Be Excellent To Each Other

"Drage, was arrested when he was living in Freckleton, Lancashire, but later moved to Liverpool."

"Drage was previously of good character so the immediate custodial sentence handed down by the judge in this case shows just how seriously the courts take this kind of offence.

"Computer systems are constantly advancing and the legislation used here was specifically brought in to deal with those who are using the internet to commit crime.

"It sends a robust message out to those intent on trying to mask their online criminal activities that they will be taken before the courts with the ultimate sanction, as in this case, being a custodial sentence."

is Freckleton nice? It sounds ace. Mimi, from Freckleton. It has a nice sound.

After some consideration, I have decided your trolling is getting lamer.

They can cut a safe open, though

Why should personal secrets be less deserving of privacy than business ones?

That is better. If he'd received a parcel in the post, and the police said "we've searched your house and can't find it - where is it?" can they lock him up if he says "not telling"?

That it's a key is irrelevant. It's the bit of information they need to acquire evidence.

is Freckleton nice? It sounds ace. Mimi, from Freckleton. It has a nice sound.

The guy is suspected of distributing child pornography; not a trivial offence by any means. He has no more a right to the privacy of his hard drive than of his living room under identical circumstances (ie - a warrant).

If he did have a stack of child pornography on the hard disk, he's doing the "sensible" thing. 16 weeks for refusing to reveal a password vs 5 years plus, general villification and entry on the sex offender list for dealing in child porno. Why the hell would he tell them?

So, what will happen when the 16 weeks elapses? It's all forgotten about? Surely there must be some way of getting past the password?

So, what will happen when the 16 weeks elapses? It's all forgotten about?

Surely there must be some way of getting past the password?

The law's a sensible one, notwithstanding much shrieking about it on The Register way back when it came into force.

Sucks to be someone who forgot a long password they used once a few years ago, doesn't it? It does strike me as an offence the definition of which is open to abuse. .

Not least of which because I could email you some incriminating encrypted data right now before calling the fuzz

Sucks to be someone who forgot a long password they used once a few years ago, doesn't it? It does strike me as an offence the definition of which is open to abuse. Not least of which because I could email you some incriminating encrypted data right now before calling the fuzz.

Aaaah, I knew there was something I didn't like about it. I just couldn't remember. Isn't the wording such that you can be done for failing to hand it over at all, not just refusing to hand it over? I should check. Come to think of it, that may have been the main beef that El Reg had with it.

s53(3) covers this eventuality. "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."

What an appalling comma.

Yes it is, "failing to provide the decryption credentials" is the offence. But then again, how can it work otherwise? Passwords only exist inside people's heads, so if you made the crime "refusing" then "I forgot it" becomes a bulletproof defence. This is why it's an idiotic law.

Completely inadequate for something that only exists between my ears. The law cannot determine "beyond reasonable doubt" the difference between "I forgot" and "I'm not telling".

So, back to my example. Does the law currently provide for a criminal sentence for someone who says "I'm not telling you where I hid it" when asked to reveal the whereabouts of potentially incriminating evidence?

Uh, yeah, I think so. Perverting the course of justice, innit.

Surely only if they know it's incriminating? If there's no other non-circumstantial evidence of a crime, beyond (say) an object that may or may not exist that I'm accused of hiding somewhere but I'm not telling where, does it still apply?

Probably not, but if the police don't think it's incriminating then they wouldn't be asking for it, surely?

Mind you, they'd presumably need to be able to demonstrate enough for a warrant.

The law's a sensible one, notwithstanding much shrieking about it on The Register way back when it came into force.

Agreed.

'Think' <> 'know'.

Mind you, they'd presumably need to be able to demonstrate enough for a warrant.

Unless they are just fishing around, of course.

That was disconcerting.

I think it's more that you know that the thing is incriminating, and that the police want to see it, and refusing to provide it would be perverting the course of justice. I think.

Well, yeah, but they're unlikely to be fishing around for stuff that they know won't be incriminating. Unlikely does not mean won't, granted.

I think it's more that you know that the thing is incriminating, and that the police want to see it, and refusing to provide it would be perverting the course of justice. I think.

I'm having a quiet day so may look this up.

Destroying, falsifying or concealing potential evidence: This form of offence can occur whether or not legal proceedings have already been instigated. Selvage says If proceedings have not been instigated at the time, an investigation must have been in progress; but this would fail to deal with measures designed to prevent an offence ever being discovered, and cannot be reconciled with Vreones. In Selvage D attempted to falsify details on X's driving licence, so as to obscure the fact he had endorsements; but this was with a view to protecting him if he should ever commit, and be charged with, a future road traffic offence. Insofar as the dicta in that case seem to refer to evidence in actual but undiscovered crimes, or potential civil disputes, it is submitted that they are obiter and wrong. See also Sharpe and Sinha. An offence of perverting the course of justice may be committed by falsifying or procuring false evidence, even where D's motive was to procure what he believed would be a true and fair verdict; although this is ultimately a matter for the consideration of the jury

After some thought, I'd have sent him down for the full length of the crime he was being accused of, in exactly the same way the drink driving law works.