It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
The first person jailed under draconian UK police powers that Ministers said were vital to battle terrorism and serious crime has been identified by The Register as a schizophrenic science hobbyist with no previous criminal record.
His crime was a persistent refusal to give counter-terrorism police the keys to decrypt his computer files.
Originally posted by endisnighe
OP, Yes, if he was in the US he would be in the same situation. You can and will be found guilty of not cooperating with the police. Very, very wrong.
Originally posted by cavscout
Wouldnt this be covered under the 5th amendment?
His given reason for not cooperating with CTC - the fact that a section 49 notice overrides the right to silence - echoes the original debate over RIPA and encryption. When the law was drafted at the end of the last decade it sparked protests from civil liberties groups and security experts.
Investigation of electronic data protected by encryption etc.
Click to open Power to require disclosureProspective - this provision has not yet been brought into effect
Power to require disclosure
Click to open 49. Notices requiring disclosure.Prospective - this provision has not yet been brought into effect
Notices requiring disclosure.
— (1) This section applies where any protected information—
has come into the possession of any person by means of the exercise of a statutory power to seize, detain, inspect, search or otherwise to interfere with documents or other property, or is likely to do so;
has come into the possession of any person by means of the exercise of any statutory power to intercept communications, or is likely to do so;
has come into the possession of any person by means of the exercise of any power conferred by an authorisation under section 22(3) or under Part II, or as a result of the giving of a notice under section 22(4), or is likely to do so;
has come into the possession of any person as a result of having been provided or disclosed in pursuance of any statutory duty (whether or not one arising as a result of a request for information), or is likely to do so; or
has, by any other lawful means not involving the exercise of statutory powers, come into the possession of any of the intelligence services, the police or the customs and excise, or is likely so to come into the possession of any of those services, the police or the customs and excise.
(2) If any person with the appropriate permission under Schedule 2 believes, on reasonable grounds—
that a key to the protected information is in the possession of any person,
that the imposition of a disclosure requirement in respect of the protected information is—
(i) necessary on grounds falling within subsection (3), or
(ii) necessary for the purpose of securing the effective exercise or proper performance by any public authority of any statutory power or statutory duty,
that the imposition of such a requirement is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by its imposition, and
that it is not reasonably practicable for the person with the appropriate permission to obtain possession of the protected information in an intelligible form without the giving of a notice under this section,
the person with that permission may, by notice to the person whom he believes to have possession of the key, impose a disclosure requirement in respect of the protected information.
(3) A disclosure requirement in respect of any protected information is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary—
in the interests of national security;
for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or
in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
(4) A notice under this section imposing a disclosure requirement in respect of any protected information—
must be given in writing or (if not in writing) must be given in a manner that produces a record of its having been given;
must describe the protected information to which the notice relates;
must specify the matters falling within subsection (2)(b)(i) or (ii) by reference to which the notice is given;
must specify the office, rank or position held by the person giving it;
must specify the office, rank or position of the person who for the purposes of Schedule 2 granted permission for the giving of the notice or (if the person giving the notice was entitled to give it without another person’s permission) must set out the circumstances in which that entitlement arose;
must specify the time by which the notice is to be complied with; and
must set out the disclosure that is required by the notice and the form and manner in which it is to be made;
and the time specified for the purposes of paragraph (f) must allow a period for compliance which is reasonable in all the circumstances.
(5) Where it appears to a person with the appropriate permission—
that more than one person is in possession of the key to any protected information,
that any of those persons is in possession of that key in his capacity as an officer or employee of any body corporate, and
that another of those persons is the body corporate itself or another officer or employee of the body corporate,
a notice under this section shall not be given, by reference to his possession of the key, to any officer or employee of the body corporate unless he is a senior officer of the body corporate or it appears to the person giving the notice that there is no senior officer of the body corporate and (in the case of an employee) no more senior employee of the body corporate to whom it is reasonably practicable to give the notice.
(6) Where it appears to a person with the appropriate permission—
(a)that more than one person is in possession of the key to any protected information,
that any of those persons is in possession of that key in his capacity as an employee of a firm, and
that another of those persons is the firm itself or a partner of the firm,
a notice under this section shall not be given, by reference to his possession of the key, to any employee of the firm unless it appears to the person giving the notice that there is neither a partner of the firm nor a more senior employee of the firm to whom it is reasonably practicable to give the notice.
(7) Subsections (5) and (6) shall not apply to the extent that there are special circumstances of the case that mean that the purposes for which the notice is given would be defeated, in whole or in part, if the notice were given to the person to whom it would otherwise be required to be given by those subsections.
(8) A notice under this section shall not require the making of any disclosure to any person other than—
the person giving the notice; or
such other person as may be specified in or otherwise identified by, or in accordance with, the provisions of the notice.
(9) A notice under this section shall not require the disclosure of any key which—
is intended to be used for the purpose only of generating electronic signatures; and
has not in fact been used for any other purpose.
(10) In this section “senior officer”, in relation to a body corporate, means a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate; and for this purpose “director”, in relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, means a member of the body corporate.
(11) Schedule 2 (definition of the appropriate permission) shall have effect.
So since he has done all of this. They are right to place him within a mental institution, without any psychatric, evaluation or anything, just over him sitting there being silent, being no respondent to the authorities.
The 33-year-old man, originally from London, is currently held at a secure mental health unit after being sectioned while serving his sentence at Winchester Prison.
The Mental Health Act 1983, is divided into 10 parts - each one covering a specific area. It is a complex piece of legislation, and some critics argue that reform is needed, especially for the rules outlining the compulsory admission to hospital and treatment of the patient without their consent.
Initially, an approved social worker, or your nearest relative, can make an application to have you detained for assessment, based on two medical recommendations (i.e. your doctor). The grounds for the application are set out under different sections of the Mental Health Act 1983.
9 nanograms? you have to be kidding me dude.
By your standards some one who supports a free palestine could also be suspicious, don't you think.
Originally posted by AlienChaser
reply to post by Izarith
What do you think would happen to me if I wore that on a T-shirt to Tel-Aviv international airport?
It would not be your best day ever.
Believe me I was not sticking up for the cops. I just see a pile of circumstantial evidence adding up, and I'm not surprised at what happened.
I know man.
These trivial things always play tricks on the mind. Thats way they use them.
Originally posted by AlienChaser
His files are heavily encrypted and the one they cracked simply led to another PGP container.