Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

[Faramir]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

the dragon escribió:
> oops, didn't reply all...
>  
> And if you look at the cases reported, these are not system admins refusing to divulge data, or even regular people trying to protect their privacy - they are child molestors and wanna-be terrorists.

  Should I infer from that there where already proof about their guilt?

> encrytion is about maintaining personal and data privacy; it's not about having a tool to break the law. 

  I agree. That's not the part that worries ME.


>> Faramir wrote the following on 8/13/09 3:32 AM:
>> [...]
>>
>>> Unfortunately, it is not unusual people forgets the passphrases used
>>> to protect files, or secret keys...
...
>> "Two people have been successfully prosecuted for *refusing* to provide
>> U.K......."
>>
>> Charly

   What worries me is, if somebody is unable to decrypt the files, it
may be interpreted as refusal to decrypt it. And how can you prove you
are willing to obey, but you can't do it because you forgot the
password? If somebody say "I refuse to decrypt the data", ok, it's their
fault. But would police believe it if somebody say "sorry, I forgot the
password"?

   Best Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJKhOFKAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAW/YH/1qhvobZgSPlKy5vl8KH6RmP
++uVoXNPA9oR1/xkUKzlMj2pASHVGWA7kfo9ituJm5SHyE57RQ07HhbxOP2vQ2+C
qm8rNPDIHcDr1G7hKgI3Dh+YrF4tuSo0ZfRRMM2VM3sNzL/RxWu4pPnvNjTdtok2
NRKiJx0d5WGWCkGqhvg4tLDGOwFGXCxwGGhFUYUPCuRPC7bKWMRzNmwPgJx9gsSv
R7NVDMhBqQiSF1q8ZtLkQ0ub3w0oRN5SKcU58ayvAt8/yUPNLUryAbqu71aeT6tU
zmmCPE4EdDclQNqfrjcSMNGR5WOrCtbfsCHvJ1CmJbI/THFxcZAZI3dvwKcnV/E=
=nEiK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----