Man jailed over computer password refusal

[Vampiel]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11479831


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


Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool, was arrested in May 2009 by police tackling child sexual exploitation.


Police seized his computer but could not access material on it as it had a 50-character encryption password.


Drage was convicted of failing to disclose an encryption key in September. He was sentenced at Preston Crown Court on Monday.
Drage was arrested when he was living in Freckleton, Lancashire, but later moved to Liverpool.


He was formally asked to disclose his password but failed to do so, which is an offence under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, police said.

[memnoch]

As the Brit's do not have the same expected rights that we have, I will admit ignorance on the law and will not judge this situation...if it were happening here in the states I would be quite pissed.

[herbal_legends]

How dare he attempt to maintain his privacy! :eyez:

[EMP]

what im wondering is whether this was publicized to slander him in the public eye.

:idea2:

[Phoenix_Falls]

I'm really not sure if I'm terribly upset about this, regardless of where it's happened. I didn't have time to read the whole article, but it said the police were requesting the information because they were investigating child sexual exploitation. If he had nothing to hide in that respect, why not just clear his name instead of making himself look guilty by denying them access? If they're asking him in particular, they obviously think he had something to do with it.

I'm not saying that law enforcement is infallible or that citizens should be subject to a desecration of their privacy, but when it comes to child exploitation in any form...

I'll have to read the article when I get back home so I can have a more informed opinion on the matter.

[Tiberias]

It sounds as though he was essentially impeding a police investigation. If the computer was formally seized as part of an investigation and he refused to allow investigators access to the machine, he seems fairly solidly in the wrong to me. Even in the US you don't have the right to interfere in a lawful search of your property.

[EMP]

I'm really not sure if I'm terribly upset about this, regardless of where it's happened. I didn't have time to read the whole article, but it said the police were requesting the information because they were investigating child sexual exploitation. If he had nothing to hide in that respect, why not just clear his name instead of making himself look guilty by denying them access? If they're asking him in particular, they obviously think he had something to do with it.

I'm not saying that law enforcement is infallible or that citizens should be subject to a desecration of their privacy, but when it comes to child exploitation in any form...

I'll have to read the article when I get back home so I can have a more informed opinion on the matter.

i think hes guilty as sin-- but thats what im SUPPOSED to think

ive learned to step back and take a closer more detached look at things.

:hahugh:

[EMP]

It sounds as though he was essentially impeding a police investigation. If the computer was formally seized as part of an investigation and he refused to allow investigators access to the machine, he seems fairly solidly in the wrong to me. Even in the US you don't have the right to interfere in a lawful search of your property.

he has the right not to tell on himself, at least until he has the chance to speak with a lawyer. law enforcement is notorious for postponing legal council for as long as it takes to squeeze a duress-induced confession out of someone. the longer you sit in jail without being able to contact the outside world the more youre at their mercy.

:hairred:

[Nicholas]

50 Character Encrypted password 1 / Police 0

[memnoch]

I'm really not sure if I'm terribly upset about this, regardless of where it's happened. I didn't have time to read the whole article, but it said the police were requesting the information because they were investigating child sexual exploitation. If he had nothing to hide in that respect, why not just clear his name instead of making himself look guilty by denying them access? If they're asking him in particular, they obviously think he had something to do with it.

I'm not saying that law enforcement is infallible or that citizens should be subject to a desecration of their privacy, but when it comes to child exploitation in any form...

I'll have to read the article when I get back home so I can have a more informed opinion on the matter.

It could be a case that he has pictures of pot plants on his computer and doesn't want to incriminate himself for another crime. However the reality is that you should NEVER say or do anything to cooperate with police until you speak to a lawyer, period.

[Nicholas]

However the reality is that you should NEVER say or do anything to cooperate with police until you speak to a lawyer, period.


I agree to this, even if the case happens to involve good cops....self preservation should be your ultimate concern.

[memnoch]

I agree to this, even if the case happens to involve good cops....self preservation should be your ultimate concern.

Exactly, I heard a lecture on this from a lawyer and a cop. When a cop is investigating they are looking to find evidence, period, anything that is said can and will be used against you, however it can not be used for you. You should never assist because the slightest slip of the tongue can mean real problems. For example, lets say a cop comes over after your neighbor is murdered, and starts becoming friendly, asking questions and thanks you for cooperating, and then he asks why someone might kill your neighbor, and you say "well, nobody liked him" you have just provided one of the key points of evidence and you become a main suspect...you have motive...crap, watching tv by yourself that night, motive and opportunity, that is enough to convict someone with a good enough prosecutor or the right jury.

[Twinkle]

Meh. If the computer was seized legally and they are requesting the password...and you're not a fricking pedophile, what's the issue?

[Tiberias]

he has the right not to tell on himself, at least until he has the chance to speak with a lawyer. law enforcement is notorious for postponing legal council for as long as it takes to squeeze a duress-induced confession out of someone. the longer you sit in jail without being able to contact the outside world the more youre at their mercy.

"Telling on himself" is not the same as "refusing the police entry when they've got the legal right to search", which sounds essentially like what he's doing.

[memnoch]

"Telling on himself" is not the same as "refusing the police entry when they've got the legal right to search", which sounds essentially like what he's doing.

actually it is more like if the police have a warrant to search your house and you refuse to open the door...they have the legal right to break in, but you do not legally have to open your door

[Kraheera]

Exactly, I heard a lecture on this from a lawyer and a cop. When a cop is investigating they are looking to find evidence, period, anything that is said can and will be used against you, however it can not be used for you. You should never assist because the slightest slip of the tongue can mean real problems. For example, lets say a cop comes over after your neighbor is murdered, and starts becoming friendly, asking questions and thanks you for cooperating, and then he asks why someone might kill your neighbor, and you say "well, nobody liked him" you have just provided one of the key points of evidence and you become a main suspect...you have motive...crap, watching tv by yourself that night, motive and opportunity, that is enough to convict someone with a good enough prosecutor or the right jury.


Cops will TELL you that you should never help a cop without a lawyer. My ex's father was a cop, and he said to NEVER admit a damned thing to a cop without legal advice. You'd be surprised at what can be used against you, especially when you're innocent.

If this had happened in the US, I wouldn't have given them squat without a warrant that specifically stated my computer. Even if I truly was guilty of nothing.

[Nicholas]

Meh. If the computer was seized legally and they are requesting the password...and you're not a fricking pedophile, what's the issue?


There could be other things... illegal downloads, hacking software, illegally obtained software, photos of pot plants (Mem's suggestion), depending on what country you're in you could get into some trouble for having a few thousand music downloads... etc

Just because the person isn't giving up the password doesn't mean they are guilty for the crime in question.

[memnoch]

There could be other things... illegal downloads, hacking software, illegally obtained software, photos of pot plants (Mem's suggestion), depending on what country you're in you could get into some trouble for having a few thousand music downloads... etc

Just because the person isn't giving up the password doesn't mean they are guilty for the crime in question.

shit, between my nearly 500 GB of illegal downloads and my collection of hacked picture phone accounts/pics, I wouldn't give them shit.

[Vampiel]

It sounds as though he was essentially impeding a police investigation. If the computer was formally seized as part of an investigation and he refused to allow investigators access to the machine, he seems fairly solidly in the wrong to me. Even in the US you don't have the right to interfere in a lawful search of your property.

Not true, you have the right to not incriminate yourself, this would fall under the 5th amendment, and also under the miranda rights, "you have the right to remain silent". Meaning they could search all they want, but he didn't have to say jack. If they asked him anything. So long as he doesn't impede their search, that doesn't mean helping them find anything, including a password. If they don't find it, they don't.

A few points, some are jumping to conclusions.

Well if he didn't have anything to hide then he should just tell them right?

Not necessarily because we have no idea what the motives of the police or the suspect are. Since some have put out the scenario that he is already complicit in a crime, let's flip it around. What *if* the police are actually looking for data that would implicate them in a crime, meaning that information would lead them to other information of a cover-up that could implicate those police officers.

Or what *if* the police are really looking to dig up dirt on someone they want to smear.

The point is, many automatically assume the motives of the police officers are "investigating child porn" and the suspect is automatically guilty because he was "hindering" their investigation.

The fact is we don't know jack about the facts or motives of anyone. Using terms like "impeding an investigation" implies a carte blanche for the police to do whatever they want in the name of that.

That implication is more threatening to society than some kid not agreeing to give up a password.

[Nicholas]

shit, between my nearly 500 GB of illegal downloads and my collection of hacked picture phone accounts/pics, I wouldn't give them shit.


My points exactly.

Imagine if they had that BANNED Rape game on their comp... lmfao

[EMP]

Not true, you have the right to not incriminate yourself, this would fall under the 5th amendment, and also under the miranda rights, "you have the right to remain silent". Meaning they could search all they want, but he didn't have to say jack. If they asked him anything. So long as he doesn't impede their search, that doesn't mean helping them find anything, including a password. If they don't find it, they don't.

A few points, some are jumping to conclusions.

Well if he didn't have anything to hide then he should just tell them right?

Not necessarily because we have no idea what the motives of the police or the suspect are. Since some have put out the scenario that he is already complicit in a crime, let's flip it around. What *if* the police are actually looking for data that would implicate them in a crime, meaning that information would lead them to other information of a cover-up that could implicate those police officers.

Or what *if* the police are really looking to dig up dirt on someone they want to smear.

The point is, many automatically assume the motives of the police officers are "investigating child porn" and the suspect is automatically guilty because he was "hindering" their investigation.

The fact is we don't know jack about the facts or motives of anyone. Using terms like "impeding an investigation" implies a carte blanche for the police to do whatever they want in the name of that.

That implication is more threatening to society than some kid not agreeing to give up a password.

exactly

:uhhuhuh:

[Annyka]

exactly

:uhhuhuh:

No, it's not exactly right. This may be true IF the offence took place in America and the 5th Amendment was in place. But the offence took place under British law, which is different. As the article said


He was formally asked to disclose his password but failed to do so, which is an offence under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, police said.

He broke the law, thus why he was jailed.

As much as I'd like to have some of the Rights that America is proud to possess, it's not the same in other countries.

[Vampiel]

No, it's not exactly right. This may be true IF the offence took place in America and the 5th Amendment was in place. But the offence took place under British law, which is different. As the article said

My response was one of "if it happened in the US". So it is accurate.




He broke the law, thus why he was jailed.

As much as I'd like to have some of the Rights that America is proud to possess, it's not the same in other countries.

I agree, however my post wasn't really talking about laws in certain countries but principles.

It's obvious in the US, "you have the right to remain silent". That is a right here in the states.

The question becomes, should we always assume the Police can do whatever they want in their investigation, and be able to arrest anyone and make charges against them because they are "hindering" their investigation?

Since when should we give the police the power to throw someone in jail for a long time simply because they said they were interfering with their investigation?

This isn't about child porn, hacking, computers, rape, or whatever like "the police" like to justify, this is about what kind of power we give to the police.

Really, should we give them the power to say "I'm investigating this and whoever get's in my way can be jailed"!

Well...... this is a classic example, so should we?

[Psychonomaly]

If he were smart, he would have just told them he forgot the password. It is fifty characters after all. Or created a virus to wipe illicit information when opened by the wrong hands. If you're keeping information you're not supposed to have, keep it on a flash drive.

[memnoch]

If he were smart, he would have just told them he forgot the password. It is fifty characters after all. Or created a virus to wipe illicit information when opened by the wrong hands. If you're keeping information you're not supposed to have, keep it on a flash drive.

See, that would be lying and perjury, it is best (in the US) just to take the 5th

[Tiberias]

Not true, you have the right to not incriminate yourself, this would fall under the 5th amendment, and also under the miranda rights, "you have the right to remain silent". Meaning they could search all they want, but he didn't have to say jack. If they asked him anything. So long as he doesn't impede their search, that doesn't mean helping them find anything, including a password. If they don't find it, they don't.

Good points. On the other hand, it seems to me that there's a difference between plain speech and witholding a password in this case. Certainly he has the right not to incriminate himself. But encrypting his drives and then refusing to provide the password (let's ignore the fact that he's apparently legally required to do so) seems more akin to installing bulletproof windows and bank vault doors on your home and then refusing to allow authorities with warrants inside. Yes, they'll get in eventually, but you're going out of your way to prevent them from doing so.

[memnoch]

Good points. On the other hand, it seems to me that there's a difference between plain speech and witholding a password in this case. Certainly he has the right not to incriminate himself. But encrypting his drives and then refusing to provide the password (let's ignore the fact that he's apparently legally required to do so) seems more akin to installing bulletproof windows and bank vault doors on your home and then refusing to allow authorities with warrants inside. Yes, they'll get in eventually, but you're going out of your way to prevent them from doing so.

And it isn't illegal in the states to have bulletproof windows and bank vault doors, and not let the police in.

[Twinkle]

Color me naive, but if there is an investigation regarding the exploitation of a child, it seems to me the police are more interested in that than your illegally downloaded pron collection.

Just saying.

[Nicholas]

Color me naive, but if there is an investigation regarding the exploitation of a child, it seems to me the police are more interested in that than your illegally downloaded pron collection.

Just saying.


Doesn't matter, if they don't find what they are looking for but find other illegal downloads, hacks or what ever... this guy is still going to get the shaft for it.

Keeping quiet is the best thing he could have ever done, if he is guilty or non-guilty.

[memnoch]

Color me naive, but if there is an investigation regarding the exploitation of a child, it seems to me the police are more interested in that than your illegally downloaded pron collection.

Just saying.

To add to what Nick said, if the cops want to search the trunk of your car investigating a murder, and you have 10 kilos of cocaine, do you think they will let you go since it isn't what they were looking for?

[Nicholas]

**** the police!

[EMP]

To add to what Nick said, if the cops want to search the trunk of your car investigating a murder, and you have 10 kilos of cocaine, do you think they will let you go since it isn't what they were looking for?

exactly

:hi5:

[EMP]

My response was one of "if it happened in the US". So it is accurate.

I agree, however my post wasn't really talking about laws in certain countries but principles.

It's obvious in the US, "you have the right to remain silent". That is a right here in the states.

The question becomes, should we always assume the Police can do whatever they want in their investigation, and be able to arrest anyone and make charges against them because they are "hindering" their investigation?

Since when should we give the police the power to throw someone in jail for a long time simply because they said they were interfering with their investigation?

This isn't about child porn, hacking, computers, rape, or whatever like "the police" like to justify, this is about what kind of power we give to the police.

Really, should we give them the power to say "I'm investigating this and whoever get's in my way can be jailed"!

Well...... this is a classic example, so should we?

BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS dont just evaporate once you leave the united states-- theyre VIOLATED by those who dont believe in FREEDOM

:idea2:

[Twinkle]

To add to what Nick said, if the cops want to search the trunk of your car investigating a murder, and you have 10 kilos of cocaine, do you think they will let you go since it isn't what they were looking for?

Oh, I don't know...there's a difference between illegally downloaded pron and 10 kilos of cocaine in a trunk...but then again, you already know that.

[Nicholas]

Oh, I don't know...there's a difference between illegally downloaded pron and 10 kilos of cocaine in a trunk...but then again, you already know that.


It was the same sort of situation. Cops will not ignore other crimes even if you aren't guilty of what they suspect you of.

Perhaps if you got off your high horse from up in admin land you'd make that connection. Or was it the chip on your shoulder preventing it?

[Kraheera]

It was the same sort of situation. Cops will not ignore other crimes even if you aren't guilty of what they suspect you of.

Perhaps if you got off your high horse from up in admin land you'd make that connection. Or was it the chip on your shoulder preventing it?


That was just not necessary Nick. :)

Moving on. The point still stands. I have nothing illegal on my computer, but I still wouldn't just hand over a password because a cop asks. There are many reasons for that, actually.

I live in a conservative area, and I havea LOT of pagan stuff in my computer. I wouldn't willingly hand over that knowledge to a cop in this place. Two - I have the addresses of a LOT of people on my comp, because my family is so spread out. I have a lot of sensitive info of a personal nature, and I have a fairly large and embarrassing collection of erotica (hey, the husband is gone, I need SOMETHING to keep me entertained).

Nope, I wouldn't want cops digging through that. That's like having them going lovingly t hrough my thong collection.

[memnoch]

Oh, I don't know...there's a difference between illegally downloaded pron and 10 kilos of cocaine in a trunk...but then again, you already know that.

Not just porn, but music, movies, software, ect. Right now you can get 3-10 years for piracy, in Pennsylvania (one of the first states to pop up) possession with intent to distribute is 10 years for cocaine, with no difference determined based on weight (although you would obviously need enough for them to determine you intended to distribute it instead of just personal use).

Consider this though, 1 kilo of coke vs 100 kilos, same crime, same punishment. Piracy, separate charge for each item...oh, and for the legal items you can not prove ownership of as they are now considered pirated as well. So if the judge wanted to throw the book at me, I would be facing over 10,000 charges, so theoretically I could serve 100,000 years in prison, vs 10 for coke. There is a difference, in the eyes of the law (thanks to the deep pockets of groups like the RIAA) piracy is far worse.

[memnoch]

That was just not necessary Nick. :)

Moving on. The point still stands. I have nothing illegal on my computer, but I still wouldn't just hand over a password because a cop asks. There are many reasons for that, actually.

I live in a conservative area, and I havea LOT of pagan stuff in my computer. I wouldn't willingly hand over that knowledge to a cop in this place. Two - I have the addresses of a LOT of people on my comp, because my family is so spread out. I have a lot of sensitive info of a personal nature, and I have a fairly large and embarrassing collection of erotica (hey, the husband is gone, I need SOMETHING to keep me entertained).

Nope, I wouldn't want cops digging through that. That's like having them going lovingly t hrough my thong collection.

Shit, I didn't even think of all of the naked pictures one might have of them or a loved one.

[Phoenix Blue]

Perhaps if you got off your high horse from up in admin land you'd make that connection. Or was it the chip on your shoulder preventing it?
Infractions don't mean anything to you. Neither, apparently, do temporary bans. So unless one or more of the admins are feeling especially generous, you should consider yourself gone permanently.

[Annyka]

My response was one of "if it happened in the US". So it is accurate.


Sorry for my misunderstanding. I didn't see that stated... still can't see it anywhere, maybe I am tired. It appeared to me that people were talking about as though it actually did happen in the US.

[Kraheera]

Shit, I didn't even think of all of the naked pictures one might have of them or a loved one.


Including bathtime pictures of babies, don't forget that. According to law, if you have naked pictures of any minor, it is technically illegal, despite the fact that every parent I know has the bathtime pictures. LOL.

If they're digging for a reason to get you, that's all they would need.

[Twinkle]

Really now...let's think about it a minute...baby pictures aside...why would anyone be so stupid to put illegal shit on their computer?

Put it on a flash drive, for Gods' sake!!

[Kraheera]

Really now...let's think about it a minute...baby pictures aside...why would anyone be so stupid to put illegal shit on their computer?

Put it on a flash drive, for Gods' sake!!


Not everyone knows that some things are illegal. Some things that you would think wouldn't be illegal are. Some things you think should be illegal aren't.

Sure, everyone knows that pirated music and such is technically illegal... but almost every common user I know keeps pirated music on their hard drive.

You cannot fault the common user for common mistakes.

[Twinkle]

Seriously?

It doesn't take being a rocket scientist to know that if you have pictures of your illegally downloaded pron on your computer that someone, at some time, can bust you for it.

And honestly...this whole thing was about a child being exploited and a legally confiscated computer. Password given or not...that crap is on the computer...and all the guy did was make himself look like he had something to hide.

I highly doubt the police are going to bust you for having naked baby pictures of your child...or even your spouse on your computer.

They probably wouldn't want to waste the paperwork on pirated music either...because that isn't the focus of the investigation. I suspect they are much more interested in things like...I don't know...*child porn*?

[Kraheera]

I think you have your naive glasses on, Twinkle.

Many, many times in American culture, at least, an innocent man gets put away for a crime he didn't commit. I believe this is because that man just doesn't fit in, so he had to have done it.

WM3 are a good example of that. And they, quite literally, had no actual evidence to support that those three boys did it.

When a cop wants to put you away, he'll find a way to do it, ESPECIALLY if he thinks you are harming kids. Whether it be for unpaid parking tickets or for illegal porn on your computer.

Also, even if you DID put everything on a flash drive... how hard would it be to find it? Again, most common users keep their flash drives somewhere around their computers.

[Twinkle]

The thing is...there needs to be something like "evidence" for a bust to hold.

If they think you are guilty they can certainly hold you on other charges while they try to get that evidence, but piracy is the least of your worries if you're under investigation for being a pedophile.

[Kraheera]

The thing is...there needs to be something like "evidence" for a bust to hold.

If they think you are guilty they can certainly hold you on other charges while they try to get that evidence, but piracy is the least of your worries if you're under investigation for being a pedophile.

True. But how many people's lives get ruined? A lot. And no, there doesn't need to be evidence. Again, I point to the WM3. It has been proven many times that the "evidence" was flimsy at best, if not outright fabricated.

When it comes to kids, people do stupid things. This man's life might be permanently blackened if he's innocent, because someone thinks he is involved in child exploitation.

[Twinkle]

I agree with you, Kraheera...and if I was under investigation I would be handing over my password and have the cops go through it...so I could be taken off the list and they can go out and find the pedophile.

But then again, I don't have anything on my computer that would do anything other than slightly embarass me.

[memnoch]

The thing is...there needs to be something like "evidence" for a bust to hold.

If they think you are guilty they can certainly hold you on other charges while they try to get that evidence, but piracy is the least of your worries if you're under investigation for being a pedophile.

Again, I call bullshit. If I am being investigated for child porn, and let's say it is a case of my neighbor leeching my internet, and I am completely innocent, but I am guilty of hacking, invasion of privacy due to photos I have stolen while hacking, piracy, and I have naked pics of some guy I've been doing behind my wifes back that no one knows about I still do not want everything else coming to light even though it would clear my name on the other charge. In America we are innocent until PROVEN guilty. I don't give a shit the reason I do not and will not cooperate with police without a lawyer present. Furthermore if the police take evidence that may be used to convict me, even if not of the original charges, I will not assist in any way.

And while we are at it, something to think about, no need to answer. Are you sure you do not have a single item illegally on your computer. Maybe a copyrighted lolcat, or an image of an actor or actress...maybe a musician, that is copyrighted. Or maybe your email account was hacked and you are unknowingly being used to send spam. Or maybe you deleted that pic...but it is still there. I would argue that 80-90% of computers in this world have SOMETHING illegal on them

[Twinkle]

I know I have nothing on my computer that would even come close to implying that I am a pedophile, memnoch....because *I'm not*.

If I want the cops to catch the real pedophile...I'll hand over my whole house so that they can go through anything and everything in order to exonerate myself. You see...I have nothing to hide.

Pedophiles are different creatures. They have compulsions, secret hiding places to stash their pictures, because they get off on looking at them, porn all over their computers, chat rooms where they hook up with little ones, even trade them off. These are compulsions that even the most careful pedophile will eventually get busted for...even with an encrypted file.

The focus is different than it would be if someone is just rifling through your shit to find something to bust you on.

I'm seeing a lot of paranoia over something that really wouldn't be an issue in an investigation that has more to do with catching child predators than it does with your foot fetish collection.

[memnoch]

I know I have nothing on my computer that would even come close to implying that I am a pedophile, memnoch....because *I'm not*.

If I want the cops to catch the real pedophile...I'll hand over my whole house so that they can go through anything and everything in order to exonerate myself. You see...I have nothing to hide.

Pedophiles are different creatures. They have compulsions, secret hiding places to stash their pictures, because they get off on looking at them, porn all over their computers, chat rooms where they hook up with little ones, even trade them off. These are compulsions that even the most careful pedophile will eventually get busted for...even with an encrypted file.

The focus is different than it would be if someone is just rifling through your shit to find something to bust you on.

I'm seeing a lot of paranoia over something that really wouldn't be an issue in an investigation that has more to do with catching child predators than it does with your foot fetish collection.

I didn't say pedophile, you said you have nothing on your computer that is anything more than slightly embarrassing. My point is you likely have something on your computer that is illegal. While you may be innocent of the pedophilia, you could be found guilty of something else. But I'm sure 10 years for piracy is worth helping the cops (because keep in mind any picture you may have that you do not own would be copyright infringement)

And you seem to be focusing on a belief that just because they are looking for pedophilia they wouldn't punish other crimes found, which is bullshit.

Also you seem to know a lot about pedophiles

[Twinkle]

The emphasis in this particular case is about child exploitation. If one doesn't fit the profile of a pedophile, then take the hit for your illegally downloaded music without hindering the process further. If you think you'll get busted, you'll get busted either way. Let them catch a real child predator.

[sarabethv]

hug the police!

I agree - I think we should all take a moment and go hug a cop.:snug:

[angle kitsune]

i'm sorry, if my hubby was in this guys spot and innocent, i would have him fight tooth and nail to not have the computers searched. I have had my net book for three days, I have a copy of magic disk i didn't pay for, i have copyrighted pictures I did not buy. our other laptop has music, programs, games, pictures ect. I personally do not want to do jail time or have my hubby go to jail over this crap when they charge way to much for programs and returning ones that don't work is a pain in the ass. I agree, almost everyone i know at least has copyrighted pictures they don't know are copyrighted.

[Twinkle]

The cops had already legally obtained the computer. Give the password and let them investigate and cross you off the list, or hold up an investigation and have a hacker do it...either way....if you have illegal stuff on your computer they are going to see it.

It really comes down to whether you want to impede an investigation that effects an exploited child, or worry about your copyrighted photos.

[skysteed]

OK the UK coppers have to be real dumb.
THere is equipment available to access any computer as long as they have the physical hard drive.
But if he is involved with child porn he should be hung.
But if he has personal adult pics on his computer that is private property.
Will be interesting to see what happens.

[memnoch]

The cops had already legally obtained the computer. Give the password and let them investigate and cross you off the list, or hold up an investigation and have a hacker do it...either way....if you have illegal stuff on your computer they are going to see it.

It really comes down to whether you want to impede an investigation that effects an exploited child, or worry about your copyrighted photos.

Actually, in America it comes down to your constitutional right to not speak with the police, especially if it may incriminate you for anything. They can get a hacker or a program, go for it, but an individual has no responsibility to assist the police, and furthermore have a right to remain silent.

[Twinkle]

I've never argued that...as I said, it's up to "you" whether you want to impede an investigation to catch someone exploiting children, or not.

[memnoch]

I've never argued that...as I said, it's up to "you" whether you want to impede an investigation to catch someone exploiting children, or not.

That is your view. I see it as two scenarios. The first is he has the kiddie porn, why would you want to help prove your guilt. The second is he is not guilty and could have a number of reasons for not wanting police to view his files, beyond possible other laws broken you have privacy and risk of embarrassment. Now, if it is the second, it could be viewed as you do, or it could be viewed as standing up for basic principle. I know if I were wrongfully accused and my lack of cooperation pissed off those who were accusing me, I would keep doing it just to piss them off...plus of course the principle.

[memnoch]

I should also add that his lack of cooperation isn't preventing the police from hunting down the perp...assuming this is downloaded kiddie porn. If they don't find what they want they aren't going to keep hunting. The reality is they just get back to their day to day. This isn't like hunting down a murderer where they will go through one suspect after another.

[MoonlightShadow]

They already have the computer. They will get into it anyway. Now he's just in trouble for something else, REGARDLESS of whether or not he was guilty of ANYTHING in the first place, be it the crime he was initially being investigated for, or anything else he may have done. Now they're just going to come down on him harder. You can talk about privacy all you want, but just because they haven't (or hadn't, if they have cracked into it) gotten into the computer, doesn't mean they won't.

[memnoch]

They already have the computer. They will get into it anyway. Now he's just in trouble for something else, REGARDLESS of whether or not he was guilty of ANYTHING in the first place, be it the crime he was initially being investigated for, or anything else he may have done. Now they're just going to come down on him harder. You can talk about privacy all you want, but just because they haven't (or hadn't, if they have cracked into it) gotten into the computer, doesn't mean they won't.

In his situation it is stupid, which is why I prefaced my very first post about different country, different rules. In short, I don't disagree in this situation, but I think the discussion went to ideals based on American laws.

[MoonlightShadow]

In his situation it is stupid, which is why I prefaced my very first post about different country, different rules. In short, I don't disagree in this situation, but I think the discussion went to ideals based on American laws.
Haha, I must say, I only read the first two pages or so of responses and then posted. I'm a little late to this party, just wanted to throw my 2 cents in to the original post :thumbsup:

[Nox_Mortus]

They already have the computer. They will get into it anyway. Now he's just in trouble for something else, REGARDLESS of whether or not he was guilty of ANYTHING in the first place, be it the crime he was initially being investigated for, or anything else he may have done. Now they're just going to come down on him harder. You can talk about privacy all you want, but just because they haven't (or hadn't, if they have cracked into it) gotten into the computer, doesn't mean they won't.

That's a really stupid assumption, not even the freaking NSA can get past some of the modern hard drive encryption available now.

[Vampiel]

That's a really stupid assumption, not even the freaking NSA can get past some of the modern hard drive encryption available now.

Source?

It's my understanding that just about every encryption coded that's worth cracking eventually gets cracked, even by teen kids in their basements. Even the HD standard encryption has been compromised and that's a lot more complicated than your run of the mill ones you can purchase for home protection.

[Nox_Mortus]

Source?

It's my understanding that just about every encryption coded that's worth cracking eventually gets cracked, even by teen kids in their basements. Even the HD standard encryption has been compromised and that's a lot more complicated than your run of the mill ones you can purchase for home protection.

Source? this is common knowledge, nobodies even managed to crack PGP yet, and that's almost 20 years old, and yes, you can buy that for home protection. I mean this has a password so you can brute force it, but with a 50 character password (smart on that guys part) brute forcing could take upwards of a few centuries, assuming they are willing to dedicate a really good computer to doing nothing but that for as long as it takes.

And sure, a lot of stuff that's made to be simpler to use and less intensive than PGP keeps coming out and get's cracked eventually, but even then it usually takes several years at the very least.

[Vampiel]

Source? this is common knowledge, nobodies even managed to crack PGP yet, and that's almost 20 years old, and yes, you can buy that for home protection. I mean this has a password so you can brute force it, but with a 50 character password (smart on that guys part) brute forcing could take upwards of a few centuries, assuming they are willing to dedicate a really good computer to doing nothing but that for as long as it takes.

And sure, a lot of stuff that's made to be simpler to use and less intensive than PGP keeps coming out and get's cracked eventually, but even then it usually takes several years at the very least.

That's interesting.

http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/pgp-faq/pgp-faq-security-questions.html


A year later, the first real PGP key was cracked. It was the infamous Blacknet key, a 384-bits key for the anonymous entity known as "Blacknet". A team consisting of Alec Muffett, Paul Leyland, Arjen Lenstra and Jim Gillogly managed to use enough computation power (approximately 1300 MIPS (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/pgp-faq/pgp-faq-glossary.html#mips)) to factor the key in three months. It was then used to decrypt a publicly-available message encrypted with that key.I suppose common knowledge isn't so common.

I don't think any run of the mill police station would be able to crack this though. If they sent it to the fed's they might produce some results. It just all depends on how bad they want the data.

[Nox_Mortus]

that's the old PGP system, the new one is far more resilient, they actually changed it as soon as this happens, as it is, with the current standards, if anyone is actually able to break a PGP encrypted message, they are keeping very very quiet about it, and the feds would be extremely reluctant to make that knowledge public by helping the cops to gain evidence that would then show up in court. Also the NSA doesn't really work with domestic law enforcement, I doubt SIS does either.

It should also be noted that one of the reasons that the Brits are so heavy handed with the legislation this guy fell afoul of is specifically because they can't crack this sort of thing.

[Vampiel]

Like I said, just depends on how much they want the data. I don't disagree they may never break the code, but they likely could if the right resources were thrown at it... but I doubt that would ever happen.

You mentioned the NSA, they have teraflops among teraflops of computing power, we have no idea what they are capable of.

You made the assumption they couldn't crack some basic household encryptions, which is why I called you out on it. I wouldn't be suprised if someone working in the NSA rolled on the floor if they read that assumption. They are setup to break the most complicated encryptions in the world, I doubt some 50 word password would be that much of a challenge.

[Nox_Mortus]

Like I said, just depends on how much they want the data. I don't disagree they may never break the code, but they likely could if the right resources were thrown at it... but I doubt that would ever happen.

You mentioned the NSA, they have teraflops among teraflops of computing power, we have no idea what they are capable of.

You made the assumption they couldn't crack some basic household encryptions, which is why I called you out on it. I wouldn't be suprised if someone working in the NSA rolled on the floor if they read that assumption. They are setup to break the most complicated encryptions in the world, I doubt some 50 word password would be that much of a challenge.

no, I actually assumed he was using some pretty decent encryption based on the fact he was using a 50 character passphrase, most simple home encryption programs don't do that. Also even the vulnerabilities you are talking about with "basic home encryption" revolve more around sneaking a trojan into someones computer and stealing their passkey, which isn't real cryptography and since the police had to ask for the password it's pretty obvious they missed their chance to do this.

[Vampiel]

no, I actually assumed he was using some pretty decent encryption based on the fact he was using a 50 character passphrase, most simple home encryption programs don't do that. Also even the vulnerabilities you are talking about with "basic home encryption" revolve more around sneaking a trojan into someones computer and stealing their passkey, which isn't real cryptography and since the police had to ask for the password it's pretty obvious they missed their chance to do this.

I agree, but I must have took this the wrong way then.


not even the freaking NSA can get past some of the modern hard drive encryption available now

Which is why I said "You made the assumption they couldn't crack some basic household encryptions".

[Nox_Mortus]

Which is why I said "You made the assumption they couldn't crack some basic household encryptions".

Well, I did say some, and not all, there is some very good encryption available to consumers.