UK jails schizophrenic for refusal to decrypt files

UK jails schizophrenic for refusal to decrypt files

www.theregister.co.uk

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Has anyone read at all in the news papers, new channels or anything? I just happenned to come across this article, posted by the register.co.uk, on the 24th November 2009.

I cannot believe that they have sectioned this guy under this act, for him refusing to give them the encryption codes to his computers of USB sticks.

I am absolutely gobsmacked and shocked that no news channels or mainstream news papers have picked up on this.

I am considering passing this on to Liberty to se if his Human Rights have been infringed. To see if they can do anything about this. He was given a 6 month prison remand term for no mintaining his silence through the questioning fromthe Police Officers invovled.


www.theregister.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Hmmm - He does not seem to have done him self any favours, you have to admit he would at the very least raise eyebrows...

I'm not sure what message they are giving here, are they showing that commercially available encryption methods are really beyond cracking? Or are they lulling the bad guys into a false sense of security? - because I'm fairly sure that if they threw enough processing power and time at those files they could get them open in about a week... Not that that would be very practical, everyone could try to pass through customs with a USB stick like that and well they can't jail everyone...

He has committed an offence by the letter of the law... I don't know about this one.

reply to post by Now_Then


I do not know if you have heard of it, but their are encryption programs out their that are VERY secure.

I have one that is almost impossible to break. It uses pictures as your key.

Not a 16 bit 32 64 256 but whatever the pixel count of the picture you use.

VERY secure.

Damn, I am going to get hacked now.

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.

It merely validates the old adage "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you". It obviously shows he was right all along. It shows why we need encryption.

If he gave out the keys, he'd be defeating the purpose.

So say I all.

reply to post by endisnighe


What I find more disturbing they have placed him within a medical asylum hospital by using this act, not jail. For his refusal to co - operate with the police. If they can do this to this individual, whom else in the UK can they do this to.

So I guess all computer geeks or IT specialists are in jepordy now, if they do not wish to disclose encyptions for access to thier computers or USB sticks to the authorities, tey are going to suffer the same fate. Police State UK Anyone?

reply to post by endisnighe


Dude, LOL!!

Most programs like this have back doors and such. The Government would not have a problem with it trust me.

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.

I am not entirely certain about that.

Wouldnt this be covered under the 5th amendment?

Everyone should have the right not to self incriminate.

I am hesitant to say it because I am American and have no first hand experience with the UK, but from where I sit it seems like the British are rolling out the red carpet for tyrants.

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.

That was probably the very first thing that the almighty powers that be got around when bringing in this legislation... Your 5th is our right to silence I suppose, and here this 'section 49' overrides it

edit:

Part III
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
49.
Notices requiring disclosure.
— (1) This section applies where any protected information—
(a)
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;
(b)
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;
(c)
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;
(d)
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
(e)
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—
(a)
that a key to the protected information is in the possession of any person,
(b)
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,
(c)
that the imposition of such a requirement is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by its imposition, and
(d)
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—
(a)
in the interests of national security;
(b)
for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or
(c)
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—
(a)
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;
(b)
must describe the protected information to which the notice relates;
(c)
must specify the matters falling within subsection (2)(b)(i) or (ii) by reference to which the notice is given;
(d)
must specify the office, rank or position held by the person giving it;
(e)
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;
(f)
must specify the time by which the notice is to be complied with; and
(g)
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—
(a)
that more than one person is in possession of the key to any protected information,
(b)
that any of those persons is in possession of that key in his capacity as an officer or employee of any body corporate, and
(c)
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,
(b)
that any of those persons is in possession of that key in his capacity as an employee of a firm, and
(c)
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—
(a)
the person giving the notice; or
(b)
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—
(a)
is intended to be used for the purpose only of generating electronic signatures; and
(b)
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.

link Wow, they don't make it easy to understand do they?



[edit on 2/12/2009 by Now_Then]

reply to post by Izarith


Not the one I have, it is open source, and I removed the back door.

Very simple program.

KISS is the idea on encryption.

reply to post by cavscout


What do you think the Patriot Act was for?

All they have to do is state you are a terrorist and POOF, off you go on rendition.

Do you think they have ANY qualms about doing it to an American if they can do it to anybody? That is what is totally wrong with these laws.

Who decides who is a terrorist?

We are already screwed.

This guy skipped bail, travels from the U.K. to Canada, to France, and back. He was returning to surrender to customs for skipping bail. They found 9 nanograms of high explosive RDX on his hand, he refused to speak, skipped a second bail hearing, attempted to obtain a false passport illegally, Twice.

His confiscated Fed Ex packages contained lab equipment, putty, novelty exploding "devil bangers" (snap bangs in America) A metal detector, and body armor.

He had a books on how to make methamphetamine, a book on gun manufacturing, an encryption textbook, and a book named "Steal This Book" which the judge remarked was a book on how to make a pipe bomb.

His files are heavily encrypted and the one they cracked simply led to another PGP container.

The terrorism charges hae seen been dropped.

At first glance it might seem he was overly persecuted under new government powers, but boy I tell ya, if you read the whole article this guy sure didn't seem too innocent, and I can not fault the authorities for taking him very seriously.

reply to post by endisnighe


Unless your running your system on Fedora and did the same with that program you still have many back doors.

Any encryption program used on Windows is just for show.

A lot of people don't know why gaming graphics are increased every year. It's to get you to increase your computing power and uses windows. This creates a sky-net for anyone with the back door keys.

As a rule of thumb, If you don't make it they can break it.

reply to post by AlienChaser


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.

I find that more alarming and disturbing, tht they can do this to an individual, who refused to co-operate with the authorities. What I also find disturbing, is that there has been no mention of this case on the News channels or in the News Papers.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by Laurauk]

reply to post by AlienChaser


9 nanograms? you have to be kidding me dude.

As the article says 5 nanograms does not even raise suspicions.

It would be like tossing a guy in jail because he got an X-ray 15 years ago and has traces of radioactivity LOL.

And if your going to imply that he is suspicious of the silly lab crap and a book on meth. Just imagine what they could do to you and the stuff you look into LOL.

By your standards some one who supports a free palestine could also be suspicious, don't you think.

reply to post by Laurauk

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 article states

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.
OP

I am not sure what "sectioned" means. Is it simply that he was charged under the new terrorism law, or does it mean that he caused problems in the jail.

The article doesn't elaborate other than that he is schizophrenic. Schizophrenia can be managed quite well with medication, but I wouldn't want to speculate as to exactly why he was moved to the mental unit.

I get what you're saying and if it is simply a way to punish him for refusing to cooperate than I agree that it is an abuse of power, but like I said the article doesn't elaborate on why.

I am surprised too that it wasn't covered in the news. Especially considering that it is quite an interesting story with enough meat for The Register to do a 4 page article that could have easily been longer.

Mabey there is something more to it.

reply to post by AlienChaser

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.

Oh lets pump him with drugs, make him a droin, so He will give up the information to us. Anyone can smell crap on what they have done tothis individual.

Sectioned - Definition

[edit on 2-12-2009 by Laurauk]

reply to post by Izarith

9 nanograms? you have to be kidding me dude.

It does state that 5 or less nanograms are routinely ignored. I admit that all the evidence I pointed out is circumstantial, but when you look at it all at once it definately raises some flags.

Don't forget that he was returning to surrender at customs, so I would expect they found it odd he would be carrying all of those items.

I was trying to imagine what would happen to me in America if I had tried to pull those same shenanigans, and it wasn't pleasant.

By your standards some one who supports a free palestine could also be suspicious, don't you think.

What do you think would happen to me if I wore that on a T-shirt to Tel-Aviv international airport?

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.

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.

This guys a 90's geek, (container upon container).

I honestly do feel sorry for the team working on this as it can lead to a dead end. I do hope they have access to some tylenol

edit: im more of a silentrunner man myself, pure mozart to my cerebral cortex.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by tristar]