*sneaks off the stage to watch, too*
seriously. I do think people leap up and go "butbutbutbut INVASION OF PRIVACY" without actually stopping to take a breath and think about what the bloke has actually done. He's refused to comply with a warrant, obstructed a criminal investigation and I suspect they could have him on tampering with evidence, although that might be tricky.

Do they suddenly stop being crimes because they relate to "his computer" ?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:07, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

I'm concerned because it sets a precedent for imprisoning someone on the grounds that they won't tell you something.

(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:25, Reply)

At the moment, RIPA doesn't cover that
It only covers refusing to give up passwords to encrypted files/devices.
If they want to change it, or add to it, it has to go through the entire process that any other law would have to, and therefore can be stopped with the right opposition.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:30, Reply)

arrrrrrgh.
no. no it bloody doesn't. It sets a precent that if the following happens:

Police suspect you of a crime and have enough evidence that you are involved in that crime that they can go to a court and get a warrant to search the contents of your laptop and when they try to do that you prevent them from executing the warrant ... THEN you can go to prison. It's not about "not telling someone something"
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:39, Reply)

Yes, but if they have a warrant for your house
you don't open the cupboard doors and lift the carpets for them.

In fact you're not allowed to do more then watch in case you interfere!

Nor do you say (and believe me this is true) look in xxx for my stash, and yyyyy for my money.

Why should it be different for cyber crime?
( disasterprone "Pyjamas caused the Holocaust", Wed 6 Oct 2010, 14:17, Reply)