Brit broke anti-terror law by refusing to cough up passwords to cops

Re: So what would have been the case

If I'm ever going to the UK, this is what I would do: Upload everything to MEGA and then logout. When you're at the hotel or whatever you log back into MEGA and download everything. The border police won't ask you for your MEGA password, they don't get paid enough for that. And even if they do, just say you haven't made an account yet.

Re: Damn it, 1984 was not a How To Guide!

to be fair, it WAS based in britain. Mr E Blair was quite good at understanding his government's ideals

Belief beggared and beyond.

" ... It beggars belief."

Unfortunately, it does not and hasn't for a number of years. !!!

In the never ending 'Fight against Terror' (tm) privacy and rights are somewhat fluid.

[In the sense of water running down a drain and once gone never seen again !!!]

The 'Great Unwashed' are being conditioned to give away their privacy daily and this means that less and less people will care.

This is not even really about protecting sources etc but about the loss of the right to privacy when you have NOT committed any crime or wrongdoing.

Guilt/Innocence is a factor that is not of concern anymore, just whether you have something that certain powers want !!!

1984 is looking like a desirable paradigm to stop at as we are trying to exceed the definition each day more and more.

All Governments regardless of 'flavour' are grabing more and more power/rights to exploit their own citizens.

Terrorists WILL eventually be defeated even if by no other method than the original instigators of the flawed Ideas/Teachings etc simply die and the fervour is dissapated by time.

Governments on the other hand simply 'roll on' and what has 'always been' continues Year to Year/Political Term to Political Term.

Few Governments target reducing their powers as the norm.

Don't worry though ..... with President Trump & Kim Jung Un (AKA 'Little Rocket Man') we may have other things to be concerned about in the shorter term. !!!

Re: Since when has "you have the right to remain silent" = "you are a terrorist"

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act

You haven't had the right to silence since 1994. You don't have to speak, but you'll be considered guilty if you don't.

It's not the judge's fault

I don't know why you are so upset at the judges. They are stuck in what their actions. They apply the rules of law that were written by the politicians. The only way that a judge can overturn a law is if one side, usually the defence, makes an argument that the law in question violates a right or freedom or breaks another law. It doesn't sound like that's how the defence argued the case this time so the law still stands. The judge is unable to do research on their own on matters unrelated to evidence not presented in the case.

You should be directing your anger towards the politicians who created the law in the first place and those who have failed to repeal it.

"you have the right to remain silent"

Who told you you have it in the UK?

UK does not have fundamental rights and more specifically presumption of innocence and right to not self-incriminate.

It is a side effect of UK being the only other country besides Saudi Arabia which does not have a proper written constitution. Parliament is sovereign and shall not be bound. As a result when the governing party decides to sneak yet another erosion of rights into law books there is nothing there to stop it except the EUCHR and EUHR convention. You now know why Josephina Vissarionovna May is so desperate to get us out of it. By the way, a UK Bill of Rights is not a replacement, because it will be amended and eroded the same way the original Bill of Rights was amended over the years. Via "Parliament is Sovereign and shall not be bound".

What - you mean like David Miranda?

Nah - couldn't happen.

Jihadi Johny being one of the London Rubber Company's less successful branding efforts

This is the CAGE that defends the rights of terrorists like Jihadi John and others, so any scrutiny they get is fine by me.

And so we inevitably reach the point in this discussion where the Niemöller's poem must be recited:

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.

Either everybody has a right to due process, privacy, and enjoyment of life - or nobody does. It's that simple; so make your choice, but remember that one day it might be about you.

This is the CAGE that defends the rights of terrorists like Jihadi John

Even if he was the late Bearded Wanker Johnny himself, this does not free us from the obligation to apply due process and the list of various rights (which do not exist in Britain anyway[*]) such as presumption of innocence, right not to self incriminate, etc. This is what makes us fundamentally different from Bearded Wanker Johnny and his mates. By the way do not even get me started on his extra-judicial termination without an appropriate death penalty in absentia being served onto him by court.

[*]_{The only concept of fundamental right in English law comes from the EUHR convention. There is NO other right which is considered fundamental and irrevocable - something which "Parliament is Sovereign and Shall Not Be Bound" has proven by amending the original Bill of Rights of 1689 until there is nothing left of it. Reading it is a very educational experience for anyone claiming that UK has a stable legal system and a rule of law.}

Scrutiny might be warranted and prudent but assuming that Jihadi John is a British citizen, he should have the same rights as any other British citizen. Defending someone's rights means telling the organs of the state to obey the law and this is good for everyone, including the organs of the state.

If Jihadi John accidentally stabs himself multiple times whilst shaving then I won't feel bad for him but I don't want members of the security services thinking they are entitled to break the law to punish him. If CAGE keeps them honest that's a good thing.

Just to be a bit pious, here's a favourite quote of mine:

"And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”

Thomas More

Re: Send him back where he comes from...

you cruel bastard!

Re: Cardinal Richelieu

They are getting there, aren't they?

Re: Copy the real (encrypted) data into the cloud

42.zip may have an interesting effect.