Hacker News Reader

Comment by jarym | Hacker News Reader

In the UK there's legislation (RIPA) that would probably result you staying in jail until you came up with the passwords or convinced a judge you genuinely couldn't for some reason.

View on HN

I was curious and google it

> jail until you came up with the passwords

Actually is:

> Refusing to comply with RIPA can result in a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, or five years in cases involving national security or child indecency.

I'd doubt not releasing a bitcoin wallet password is "withholding evidence" or "obstructing an investigation" in the same way as not giving the password to your 5TB child porn or terrorism related info hard drive

In America the police routinely use "obstruction" as a way to intimidate and bully people into pleading guilty, or giving up evidence. I think recent events have shown that if the government wants it, they're going to get it.

There’s something very unsettling about a law which forces you to provide information that you might not actually know.

I can see the pragmatic arguments for such a law. But it’s unsettling nonetheless.

Yes, very. I occasionally have a day where I cannot remember my master password for my password manager. Often after a prelonged break or change of context.

There's also this method of subconscious password storage from a few years ago, which, at least in theory might make it difficult for you to even reveal your password: https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/06/06/178157/a-passwor...

It is tricky, but genuinely forgetting the key and seed may be regarded as an unintended outcome, and it is a reasonable ethical principle that people who commit crimes can be held responsible for unintended outcomes. For example, the people who want Boeing executives jailed for the 737 MAX crashes are taking that position, and the concept of manslaughter is an explicit manifestation of the principle.

Commit crime, and pay for unintended consequences principle looks quite reasonable, but it's not what this law is about AFAICT. "Commit crime" part means it's already proven. This law seems applicable to someone who won't produce a key for prosecution to look for evidence against him. IANAL, but in many countries it would be seen as aggressive infringement of constitutional rights.

You can phrase it the other way: if you can make restitution, you get a lighter sentence. You can also make recovering the funds without making restitution a separate crime - and that can be extended to any windfall profits on your 'investment', as legally they were not your investments.

It looks like the prosecutor may have screwed up in this case:

“We asked him but he didn’t say,” prosecutor Sebastian Murer told Reuters on Friday. “Perhaps he doesn’t know.”

That seems like something the defense could use...the prosecutor is openly admitting the defendant may not know the password.

Edit: Ah, never mind. Seems he already served his sentence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com