

Brute forcing a 50 character 128 or 256 bit encryption key would take about 100 yrs, if your lucky. If he don't cough up the key, they are wasting their time and resources on it. He'll die of old age before it cracks unless some new technology comes in the future.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Noted, I failed to read the post you were replying to. Thanks for the correction.

reply to post by Detour


Which explains why the gentleman is sitting in a jail cell.

Originally posted by Hefficide
Which explains why the gentleman is sitting in a jail cell.

true ! but he can't be held indefinitely without being charged and he can't be charged without evidence. 16 days in jail beats 16 years in prison any day, looking at it from his point of view.

Innocent until proven guilty?
Or we're sure you're guilty so we'll make you guilty anyway, without evidence.

They had enough evidence to investigate, to get a warrant, but obviously not enough evidence to charge him with anything.

www.pcpro.co.uk... refusing-to-reveal-encryption-keys

Oliver Drage, 19, was originally arrested in May last year and a spokesperson for Lancashire Constabulary told PC Pro that Drage was questioned “on suspicion of possessing indecent child images”.

This all runs around "child porn" ... that's the accusation. But he's only 19, if he had a photo given him by a 15 year old girl, he'd be jailed (almost) for life. But they don't have evidence to charge him, merely to suspect him.

This is nasty, although the cops over several months haven't been able to decrypt his password, so there is hope.