Comment by cm2187 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cm2187 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

But this would imply you have a legal obligation to remember something under the penalty of jail time (and people have been sentenced to more than a year under this law). How can it be enforceable? It's a bit like telling me I have the legal obligation to run a marathon under x hours. My body may allow me to do so, or maybe not. But how can it be a legal obligation?

[edit] actually reading the actual law, the wording is being "in possession of a key", and the police has to prove that you are in possession beyond any reasonable doubt. Can a word in someone's brain be characterised as being in possession? And how can the police prove that someone remembers something?

For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if—

(a) sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and

(b) the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The same things happens everywhere, but just through a different route (contempt charges, etc.) The court, and by proxy the rest of us, usually finds it interesting that for some reason you were able to remember this password on a daily basis while conducting your alleged crimes, but now you suddenly have a memory problem. We have children too, and recognize this pattern...

You can claim to not remember the password. We can choose not to believe you.

They may not believe me but how can they prove it?

[edit] plus forgetting a password is the most common thing in the world. My work password changes every 3 months. When I go on holiday for 2 weeks, half of the time when I come back I forgot what the latest password is. Now imagine you have been arrested, slept in jail, had rough questioning, being under intense stress. Forgetting a password in these conditions could very well happen in good faith.

The other things is that many of my passwords are stored in my "muscle memory", if I am in front of my usual keyboard I would type them without really thinking about it. But if I am in a room with no computer, I could easily not even remember them.

In any case I don't see how there cannot be a reasonable doubt if someone claims to have forgotten a password.

They don't have to "prove it", the judge or the jury just has to come to the conclusion that you are not telling the truth and you go to jail.

I am not a lawyer but the law does say the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is a reasonable burden for sending someone to jail.

Doesn't this mean the prosection makes an assertion and the defendant has to prove the contrary ?

The context for the bit you quote says the defendant must prove the contrary (their innocence).

It does say evidence is required and states that evidence is an assertion of the date and details of the file, nothing more.

This is not a law to be prosecuted but an investigtory power, an obstruction of justice , there is no jury, the judge decides, like contempt of court.

This then imposes a "disclosure requirement" , no further proof is required to jail someone who non-compliant, no jury is involved.

IMHO the standard of proof is no more than prosecutorial assertion of file contents & date so to my mind it guilty by accusation until proven innocent - a travesty.

IMHO the standard of proof is so low, file contents & date that it really seems one is guilty until proven innocent

No, the quote from s 53(3)(b) refers to a defence. You are not in possession of the password if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidential_burden), and the contrary (ie. that you were in fact in possession) is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Typically you would discharge the evidential burden by giving sworn evidence that you have forgotten the password. The prosecution would then have to adduce evidence that proves the contrary beyond reasonable doubt, for example evidence that you had used the password every day for the past few years.

Secondly, this is a 'law to be prosecuted' in the sense that s 53 creates an ordinary criminal offence. Section 49 creates the investigative power to issue a notice compelling someone to disclose a password, and s 53 makes it a criminal offence not to comply with the notice.

So the defendant must expicitly deny it before proper proof is presented ?

What sort of thing could possibly prove innocence ? A coma or merely a denial ?

The text of RIPA49 states the only defense is to produce the documents and prove you were entitled to them - which is very different.

The law does state that the initial proof is only content description and date which seems a lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt.

So it creates a criminal offense, does that mean the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt and is that a jury trial ?

What proof was presented in the previous 3 RIPA49 jailings ?

IP addresses, footage or testimony that the guy was using that computer at that time, i.e. means and opportunity ?

My guess is not but I really hope you can show I mistaken and British Justice still stands.

RIPA trumps proof & only requires prosecutorial assertion.

Under RIPA there is no presumption of innocence.

Unbelievable yet sadly true.

[Edit] -- disagree? Well so far this has been how it has played out in practice - if you disagree I challenge you to show me where proof was presented in the other three cases ?

It is requirement by court order, one is then held in contempt of court - it is entirely up to the judge - no jury involved.

We shall see whether any proof is offered, none is in the court filing, though they assert exactly what each file contains:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2781972-Lauri-Love-c...

Or we won't see because this is a secret trial - as the article and court filing state !

Yup reading the law clearly show the only proof is the prosecution states the contents and date as they do in the filing.

The filing contains what they call proof, I believe it better characterised as an assertion.

No jury, just a judge decides if Lauri goes to jail and the only thing that can prevent it is if he proves the contrary.

Ever try and prove a negative ?

Decryption showing no file won't necessarily be sufficient, as the document could still be on a double decrypt in the salt.

They want named documents, the defendant gives them up or goes to jail.

Interesting to note one of the documents is "pirate" movies. (The court filing literally says "pirate", wtf does that even mean). Suppose the movie was crap and he deleted it.

IMHO RIPA 49 is a travesty should not be legal.

Quite possibly isn't, we shall see when it gets to the human rights court - though if I had to put money on it the govt. knows its dodgy and won't let it go that far.

Can no longer edit this but sjy is correct , they accuse and accused denies it they get a jury trial :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989 Luton terrorist forced to decrypt USB stick by RIPA.

We have a legal obligation to remember many things, like what road signs mean or when to send tax form to IRS. How is requiring to remember password any different?

Those are things that when you forget them, you can take steps to re-learn them, because the information is publicly available.

On the other hand, I am absolutely certain that I have truecrypt volumes on old backup drives somewhere that I haven't the foggiest idea what the corresponding passphrase is anymore.

The former things are all public information, meant to serve a public function. Personal passwords are not that. Going to jail for forgetting, is like going to jail for losing a physical key - not even a key for an important public function, but anyone's key that was used for any personal purpose.

One could assert that legally you will be punished for this, like the UK have done here, but it's quite a barbaric thing to do without any precedent even in historic infamously-authoritarian regimes.

Road signs is bogus. People sign up for extra responsibilities via the licensing process.

The tax one is a little more interesting, you don't have to file if you don't make any money. If you make more, the payer is supposed to report as well.

Everything i can think of, where you're compelled to do something, there's at least one other person involved.

Your two examples are rules that are public information, and forgetting them can indeed have legal consequences.

A password is a piece of private information, and requiring people to remember stuff they generate in their own head seems just a tad draconian.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com