Child protection is a hot issue, with many news stories related to the subject emerging from the media on an almost daily basis. Most recently it has hit the headlines with the resignation of Jim Gamble – former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP).
A lower profile story that has recently emerged is that which relates to the jailing of a teenager for 16 weeks for refusing to disclose his encryption password to police who were investigating indecent images on his computer.
This particular story highlights one of the key problems with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Using this particular piece of legislation police can demand that an individual hand over any encryption keys as part of an investigation. Refusal to comply with such a demand can result in a jail sentence being handed down. In theory, this jail sentence could become indefinite if the individual in question refuses to hand over their encryption keys. So a stalemate could quickly ensue, whereby the police can continue to demand the individual hand over their encryption keys, while the individual continues to refuse to hand them over.
Privacy campaigners highlighted this potential stalemate, and criticised the Act accordingly. If an individual wants to protect their privacy, and therefore protect their personal data, they will refuse to disclose their keys for that reason alone. This is obviously quite a principled position to take. On the other hand, it is also equally possible that the individual is not acting out of principle, but genuinely has something to hide. If the offence relates to indecent images of children, then this is much more serious. Being jailed for 16 weeks could quite rightly be considered ‘getting off lightly’.
In most cases, law abiding individuals would more than likely choose to hand over their encryption keys to the police, rather than choose jail. The implication however, is that an individual who opts for jail will likely have something to hide. It is a classic case of legislating that old adage “nothing to hide, nothing to fear”. If refusal to disclose is taken as an admission of guilt, then individuals who find themselves wrongly accused are obliged to disclose their personal information simply to clear their names!
A lower profile story that has recently emerged is that which relates to the jailing of a teenager for 16 weeks for refusing to disclose his encryption password to police who were investigating indecent images on his computer.
This particular story highlights one of the key problems with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Using this particular piece of legislation police can demand that an individual hand over any encryption keys as part of an investigation. Refusal to comply with such a demand can result in a jail sentence being handed down. In theory, this jail sentence could become indefinite if the individual in question refuses to hand over their encryption keys. So a stalemate could quickly ensue, whereby the police can continue to demand the individual hand over their encryption keys, while the individual continues to refuse to hand them over.
Privacy campaigners highlighted this potential stalemate, and criticised the Act accordingly. If an individual wants to protect their privacy, and therefore protect their personal data, they will refuse to disclose their keys for that reason alone. This is obviously quite a principled position to take. On the other hand, it is also equally possible that the individual is not acting out of principle, but genuinely has something to hide. If the offence relates to indecent images of children, then this is much more serious. Being jailed for 16 weeks could quite rightly be considered ‘getting off lightly’.
In most cases, law abiding individuals would more than likely choose to hand over their encryption keys to the police, rather than choose jail. The implication however, is that an individual who opts for jail will likely have something to hide. It is a classic case of legislating that old adage “nothing to hide, nothing to fear”. If refusal to disclose is taken as an admission of guilt, then individuals who find themselves wrongly accused are obliged to disclose their personal information simply to clear their names!
