Hacker News Reader

10 years ago, I would tell you I agree. Now, I think this sounds incredibly open to abuse. This is the cabal of governments that sends people to third world countries to waterboard them. Are they really trustworthy with this power? My answer, today, would be "no".

What ever happened to old fashioned law enforcement? Are the police really so lazy that they have to have your help. Somehow the US is able to function without getting rid of (yet) the right to remain silent in criminal court. Certainly, there must be enough non-encrypted evidence for most crimes of import that prosecution is possible.

And if prosecution is possible, then what is the need?

"But it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court."...do u mind explaining to me (american) exactly what that means? like if the cops arrest me and ask where i was last night and I don't tell them i was having dinner with their chief's wife (and thus not murdering mine), does that mean i absolutely cannot use that fact as part of my defense if my lawyer decides during trial it might be a good idea?" and do u at least have the right to have a lawyer present when you're being questioned like this?

> like if the cops arrest me and ask where i was last night and I don't tell them i was having dinner with their chief's wife (and thus not murdering mine), does that mean i absolutely cannot use that fact as part of my defense if my lawyer decides during trial it might be a good idea?

The issue is that a prosecutor may use the omission of certain facts during your interrogation as a way to cast doubt on your intentions or character. It's a very common tactic.

>do u at least have the right to have a lawyer present when you're being questioned like this?

In the US? Always.

i was asking about britain

https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/legal-advice-at-the-... explains things quite well. IIRC you're obliged to identify yourself when questioned but don't have to give any other details. You then have the right to legal representation, a free independent lawyer is provided on request if you don't have one.

I don't think we have a complete right of silence without - for example - being found in contempt of court.

It won't result in contempt of court, but it will result in a direction to the jury that they're entitled to consider unsupported statements you've made in court (but not earlier) as false.

There is nothing to gain by telling the police anything. If it's beneficial to your case, tell your lawyer. Don't talk to police!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

great video but not sure this applies if you are in britain right?

The rules of evidence are different in the UK. Be careful giving US-specific advice to a world audience.

I am so sorry about that! I misread and thought it was US-specific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an... is a good summary. You can claim it later, although the jury are entitled to infer from your not mentioning it earlier that you've made it up since the initial questioning. It has to be related to factual matters which you're actually questioned about. You're entitled to shut up until you get your lawyer present for the police questioning, but at that point you have to have your story straight.

A longer discussion: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/j...

Actually, part of the new bill allows this to all happen without judicial oversight or process if the case is "urgent" (aren't they all?), at the sole behest of the home secretary - with an ex-post-facto judicial review. They can indeed force you, and if you won't present, they can then hack you, detain you, do whatever they wish, essentially.

Currently "urgent" refers to situations where someone is in immediate risk of death or severe harm. This is unlikely to change - they don't have the staff to include more stuff.

I agree that it's a very worrying bill with several attacks on important civil liberties.

Indeed. Probably has something to do with the fact that they quietly (and not so quietly, in some cases) took an axe to the judiciary a few years back.

It could also be argued that if someone is a terror suspect, then there may be an immediate risk, but to know so they must have more access, so it is therefore urgent that they do. This is the kind of Kafkaesque circular logic I'm increasingly coming to expect from the state.

Oh, the urgency I'm talking about is children being raped by gangs of men. This is a much more common use of police intelligence needing urgent access to phone records than terrorism.

As you say, with terrorism there's not the immediate need and there's usually a bunch more information.

How is the inquiry into the Rotherham non-investigation going, anyway?

Why pick out that case?

IN that case the police didn't need any special surveillance powers. They were being approached by children who said "I am being repeatedly gang raped by men who have groomed me with money and drugs, and who are now selling me as a child prostitute"; and by sexual health clinics who were providing abortions and STI services to children; and by teachers; and by social workers.

Those police did nothing with that information.

It's a reasonable point: Why do they want these extra powers when they've failed to protect so many vulnerable children?

This is unlikely to change - they don't have the staff to include more stuff.

If we can expect anything, based on recent history, it is that surveillance techniques that previously required onerous human labor, will soon easily be done in automated fashion.

>For instance if you typed in the password the day before you were arrested, that's probably a good sign you know it. If you haven't used it for a year and claim you forgot it [you might get off]

That sounds incredibly draconian.

> This law isn't actually as draconian as it sounds: the prosecutors must prove to a very high standard that you do actually know the key, and haven't really forgotten.

Not really, no. If the prosecution can show that the defendant EVER had or knew the key, the burden is then on the defendant to prove that they do not currently have or know the key. That's the framework set up by RIPA. Proving you do not have or know something is quite difficult. If it has been 50 years since last use and you currently have advanced Alzheimer's, you should be in good shape. Otherwise, the argument that the dog ate your homework, um I mean the encryption key, is not likely to be taken seriously.

the prosecutors must prove to a very high standard that you do actually know the key, and haven't really forgotten. For instance if you typed in the password the day before you were arrested, that's probably a good sign you know it.

I've had a few occasions where, after 2+ months of using a password at least 5 times a day, I roll into work and just can't login. I still know the password I used when I was 9 and dialing into AOL, but my work password rotation policy is so strict I just don't have long term storage for them anymore. I mostly rely on muscle memory the current password too.

So, all that was to say I don't think that standard is "very high" at all.

Not to mention how badly stress can screw with memory.

If you're used to entering your password in a specific relaxed situation and now you're filled with dread every time you think about it, damn right you might not be able to remember it. That's just basic neurology.

Which is why we need to wash all that stress out of your head by holding it under water for arbitrary amounts of time...

Yes! There are times when my motor memory recalls the password just fine. But, if I specifically think about the password and can't consciously recall it, at that point the motor memory seems to reset and fails too.

It's sad if the only solution to (potentially) protect your privacy is to lie in court, pretending that you have forgotten your password. (which could be dangerous if they later find some way to prove that you know it)

> It's sad if the only solution to (potentially) protect your privacy is to lie in court

It's court, your entire life can be dragged over the coals if there is sufficient justification for it. Privacy is not an absolute, if I have compelling evidence you have abducted a child the facility should exist to (at the very least) search your home and possessions.

But should the facility exist to force one to testify against themselves?

Yes, why not? The only reason I see not to tell the truth is that you're guilty according to the law; that then only seems morally justified if the law is unjust, in which case you should challenge the law IMO.

I realize this only applies to the US, since we have the 5th amendment, but watch the video (as mentioned above) --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

There are very good reasons to have something like our 5th amendment that apply to people who are indeed not guilty according to the law. It's not about telling lies, it's about not providing truthful information that can be used against you in ways designed to make you look guilty even when you are not.

The founders of our country who made sure we had a 5th amendment knew the importance of this -- they didn't put it in there to protect the guilty.

Or you're protecting legal secrets that protects other people. Like secrets about where somebody who is stalked is, crypto keys to security systems, etc... Or hobbies of family members that the rest of the family really do not approve of. And so on... Sometimes it just isn't justified to demand access to such information and punish the person of anything is left out or covered up. Sometimes demanding that the person tells the truth is worse than not to.