Briefly, a 19 year old lad was arrested by police investigating child sexual exploitation (there's the smear in lieu of evidence). He refused to give - or exercised his right not to say anything? - the encryption key to his computer, so he's been imprisoned.

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/05/password-computer-teenager

Apart from the obvious bypassing of right to silence, note the guilty until proven innocent attitude from Det Sgt Neil Fowler, Lancashire Police

"It sends a robust message out to those intent on trying to mask their online criminal activities"

If they couldn't crack his encryption (and it's unlikely they will any time soon) what criminal activities could he be referring to? Hmmmm...

AND...

The European Court held in Murray v. UK that "the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6."

So has the prosecution of the young man violated his rights under Article 6? There seems to be precedent to support that it has.

So because he has not given them his encryption key he is jailed. Since when has not giving your personal keys to the Police been a jailable offence.

Interestingly this man is of GOOD CHARACTER>

I agree - this is a truly shocking case.

Why did they want to see his computer - on what evidence did they think he was hiding something ?

I agree with the LAD - no one should have to give up their right to PRIVACY. It is an enshrined human right. If the POLICE cant crack into his computer then they should leave it alone.

It has echoes of the extradition case for McKINNON.

There seems to be this nasty undercurrent to the UK POLICE which says everyone should hand over everything to them for no other reason than to prove they are innocent. That is wrong - it is a POLICE STATE when that is the law.

This is the ULTIMATE PROOF that we are in a POLICE STATE. No crime has been committed but this young person of GOOD CHARACTER has been jailed on the SUSPICION of crime - no evidence - no proof - not even an actual crime - just the susipicion that he may be up to no good.

Shocking and should prove to anyone who bleats that we are a long way away from a NAZI society that we are already here - and I dont see CAMERON doing anything to stop it.

SJB wrote:
He refused to give - or exercised his right not to say anything? - the encryption key to his computer, so he's been imprisoned.

All part of Labour's we must control everything mentality ... it is an offence these days to not let the state know what you are (or are not) doing.

It's Stalinism, isn't it?

Again a worrying case.
I would point out that if there had been files of an illegal sexual nature then traces would normally be expected to be found on his hard drives.

This has to do with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIP) brought in at the start of the decade. Under this law you can encrypt your data but you must hand over the key when requested by the police. If memory serves, if you don't give it, you can be imprisoned until you do.

At the time I thought this a lousy law, for a whole host of reasons, not least that they can read all your email for the last seven years, and not just the police for that matter.

But it is the law, and the job of the police is to apply it impartially. In even the most legitimate republic we would depend upon them to do that for the preservation of our liberty. Anything less is a form of corruption.

So I say: bad law, not bad cops.

Best Wishes,
Jim

And what's a 'robust message' anyway? These twits stopped thinking years ago.

Jim wrote:
This has to do with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIP) brought in at the start of the decade. Under this law you can encrypt your data but you must hand over the key when requested by the police. If memory serves, if you don't give it, you can be imprisoned until you do.

At the time I thought this a lousy law, for a whole host of reasons, not least that they can read all your email for the last seven years, and not just the police for that matter.

But it is the law, and the job of the police is to apply it impartially. In even the most legitimate republic we would depend upon them to do that for the preservation of our liberty. Anything less is a form of corruption.

So I say: bad law, not bad cops.

Best Wishes,
Jim

Trouble is, it's also the law that you don't have to say anything to the police and can't be compelled to assist their activities, but if you exercise that entitlement, you commit a crime... So which is it?

Similarly, we are often proudly told of our legal right to free speech... but don't say that, this or especially not that - backed up by a selection of laws.

This great legal muddle creates a system where the state can make up its own rules as it goes along, to suit its own purposes: hardly the independent judicial system that is one of the requisites of a liberal democracy like the one we are told we live in.

In America you "take the Fifth" in case you might incriminate yourself.

Jim wrote:
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act

That's it. Jim !
I couldn't remember when I posted earlier the name of the Act.

The Coalition has already repealed parts of this Act - the sections which allow Councils to spy on people etc.

Time the rest (along with the hundreds of other "terror" laws brought in by New Labour).

The lad wasn't imprisoned for remaining silent - a basic human right (which has existed at Common Law for more than 1000 years) - but for breaching this new Act.

Jim has hit the nail on the head. This law is wrong.

But the Police dont enforce ALL the laws on the statute books - there are loads of laws ( especially local laws ) which have been found to be wrong but never repealed - the Police dont enforce them

Therefore there is professional judgement for the Police and the courts. If a law is in direct confrontation with Article 6 of the Human Rights Act which we have signed up to - then it means that law should not be enforced because it is not a valid ( legal ) law.

Therefore this lads should not be in prison and probably will win compensation for false imprisonment if he gets a good legal team on to it.

Just think if you are in the Police you can kill a man - and yet never even be charged.......

Thanks BR, you write:

"If a law is in direct confrontation with Article 6 of the Human Rights Act which we have signed up to - then it means that law should not be enforced because it is not a valid ( legal ) law."

I think if it's in conflict with the HRA someone should challenge it in the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights). It's the job of the courts to settle these conflicts, not the police. I believe the ECHR could requires a change in British law. Take for example the DNA retention and stop and search laws (section 44). The ECHR has ruled, but we're still waiting for the British government to act, or did I miss something?

Best Wishes,
Jim

Jim wrote:
Take for example the DNA retention and stop and search laws (section 44). The ECHR has ruled, but we're still waiting for the British government to act, or did I miss something?

You are quite right, Jim - but the police are not "pushing" DNA retention any more and will give it back if pushed (ie threatened with a Judicial Review !)

Believe me - I know !

Any chance you could fill us in on the details on that, ITK?

I'm sure my friend David Mery would like to know.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/22/terrorism.july7

gizmonaut.net/

Best Wishes,
Jim

Jim wrote:
Any chance you could fill us in on the details on that, ITK?

I was arrested - ludicrous allegation - and following an interview (and bail for a month) the police dropped everything and said there was not a shred of evidence to support the allegation.

When I requested the return of my DNA (taken at arrest) - they refused (trying to hide behind the European ruling, saying "we'll do whatever the government decides - WHEN they decide).

My MP took up the case (I was mentioed by name in the Commons on four occasions).

Meanwhile, with the help of LIBERTY, I got a very good firm of lawyers who put together a pre-action protocol (required prior to Judicial Review at the High Court) and informed the police that they were about to go to Court !

With four days of receiving the pre-action protocol the police changed their minds ("in order to save me the hassle of going to Court") and released my DNA confirming in writing that no copies had been retained.

The police clearly do not want to face a Judge and explain why they are clearing breaking European Court rulings (but will resist until / unless you press the matter).