[HN Gopher] French publisher arrested in London for refusal to t...
___________________________________________________________________
French publisher arrested in London for refusal to tell police his
passcodes
Author : biomene
Score : 156 points
Date : 2023-04-18 18:20 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| antibasilisk wrote:
| What happens when people stop caring about being arrested? Prison
| is just a room after all.
| phnofive wrote:
| The legal system in the UK recognizes several rights against
| self-incrimination, but there is a carve-out for the per se crime
| of failing to disclose a key to encrypted information -
| punishable by years in prison.
|
| How is this different than refusing to tell where you've buried
| the bodies? Why should the police be permitted to assume you're
| guilty and in possession of vital information under certain
| circumstances?
| Manuel_D wrote:
| And perhaps more importantly, it becomes a de-facto crime to
| ever forget an encryption key. People forget the passkeys to
| crypto wallets all the time, losing millions. How can the
| police effectively prove that someone remembers the passcode?
| What if someone, after a few months in prison, says they've
| reconsidered and are willing to comply. They try to decrypt it
| but fail and subsequently say they the stress of incarceration
| has made them misremember the passcode?
| blibble wrote:
| > How can the police effectively prove that someone remembers
| the passcode?
|
| if they can prove you were using the phone an hour ago that
| would probably do it
| negidius wrote:
| The stress of being arrested and threatened with years in
| prison if you don't remember your passcode could very well
| cause someone to forget it.
| blibble wrote:
| the thing is it's not incontrovertible proof, it's
| "beyond reasonable doubt"
|
| the prosecution would show up with when you bought the
| phone, how many times you'd used it, that you used it 80
| times in the last hour, and so on
|
| and it comes down to whether or not a jury would believe
| that you had really forgotten it (despite that evidence)
| negidius wrote:
| Which means that someone who forgets their passcode
| because of the stress of being arrested and threatened
| with years in prison could easily be wrongfully
| convicted. It's a horrible law, even for those who don't
| care about privacy.
| blibble wrote:
| I am not a fan of the RIP Act (and there's plenty more
| badness in there)
|
| but playing devil's advocate, without this specific
| offence the disclosure sections would be completely
| ineffectual
|
| (remember the UK also allows adverse inferences to be
| made from silence, it is not the US)
| counttheforks wrote:
| right, you are explaining why the law is ridiculous and
| unfair
| Avicebron wrote:
| Bring back the rack!
| PeterisP wrote:
| They're probably treating it the same as refusing to open a
| safe given a valid warrant; the rights against self-
| incrimination do not extend to protecting the contents of your
| safe, drawers, private letters, etc, and also to the contents
| of your smartphone.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| See, but if you refused to open a safe for the cops, their
| fallback would be to drill it, not incarcerate you for
| failure to disclose the combination. Under that precedence,
| the cops have the right to try and crack my phone's
| encryption, but not to compel me to give them my passwords.
| namdnay wrote:
| Because they have a fallback. I presume that if someone
| were to invent an uncrackable safe they would adopt the
| same stance as encryption
| PeterisP wrote:
| But they can charge and punish you for refusing to open the
| safe, that's obstruction of justice even if they could
| drill it and drilled it.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > How is this different than refusing to tell where you've
| buried the bodies?
|
| It would be more equivalent to refusing to let the police
| search one room in your house after they've established a
| reason to believe that you might be hiding bodies in it.
|
| > Why should the police be permitted to assume you're guilty
| and in possession of vital information under certain
| circumstances?
|
| They haven't assumed guilt of the suspected crimes. However, if
| they have sufficient reason to believe that evidence of a crime
| exists in a certain location then they can compel someone to
| provide access to it. It's similar to how the police can search
| your private property if they have sufficient evidence that a
| crime has been committed
|
| That said, I don't know the standard of evidence necessary in
| the UK to get this far.
| negidius wrote:
| > It would be more equivalent to refusing to let the police
| search one room in your house after they've established a
| reason to believe that you might be hiding bodies in it.
|
| No, it isn't. The police searching a room in my house doesn't
| require me to do anything. They can even do it while I'm in a
| coma or dead. It's nothing like forcing me to tell them my
| passwords or any other information.
| hiatus wrote:
| Yes but your mere refusal to allow entry to a room is not
| grounds for arrest if the police already have a warrant and
| can search it regardless of your permission.
|
| Put another way, the police do not require you to produce the
| keys to the subject of a warrant, they will enter by force if
| necessary. It's perverse that technology is different only
| because the police have no means of forcible entry.
| izzydata wrote:
| I suspect the law is not intended to be logically consistent.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| I can definitely see how instead of viewing a device as an
| extension of a suspect's mind, you can view it as just another
| piece of property. If you had a dairy noting where you buried
| the bodies, or some receipts for your illicit arms deals,
| locked in a closet somewhere, the cops could reasonably break
| in and search it, or more relevantly compel you to hand over
| the key.
|
| Now, I definitely prefer the US's stance of a password being
| illegal self-discrimination, but I don't think it's
| unreasonable to have built legal precedent around that other
| view.
| sdfghswe wrote:
| > Now, I definitely prefer the US's stance of a password
| being illegal self-discrimination
|
| Is that true though? Never heard that before.
| kergonath wrote:
| > How is this different than refusing to tell where you've
| buried the bodies?
|
| They can get away with it because it's on a computer. The
| voters don't care, and the MPs by and large don't understand.
| Those who do would love the same principle to apply to the body
| case as well.
| toyg wrote:
| That's because the memory of truly oppressive governments in
| Western Europe has faded. People who don't remember history,
| are doomed to repeat it.
| cm2187 wrote:
| The absence of a strong constitution protecting fundamental
| rights is also an issue. With a 50%+1 majority, the house
| of commons can vote pretty much any law it wants with no
| counterpower.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| While in theory you are correct the reality is somewhat
| different. Individual mps are beholden to their local
| party and would hesitate to vote on anything that may
| endanger their position. Backbenchers have brought down 3
| successive governments. There also exists an upper
| chamber and a high court to appeal to. It's mostly a
| pretty stable system.
| toyg wrote:
| The British system is, indeed, fundamentally insane, from
| a technical perspective. They nerfed aristocratic power
| by neutering the House of Lords, but didn't bother
| replacing it with some other check or balance, leaving
| the Commons all-powerful - and with an electoral system
| that disproportionately favours cohesive ideologic
| minorities. Ironically, this was largely done by self-
| declared leftists, who utterly failed to anticipate how
| fascism could easily manifest through such a system.
| orra wrote:
| > Ironically, this was largely done by self-declared
| leftists
|
| Eh, the Parliament Act 1911 was passed by a Liberal
| Government.
|
| > who utterly failed to anticipate how fascism could
| easily manifest through such a system.
|
| The Liberal Party, and its successor the Liberal
| Democrats, has long been in favour of electoral reform.
| blibble wrote:
| and the RIP Act was passed by a Labour government
|
| (and the Terrorism Act)
| andy_ppp wrote:
| I do wonder if the masses always end up voting in fascists
| every 50 years or so simply because they forgot that there
| were some things worth fighting for. Does it feel like to
| anyone else we are on the precipice of extremely big
| changes that might not be good for anyone?
| robswc wrote:
| I think this is a big part of it.
|
| I remember growing up reading Harrison Bergeron (in
| school) and always thinking there's no way such a system
| would ever come about by the will of the people... yet SF
| proves people are all too happy to implement such a
| system (tearing down gifted students for the perceived
| benefit of everyone else). SSDD.
| Loughla wrote:
| I don't think it's forgetting that some things are worth
| fighting for.
|
| I think it's that, after a fascist government is ousted
| via violence, people spend so much time and effort to
| demonize them, that Joe Blow on the street doesn't see
| them as 'Us' anymore.
|
| We would never make decisions like They made, so We don't
| have to worry if Our leader is a fascist. Our leader is
| nothing like Their leader was, other than in absolute
| power. Our leader has our best interests in mind. Their
| leader was just a power hungry madman.
|
| When we remove the humanity from the monsters, we fail to
| remember that we could be monsters, too.
| iepathos wrote:
| Can't forget things they never experienced. Most of the
| voters weren't alive 50 years ago or more like 78 years
| ago if you're looking to the end of ww2.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Strauss-Howe generational theory holds that upheaval or
| major crisis (like a world war) occurs every 80-100 years
|
| If that holds true the next fews years are going to be
| interesting
| pengaru wrote:
| I wonder if Berlin's society is already atrophying in this
| department.
| toyg wrote:
| Germans are actually the most inoculated against that
| type of virus, they will be the last to fall. They are at
| the forefront of anti-authoritarian efforts in
| technology, for example.
|
| US/UK/France, on the other hand...
| GuB-42 wrote:
| It doesn't seem to be about self-incrimination.
|
| The way I understand it, they don't accuse him of being a
| terrorist, they are accusing him of having information about
| terrorists and refusing to release them. To follow your
| analogy, the police doesn't think you are the murderer, but
| they believe you know the location of the bodies and accuse you
| of covering for the murderer.
| zamadatix wrote:
| It's still self-incriminating to say you were guilty of
| covering for the murderer or, in this case, terrorist.
| devmunchies wrote:
| This is why passcodes are better than biometric auth. It's easy
| for an officer to hold the phone up to your face.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| No. Stop. You are giving a false sense of security, as it seems
| to me like you're applying US laws to the UK, which is wrong.
|
| In the US, you're correct that giving up a password is
| something understood to be protected under the 5th Amendment,
| whereas being forced to unlock by face or fingerprint is
| not[0].
|
| In the UK, this is not the same. See point 59 of [1]:
|
| > The power to search anything which the person has with them
| includes the power to search electronic devices, such as mobile
| phones. The person must provide access to any electronic device
| to allow for a search to be undertaken, including where access
| to a device requires the person to unlock a device through
| application of their thumb or finger, or any other form of
| access control (e.g. voice or face recognition).
|
| [0] https://www.concordlawschool.edu/blog/constitutional-
| law/fif...
|
| [1] https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/wp-
| content/uploads/20...
| ravi-delia wrote:
| Unless the parent edited, I don't believe they claimed it
| wasn't illegal. I mean we're here because the title of the
| article says as much. But you can pass any law you want, and
| it'll still be very easy to press a person's finger to a
| button against their will
| olliej wrote:
| It's super easy to disable biometric auth immediately, either
| explicitly all through repeatedly failing the biometric auth by
| moving and keeping your eyes shut.
| jxramos wrote:
| not sure how much face recognition was disabled by this but I
| rolled my eyes all the way up and it did not unlock, kind of
| strained my eyeballs though.
| y-curious wrote:
| Not a foolproof method I would trust if I had something to
| hide from the police.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Unless they use the Ludovico technique
| abridgett wrote:
| It's even worse - under RIP act not only can you be "forced" to
| reveal any passwords:
|
| - the onus is on _you_ to "prove" that you don't know it or have
| forgotten it - you can be told not to reveal that you've told
| them the password
|
| Anyone administering systems might want to think about this,
| governments aren't known for good security.
| teawrecks wrote:
| this is exactly the purpose of the 5th amendment in the US. the
| only thing I don't agree with is the supreme court's decision
| that you have to deliberately invoke your 5th amendment. so
| much for inalienable rights...
| Our_Benefactors wrote:
| > you can be told not to reveal that you've told them the
| password
|
| Come again? I don't catch the meaning of this.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| abridgett didn't check after posting, and so didn't catch
| some weird formatting. They are making two separate points:
|
| - the onus is on _you_ to "prove" that you don't know it or
| have forgotten it
|
| - you can be told not to reveal that you've told them the
| password
| eertami wrote:
| Hypothetically speaking, if you're not a UK resident: Surely
| you can keep the password on a separate device in another
| country, and if asked for it, say that you do have know how to
| get the password, but you can't physically access it without
| travelling to the other country.
|
| You then aren't breaking the rules, as far as I can tell. Of
| course you can't give them something that is only available in
| another country, where those laws would not hold up.
| SpaceManNabs wrote:
| Is this a surprise to anyone? Britain is quite well known for its
| draconian laws on free speech and encryption.
| robswc wrote:
| Seems its quite easy to get arrested for posting stuff online
| too. I hardly ever agree with the content but scares me to see
| people getting arrested for what amount to opinions.
| game_the0ry wrote:
| This is a sign that governments and, by extension, people in
| power are very fragile and very scared. Like an animal backed
| into a corner, they're lashing out violently and defensively, bc
| they are afraid that accountability is coming.
|
| There will certainly be more of this type of behavior, even in
| the US, and the rest of the world is about to realize why the US
| has the kind of constitution that it does.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| Couldn't you have a max attempt lockout set pretty low and keep
| giving a slightly wrong variation? I mean if you dont remember,
| you don't remember
|
| Both my laptops and phone I need to be the one actually typing or
| inputting the code, I know them through muscle memory and get
| tripped up those few times my laptop ask for my iphone pass code,
| as an example
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| According to https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/wp-
| content/uploads/20... point 59, it's legal for UK authorities
| to get information from electronic devices, and the device
| owner must unlock the device for the authorities.
|
| So, in the context of this UK-focused article, you're giving
| people advice on how to evade a search that, in the UK, is
| legal.
|
| Instead, I would suggest advocating for UK people and
| businesses to change the law.
| kergonath wrote:
| That is a disgrace. A direct consequence of totalitarian laws.
| And at the same time, I really want to know the role of the
| French government. I cannot believe HMG cares whether someone was
| amongst the hundreds of thousands who demonstrated last week. Why
| set up such an ambush for a book publisher?
| FpUser wrote:
| Wonder if at some point all those inconvenient people would
| simply start falling out of the windows.
| ornel wrote:
| According to this tweet[0] citing a (locked) article, the
| arrested publisher was asked by police "Do you support president
| Macron? Have you participated in the recent demonstrations in
| France? What books will soon be published by La Fabrique?". Scary
| stuff
|
| [0] https://twitter.com/Mathieu2jean/status/1648394577449984014
| more_corn wrote:
| What the fuck. Nobody gets my passwords. I'm not unlocking shit
| for anyone.
|
| Looks like UK is on the hard avoid list.
| jmclnx wrote:
| I know, I was thinking of going there next year, not now.
| devmunchies wrote:
| If concerned about privacy/security during international
| travel, a good option is to get a burner phone. A cheap
| android phone is peanuts.
| pengaru wrote:
| Yeppppp
|
| https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-
| zone
| mrkeen wrote:
| Give it time. One day people will be arrested at borders
| for "suspicion that they are travelling with a decoy
| phone".
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >If concerned about privacy/security during international
| travel, a good option is to get a burner phone. A cheap
| android phone is peanuts.
|
| Or just a Nandroid[0][1] backup and flashing the stock rom
| before you go, then restoring upon return.
|
| [0] https://www.howtogeek.com/240582/how-to-back-up-and-
| restore-...
|
| [1] I don't know if this is possible with Apple phones, as
| I don't use them. Perhaps someone could elucidate on the
| viability of this option for iOS devices?
| sph wrote:
| Well shit, this was my reason not to ever visit the US, but I
| live in Britain so I'm fucked anyway.
| jmclnx wrote:
| I wish I could laugh, seems the US, UK and Australia are in
| a competition to see who can out do each other.
|
| What is it with English Speaking Countries ? I guess Canada
| is OK because of Quebec keeps them sane :)
| louloulou wrote:
| Canada has the same shit, NZ too.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| > What is it with English Speaking Countries ?
|
| Legal systems based on common-law?
| pengaru wrote:
| It's not like Americans never get arrested or even jailed for
| remaining silent, despite it being protected by the fifth
| amendment.
|
| The US and UK are more similar than they are different.
| wordyskeleton wrote:
| https://theintercept.com/2019/06/22/cbp-border-searches-jour...
| sph wrote:
| Who says they're from the US?
| macinjosh wrote:
| Western democracies are falling into authoritarian behavior at a
| remarkable rate. I am legit worried.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| I guess to be fair, there always has been an authoritarian bent
| to Western democracies. It's just that most of us here on HN
| are not members of the groups against which those democracies
| employ authoritarian practices. It just kind of shows you why
| you have to stand up as soon as you see a practice or law
| that's F'ed up. It's pretty much a guarantee that on a time-
| scale long enough, that government will use that practice on
| you.
| jussaying2 wrote:
| Even better, the folks who frequent HN could stop aiding
| authoritarianism by _building_ the tech, but that would
| require turning down lucrative RSUs, so I 'm not holding my
| breath.
| helaoban wrote:
| Totally totally insane. A revolution is coming, and it will be
| bloody.
| stuaxo wrote:
| Unlikely in the UK.
| Animatronio wrote:
| Yes, but the police are working hard to prevent it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-18 23:01 UTC)