UK terror law reviewer calls for prison sentences if suspects refuse to hand passwords over to investigators
- Reference: 1617026472
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/03/29/forced_decryption_terror_cops_law_change_call/
- Source link:
In what appears to be [1]a recurring theme , Jonathan Hall QC said police should be able to threaten people arrested under terror laws with five years in prison if they don't hand over passwords on demand.
[2]
By recommending the creation of a new crime of failing to co-operate with police under the law, Hall would be calling for cops to operate with fewer controls on their behaviour if they wanted to search a terror suspect's phone.
We need to make it even easier for UK terror cops to rummage about in folks' phones, says govt lawyer [3]READ MORE
[4]
Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) allows police to demand the password for any device they "lawfully" acquire from a criminal suspect or witness. Refusal carries a two-year prison sentence, or [5]five years in a "national security" case . These demands can be signed off by a district judge sitting in a magistrates' court. However, Hall described the judicial permission requirement as being "in no way suited to high pressure terrorism investigations" and went on to say in his annual report
[6]PDF, 220 pages
: "There would be merit in considering a special power to compel passwords even if only following arrest under section 41 Terrorism Act 2000."The government reviewer went on to describe the position of GCHQ's National Technical Assistance Centre (NTAC) – whose Interception of Communications Commissioner's Office can approve the use of intercepted communications by nine agencies in the UK, including the three security and intelligence agencies – as a "gatekeeper role" that introduced "unpredictability and delay". The [7]controversial unit moved from the Home Office to GCHQ in 2006, and could not be considered independent of government.
The expanded police powers Hall has called for would, he said, "be a natural fit between the judicial supervision that already exists through warrants of further detention after 48 hours up to a maximum of 14 days, and the consideration of whether permission should be granted to administer an encryption notice, because so much of pre-charge detention under Schedule 8 Terrorism Act 2000 is made necessary by the demands of digital analysis."
'Independent' gov law reviewer wants users preemptively identified before they're 'allowed' to use encryption [8]READ MORE
Hall also appeared to have taken police claims about how widely they used their considerable powers at face value with no further challenge: "I have been unable to obtain any statistics for the use of the power in the context of terrorism investigations. However, what I have picked up anecdotally from a number of different sources, is that the use of section 49 by CT Police is likely to be rare indeed."
Hall's predecessor Max Hill QC [9]similarly advocated for less oversight and more police powers . Hill spent just a year in the role before landing the plum job of Director of Public Prosecutions.
[10]
While we don't know whether Hall intends following in Hill's footsteps, there's little doubt that he'll have won allies and admirers within the law enforcement community. ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/23/weaken_forced_decryption_safeguards_govt_lawyer_says/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YGH5oPPnX3n8OF4wIgusbAAAAFI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/23/weaken_forced_decryption_safeguards_govt_lawyer_says/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YGH5oPPnX3n8OF4wIgusbAAAAFI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53
[6] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/972261/THE_TERRORISM_ACTS_IN_2019_REPORT_Accessible.pdf
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2015/12/16/big_brother_born_ntac_gchq_mi5_mass_surveillance_data_slurping?page=1
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2017/09/01/max_hill_qc_deny_encryption_anonymous_users/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2017/09/01/max_hill_qc_deny_encryption_anonymous_users/
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YGH5oPPnX3n8OF4wIgusbAAAAFI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Come Down From Your Ivory Tower
Whatever happened to "You have the right to remain silent"?
It got extended: "you have the right to remain silent and we have the right to interpret that silence as an admission of guilt".
the use of section 49 by CT Police is likely to be rare indeed.
And yet it's the only thing which is protecting us from a massive terrorist attack every day
Re: the use of section 49 by CT Police is likely to be rare indeed.
Yeah right - "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain"
"Since 1970, there have been at least 3,395 terrorist-related deaths in the UK"
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/922717/reported-road-casualties-annual-report-2019.pdf
•There was a total of 153,158 casualties of all severitiesin reported road traffic accidents in 2019. This is 5% lower than in 2018 and is the lowest level since 1979 when this statistical series with current definitions and detail began.
IT's the cars you should be worried about, but keep on using "terry wists" as you ignore your rights being stolen. Give your head a wobble.
Re: the use of section 49 by CT Police is likely to be rare indeed.
I *think* you may have missed the sarcasm in that original post.
Re: the use of section 49 by CT Police is likely to be rare indeed.
Explicitly tag it if you mean sarcasm or risk befalling Poe's law
Protect?
The biggest problem with minor powers that are "rarely used" have a tendency to get used more and more until they are being used for things they were never intended for, and this has happened time and again. There are reasons why Judges have to be involved at certain stages and those reasons are because of the number of times Police powers have been abused to obtain unsafe convictions. Isn't it funny that all these extra "rights" are being added into legislation here and there just when we are "not allowed" to protest about them? If they are the ONLY thing protecting us from a Terrorist attack, then perhaps we need to sack all of the CT Police and GCHQ?
How far does this "Protection" have to go? Will the police be satisfied when they can lock up someone because of their tone of voice? These may be little steps, but when there are lots of them they soon add up to a Police State.
Re: Protect?
Or going equiped with a loud shirt and walking on the cracks in the pavement...
Re: Protect?
Or "looking at me in a funny way" ...
Re: Protect?
"Walking around with an offensive wife."
Known jailbird apparently.
Is anyone still under the illusion we are living in a free country?
free country?
Name me one country where police or other LE face accountability when powers are exceeded and/or abused.
Name me one country where prosecution is not discretionary and therefore subect to abuse.
Re: free country?
I live here, I vote here, I don't care about the Law there.
I don;t have anytime for "others are bad" argument, as we live here.
I understand some of the words might be a bit long for you..
Re: free country?
Think on this, if you can.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Martin Niemöller
Clarify something for me.
If I encrypt a message using a key known only to me & the recipient and that message is written on some vellum and posted to the recipient, can the roz get me sent to gaol for not telling them the key?
If not, then they can’t do it with a memory stick either... m’lud.
Anyone know?
Surely Government departments like GCHQ can already read all our stuff without a password or don't they want to admit that?
I'm sure they are unable to confirm or deny that speculation.
Plausible deniability
How do they know it is an encrypted anything? I generate files full of random data to test compression and indexing methods. Ain't no password on them, no siree plod.
The Ticking Timebomb
However, Hall described the judicial permission requirement as being "in no way suited to high pressure terrorism investigations"
.
Why would terrorists put and keep their future plan on any Tech ?
Maybe a private passworded Blogger blog... ?
.
Myself, I wouldn't even use a phone.
Re: The Ticking Timebomb
Why? Dunno, incompetence? It's observed fact that they frequently do.
Some things to consider:
[1] despite a few recent highly publicised (and undeniably nasty) events, per population capita day the incidence of terrorism in the UK is vanishingly small, even at "escalated" levels.
[2] "Special Branch" was formed in 1881 to counter the "Fenian threat", when "anarchism" was also genuinely widespread. However within a few years "provocateurs" were active as there was a shortage of incidents to pursue. [Bernard Porter: The origins of the vigilant state, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 1987]
[3] There was initially huge public resistance to the formation of "special branch", but the public got used to it, and even started to admire it, very quickly. [ibid.]
[4] "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. [...] The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home..If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." [ President James Madison (1751-1863]
Come Down From Your Ivory Tower
"what I have picked up anecdotally from a number of different sources, is that the use of section 49 by CT Police is likely to be rare indeed."
Tell that to photographers who are routinely stopped, questioned ID'd under anti-terrorism laws.
Whatever happened to "You have the right to remain silent"?