They've already demonstrated with RIPA that they are perfectly willing to convic...

madaxe_again · on March 11, 2016

I think you underestimate quite how much of a principled idiot I am.

ocschwar · on March 11, 2016

Would you please hop on a ferry to Oostende first?

Principled idiots are of more use to mankind when they're on the loose.

hlandau · on March 11, 2016

I'd take the odds on this. The number of people charged with failing to comply with a s. 49 notice is low (much lower than the number issued with them and whom don't comply). The number of people successfully charged is lower still. Some of the cases of successful convictions were also where people had admitted to having the key; your odds probably improve if you don't do this.

My understanding of s49 is that to convict you, the government has to prove that you had the ability to decrypt at _any time in the past_. If they do that, you can make a defence by showing that you _no longer do_. In other words, if the government shows you ever had the ability to decrypt, the burden of proof changes to you to show you no longer do. Pretty ridiculous.

It does mean that if you can make it patently obvious that you can't decrypt something, you have a good defence. One option therefore is to place control of decryption in the hands of not yourself, but a trusted agent outside the UK (or both, with both required to decrypt).

There may also be grounds for appeal in the ECourtHR, as there is precedent that the 'right to a fair trial' in the EConventionHR includes the right to remain silent, etc.