28,000 people stopped using these powers - less than 56 people charged (no specific number for that so it could be significantly less than 56 as that's the number of arrests). When the authorities are given such a powerful tool (and such a violating tool) it should have to prove significantly useful to continue to exist. Schedule 7 clearly hasn't. Also quite shocking that only 0.2% of people stopped are arrested and non-compliance == arrest. That's a lot of people just handing over data and passwords without a fight.
>When the authorities are given such a powerful tool (and such a violating tool) it should have to prove significantly useful to continue to exist
Unfortunately, the only real constrain for it to not continue to exist would be to cost some people their political career due to media/public backlash and such.
Who is the last person (or any people, really) at this level who experienced an adverse effect on their political career due to "media/public backlash?"
I think it's more that if politician A did such a thing, it would give opposing politician/party B ammo to mount a campaign to incite backlash, not that the public cares enough to backlash themselves.
> Also quite shocking that only 0.2% of people stopped are arrested and non-compliance == arrest. That's a lot of people just handing over data and passwords without a fight.
No, you've misunderstood that. The article mentions that he's been stopped previously, and asked for his passwords, and has declined before without being arrested.
So maybe that low arrest rate is a glimmer of hope: they could be arresting many more people.
It still sucks, and it clearly needs reform which is unlikely under current or future governments.
True, hard to draw a firm conclusion because of that point. Based on the 'leaflet' they provide when you are detained refusing to hand over passwords can lead to arrest so I drew the conclusion based on that. If we look at it the other way though (based on your point) it's also scary as if they are detaining people who then refuse to give passwords and they don't arrest them (which they have the right to do) why are those people being detained at all? Again, the correct answer if we don't know but it could speak to some degree of racial profiling or simply very poor/incompetent screening that's catching and inconveniencing a lot of people.
I think most voters don't understand the issues, or feel defeated
Maybe, I mean I don't know about "most voters" to be honest. I certainly feel like we're defeated and will be walked all over for the rest of our sad existence
It works with traffic citations and with tax enforcement. I mean if from a behavioral perspective you're looking for a given result with minimized work, selective enforcement is a decent option.
What exactly is working about traffic citations? As far as I can see, compliance with traffic regulations hovers around 0%, and traffic citations serve no purpose other than as an arbitrary tax falling on unlucky people.
Id like to be able to configure 2 passwords on my devices, one that logs me in, and another "destruct password" that when entered as password, wipes the device clean and overwrites the drive.
preferably I'd be able to configure certain directories that should be wiped, so only confidential data is destroyed.
then it would log in normally. I doubt silly borderguards would realize the pwnage
That's clever and all, but I feel like it dodges a very important human rights issue, rather than tackling it head-on. People shouldn't have to resort to some Inspector Gadget-esque "this message will selfdestruct" or real-partition-hidden-partition mechanism. Furthermore it also disadvantages people who are less tech savvy and can't implement such mechanisms. If you're not served a warrant, they shouldn't be allowed go snooping into locked devices.
The problem is in this case, the guy is specifically in a grey area of "enemy of powers-that-be in the country he's entering." He deals with for example cases where western nations torture terror suspects.
If we leave law aside and think only in terms of "sides," that means that he is "opposed" to these governments, and it would only make sense for them to be hostile to him using their powers (arrest, taking his laptops, etc).
Now let's continue to leave the law aside, because that's what our governments can do when they please, usually by not telling us (Snowden showed us this several years ago in no uncertain terms).
So, human rights or no, a hidden-partition mechanism is merely allowing a civilian to use the same tools a government is - non-legal ones. In an ideal world, everybody (governments and civilians) would follow perfectly fair laws. That's not this world, those aren't our governments, so we all should be open to resorting outside the legal system to protect ourselves.
It's not a dodge unless it's being proposed as an acceptable alternative to reforming these powers, not merely a way to cope with them. You can reasonably attempt to implement both technological and political solutions.
Clever, but would likely add "obstruction of justice" to the charges against you, and reduce your chances at beating the original point of suspicion, should it ever result in charges, due to spoliation of evidence.
Why not instead just refuse, and use the technicality of violation of privacy, to beat the authorities by making anything they find inadmissible in the first place?
The only way is to physically destroy the hard disk, like making confetti with it. For example, it's very hard to destroy data saved on SSD drives (last time I heard)
There's a clever way to destroy data on SSD: just overwrite your (encrypted) hard drive encryption key, then even though the data remains, the key is lost forever. I think most modern SSDs come with the feature.
But this is a request made prior to any charges being laid. I'm actually curious what the legal situation would be: if you had been charged on other evidence it would likely be obstruction, but is that a charge that can be laid without any reason to suspect a crime has occurred?
IANAL, but I have had the pleasure of having several in my family. One of the things I've come to learn is (again, U.S. centric) that you don't typically get out of legal trouble once you're in the authorities' clutches by "technical cleverness". You don't know at the time described by the parent poster what other evidence might exist, and that includes faulty witness statements. If you mislead the prosecutors to destroy harmless data that could have gotten the whole case dismissed through a technicality, the act could be used in the worst way against you. Don't help the prosecution. Keep your mouth shut and your data expressedly off-limits until you get your legal representation.
> that you don't typically get out of legal trouble once you're in the authorities' clutches by "technical cleverness".
Right, technical cleverness is the lawyer's job. If you get arrested on any serious charges in the US politely tell the police that you need to speak to a lawyer.
In the US you should almost always tell police, no matter what the question, that you decline to answer any questions without your lawyer. Don't talk to the police, they aren't your friends. They are trying to build a case to convict someone, and not necessarily a guilty person.
I feel like this advice, though not bad, always needs to have some sort of follow-up about how you procure "your" lawyer. Is it best to do it in advance (by having a list of local names and areas of expertise) or at the time of arrest (will you have access to Google?)? Should you take your chances with either a court-appointed one or whoever has the flashiest advertisements made available to you? Most of us don't have someone to call "my lawyer", so the prospect of invoking a non-existent figure makes it all the more tempting to simply answer the police's questioning.
Yes, I know, I watched that around when it was first posted. But how effective is a court-appointed lawyer going to be, controlled for various types of legal hassle, controlled for (in the case of an accusation) actual guilt and innocence? In a case of refusing to disclose a password (or even admit the existence of a password, saying literally nothing), are you going to trust the court appointed lawyer or (if you could procure them) someone at the EFF to better represent you? All lawyers have to meet certain obligations but that doesn't mean they're all equal.
Given that most people talk too much to the police most of the time without dire consequences (police have a lot of flexibility in what they can do with your volunteered information, it's a two-edged sword) a more careful cost-benefit analysis of saying nothing or saying certain things is irresistible to smart tech people. If you're going to take the principled 'never talk under any circumstances' approach you need to have thought of various situations so you can make that principle work the most for you and not let it become an unnecessary cost.
Whether charges have been made is completely irrelevant. If you prevent a LEO from doing is or her job that's obstruction, or spoliation, or one of a couple other charges depending on the specifics.
If this wasn't the case, you do these sorts of obstructions to trick officers into never laying charges for the crime you committed. You might respond, "well shouldn't they be charged with the crime they committed in that case, not the obstruction stuff?" And they can be charged for that as well, but often the obstruction, especially the destruction of evidence, makes it impossible to actually get a conviction.
What would be the legality of stating " My password is not XYZ", when XYZ is the destruct password. Can you get the obstruction of justice charge if they try it and it destroys evidence?
Here's an idea: write the self-destruct password on a post-it note and leave it on your monitor. It's the same sort of thing, but preemptively - it's not obstruction of justice if you're not under investigation when you do that.
Because it's reasonable to assume that you know that a statement like that will arouse their curiosity. You're dealing with humans looking for some kind of actionable information, and with reason to believe that you may be trying to deceive them on some level or another.
When you have prior knowledge about what X does (deletes evidence) and there's no reason to say "the password is not X" other than to trick someone into trying X as the password, that's how.
Can you be charged with obstruction of justice if you haven't been charged or served a warrant? i.e. just being suspect doesn't put you in line of perjury charges in this case.
I'm not a lawyer, but that was my interpretation in case that's wrong.
Yes, you absolutely can be charged with obstruction without a warrant. If you are being interviewed by an LEO and you lie to them to disrupt their investigation, that's potentially a crime. It doesn't matter if you haven't been subpoenaed or aren't under oath.
OK, how about this. I offer FDE as a service, anonymously via Tor. Your Linux machine uses LUKS, with remote unlocking via dropbear. But you don't have the decryption passphrase. Before booting, you must alert me via Signal with video, stating that you are not under coercion, with identity and time verification. Then I SSH via Tor, and unlock your machine.
The argument is that authorities can't force you to lie to me, in order to get your machine unlocked. And you don't need to lie to them, either.
But of course, you'd need to trust me implicitly ;)
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly sure they can compel me to lie to you. I think the standard is that the police can, at least with a warrant, compel you to do anything that you would do normally. For instance, if you're a company that keeps a database of user actions, they can compel you to give them access to that database, because accessing that data is a part of your normal business process. They can even compel you to write some software to extract the specific data they need (within reason). And in your scenario, I am able to access my own computer, and do so regularly as part of my normal life.
You probably came up with this scenario thinking about so-called "warrant canaries," which hinge on law enforcement not being able to force companies to lie to their users. But it should be noted there is no case law or precedent regarding warrant canaries, and the legal consensus seems to be it is unlikely to hold up in court.
Yes, I was thinking of warrant canaries. I'm also unaware of case law or precedent. But I do note that Riseup did not update its warrant canary while under subpoena. This generated considerable controversy. But Riseup made no statement either way, except for this enigmatic tweet:
listen to the hummingbird, whose wings you cannot see,
listen to the hummingbird, don't listen to me.
#LeonardCohenpic.twitter.com/PZisFt6mHm
— riseup.net (@riseupnet) November 11, 2016
So it seemed to work, and I haven't seen any fallout.
How about this. When you use my FDE as a service, part of my payment is selling your computer to me for a nominal fee. So you're never using your computer, you're using mine. And my lease agreement requires confirmation that you're not under compulsion.
Fantasizing a bit, one can imagine a multi-probe EEG net that could report your state of mind. Perhaps the remote processor could be trained to recognize coercion, nervousness, etc.
> my lease agreement requires confirmation that you're not under compulsion.
You can't have a "no cops" requirement in a lease agreement, that wouldn't be remotely enforceable.
> Fantasizing a bit, one can imagine a multi-probe EEG net that could report your state of mind
Ordinarily, at this point, the warrant would then be given to you, not me. This is complicated by the fact that you presumably are trying to stay anonymous and there are questions of jurisdiction. But they will at least try to contact you and compel you to give them access. If you refuse now you're committing a crime, and they'll go after you. So you'd better hope your OPSEC is solid. And, after a certain point of ridiculousness, they might go after me, saying I purposefully used this system to elude lawful requests for access (which would be true!). That's going to be tricky to prove, and at that point I don't have enough legal knowledge to figure out if that holds up.
I'm sure in this kind of human rights stuff the problem is absolutely not technical. It's just a detail. What counts is to be able to put yourself in a position where you can be defended by a lawyer or whatever support (like an Ecuadorian embassy ? :-) ). Trying to technologically sidestep the law enforcement is just ridiculous. It proves that you recognize you're doing wrong stuff (wrong in the eyes of those running after you), it sends a very bad signal.
And anyway, as said elsewhere, at some point you are opposing a government. And if you're opposing in a strong way, then well, you basically declared war and you'll have to fight the Goliath. Thus before attempting any fight, make sure you have a very good network of supporters...
In my experience, changing unjust laws is at least as hard. Consider the fights against slavery, for women's rights, to end segregation, for gay rights, for gender freedom, and generally for decriminalization of all victimless crimes. Privacy has arguably played key roles for all of them. For peer discussion, for organizing and logistics, for fund-raising, etc. And technology has always played a key role in protecting privacy.
yep. I was talking about using technology to protect against an ongoing threat. Technology can help to make myself invisible but as soon as the opposing force gets me, it's very tough to use technology to keep invisibility...
So I'll use Tor and Tox to hide myself as long as possible. But when the bad guys rings my bell, I know the only way out is to burn everything. They won't be deterred by some 2048 bits password...
Based on an OPSEC risk assessment, it may seem rather unlikely that the NSA and other national intelligence agencies are adversaries. Why would they care about Mirimir?
However, I find it useful to assume that they are. And so I employ many countermeasures that might seem foolish. Basically, I do whatever is workable. And then I write about it for income and pleasure. I do keep in mind, however, the "possibility that [a] countermeasure could create an OPSEC indicator" (DoD OPSEC manual at p. 14).[0]
But burning everything, that's also obstruction, I think.
Sure. I don't know how to integrate that with LUKS, however.
But even so, once I had remote SSH access to initramfs, and had unlocked LUKS, I could mount /root and mess with the system, adding my own trusted key for remote access, etc.
Your special login shell would not allow you to do anything except provide your secret, after which you are simply disconnected without having the opportunity to do anything else. A different process not under your control would mount the volume. At no point would you get to execute arbitrary commands or open any files. You would only have to be trusted not to hold your secret for ransom.
Right, but in this case, when there isn't a crime. When they're looking for evidence to charge you with or use as a reason to deport or something in that area. In that case, can that be construed as Obstruction of Justice?
> Right, but in this case, when there isn't a crime
There wasn't a crime, until you deceived officers. It doesn't matter if you deceived them to cover up a crime, or to protect your privacy, or just for fun, it's still illegal.
How is that illegal? They asked for a password to their device. He gave a password which then cleaned the device. For all the authorities know, it was a clean device i.e., brand new. Maybe they enjoy regularly installing new OSs using a clean install.
This being illegal is equally as bad them searching devices in the first place without just cause.
They'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you were tampering with potential evidence to convict you. So they'd have to try and prove in court you gave them a password which cleaned the device.
> For all the authorities know, it was a clean device i.e., brand new
Just because you can get away with something doesn't mean it isn't a crime.
Lying to or misleading investigators is a crime, I don't know how to be more clear than that.
They ask to access your files, and you delete your files. I guess that isn't lying per se, but it definitely is destruction of evidence, which falls under the general heading of obstruction of justice. And before you ask, yes, it is still considered evidence even if there's nothing incriminating there. It is considered evidence because an LEO asked for it as part of an investigation.
The problem is that if people do this, the authorities will quickly learn to gain physical access to a device first and make a bit exact copy before doing anything else. (Which they probably already do anyway.)
It's as if you've created a computer game for the cops in which they have one "life", before "game over". But they can easily defeat that by "saving the game" before the risky encounter with your data-eating password monster, to give themselves as many lives as they wish.
Well...except in the case of the disk encryption key being stored in a "secure enclave"-style chip. You don't need to erase the data on the device, just clear the unreadable keystore.
Why bother? If you are happy to delete the data, no doubt you've got a backup online somewhere. So you may as well delete it before you travel and get it back when you need it.
I understand these powers are often used to intimidate and pressure minorities on their way out of the UK too.
For example, a traveller will be questioned about his family in Pakistan. It's a criminal offence not to answer. However the threat that is used is that the person will be detained for long enough that they miss their flight. They'll need to rebook it at 4X the cost with no guarantee they'll be allowed to board the next flight either. These powers are being abused to coerce and haven't been properly tested in court.
The current government (Conservatives) that has so far championed snoopers charter bill, is contemplating the removal of EU human rights protections and proposing reforming workers rights making families financially worse off.
I really doubt they care in the slightest about that.
But perhaps this is the government we deserve as we vote them in, they reflect what is within ourselves.
First time I've heard of Cage. Given the entirely reasonable reasons Mr Rabbani gave for non-compliance I hope he wins his case. He is surely in the right?
The awful treatment of non-white UK citizens at our borders is another problem again, quite possibly due in part to the institutional racism that still exists in our police forces.
Well isn't that a huge hint the authorities should take when an Islamist pressure group, in today's context, feels closer to the general public than the government ?
We all hate those laws. We hate the TSA. We hate the border control overkill checks. We hate the "give us the password" bullshit.
We hate it so much when something suspicious may be happening we automatically assume the suspect is the victim.
Somewhere down the road the gov messed up so bad it's guilty by default until proven innocent into the eye of people on HN, a group of usually pretty well educated people.
Last time I traveled to the US was in 2013. The TSA were a bother, but didn't really stand out compared to US immigration checks, airline policies, being contained in an airplane for 12 hours, my country fiscal policies on return, finding taxis to go from airport to destination and everything.
Yes, the TSA thing is aggravated by it being useless, but I don't expect any general population to know this.
"Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law."
I think the important point to note is that the 'digital strip search' mentioned is used in an arbitrary way and is a great power in the hands of folks not particularly careful about abusing it.
So your argument is torture is OK because they are convicted terrorists?
Or that the US military is pro-Terrorist?
> For example, Cage is animated about the case of Aafia Siddiqui, jailed for 86 years in the US for attempting to murder US officials in Afghanistan and assaulting those who tried to stop her. Siddiqui had wide-ranging links to al-Qaeda and was married to a key plotter behind the 9/11 attacks. At the beginning of her trial she said that jurors should be "subject to genetic testing" to see if they were Zionist or Israeli. She is no terror suspect – her guilt was proved in a court of law. Yet Cage’s profile on Siddiqui – which misses literally all this out – says it has "dedicated itself" to freeing her.
> Aafia Siddiqui and her three children were kidnapped from the streets of Karachi in March 2003. Since then they have been subjected to enforced disappearances, torture and ill-treatment beyond measure. Cageprisoners has dedicated itself to campaigning for Aafia and her family in order to help secure their release and expose those involved in their abuse.
> Others that Cage support include Djamel Beghal, who, following allegations of a plot to blow up the US embassy in Paris, was jailed in France in 2005 for "belonging to a criminal association in relation to preparing an act of terrorism"; and Nizar Trabelsi, convicted in Belgium as part of an al-Qaeda plot to carry out a suicide attack against a military base there holding US soldiers.
> Le Point reported that the Emirati police had been sharing information with the French authorities since the beginning of August 2001. Questions being asked of Beghal confirmed for him that it was the French who were feeding information to the Emirati police during his torture and abuse.
> Anwar Al-Awlaki may be the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, but he was also a lunch guest of military brass at the Pentagon within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Fox News has learned.
Then your assertion they are pro-terrorist doesn't make any sense.
Helping to free people who were tortured at some point during their captivity isn't the same as being "pro-terrorist".
Being a civil rights group that opposes mistreatment of prisoners is going to lead to you representing or seeking to free unsavory people on the basis of their mistreatment (rather than their innocence).
What is a psych evaluation supposed to tell me? The entire article is one sided assertions.
Cage supports Aafia Siddiqui, but the article doesn't say why, or why it's wrong to support her. She was convicted, sure, but of what?
"Five years later she reappeared in Ghazni, Afghanistan, was arrested by Afghan police and held for questioning. While in custody, Siddiqui told the FBI she had gone into hiding but later disavowed her testimony and stated she had been abducted and imprisoned. Supporters believe she was held captive at Bagram Air Force Base as a ghost prisoner—charges the US government denies.
While in custody in Ghazni, police found documents and notes for making bombs plus containers of sodium cyanide in her possession. She was shot in the torso the next day by visiting U.S. FBI and Army personnel, allegedly after shooting at them with a rifle one of the interrogators had placed on the floor. She was extradited and flown to the US where in September 2008 she was indicted on charges of assault and attempted murder of a US soldier in the police station in Ghazni—charges she denied. She was convicted on 3 February 2010 and later sentenced to 86 years in prison."
Seems pretty shady to me. Not unreasonable to think she might have been setup.
Again you only have fact free smears like the he use of "islamic pressure group".
People have rights, even if Britain doesn't recognize them. Right to silence, right to disagreeable opinions, etc. thinking someone deserves release is no crime, even if you are wrong about it.
YouTube's only a platform in the technological sense. Think about what it is in the very basic sense, a raised platform in a public area. While YouTube is public, it is not raised. If you go to YouTube's public marketplace, you must build a raised platform yourself if you want to have one.
It's the difference between me publishing your videos to my YouTube feed and PewDiePie publishing your videos up to his feed.
YouTube actually is "raised" in the sense you describe, relative to other websites which could theoretically host video content (all of them).
This is why people worry, with some justification, about YouTube censoring content. And, symmetrically, it's enough for other people to complain, again with some justification, that YouTube isn't censoring enough content and should be punished for that.
Ok, let's stretch this analogy some more. It's not so much raised, it's just a different market. It's the difference between setting up your platform in your local village vs. doing it three days away in Jerusalem.
I suggest that the relevant governments have always kept closer watch and tighter rein on what people are saying in Jerusalem than on what they're saying in the middle of nowhere.
And recruit them for the spy agencies. Find some small transgression on their device, use it as leverage. I imagine this guy is a high value target for them, given contact with prisoners.
All this data is being stored and shared too, so your passwords, contacts, travel history and web history will be sitting in datacenters forever, just in case you might be useful to them later.
I don't think the police should be able to compel people to disclose their passwords. However, there's a possibility that 'human rights activist' should be taken with a pinch of salt here. CAGE is a pretty shady organization in some respects. For example see this interview with its 'research director' Asim Qureshi (who to be clear, is not the guy featured in the article):
I don't know much about CAGE, and my Googling isn't proving to be terribly enlightening (yet), but:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most
of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that
oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at
the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
That's true but not really relevant to the video that I linked to. The issue is that CAGE has at times crossed the line into offering support for what the scoundrels are doing, rather than just defending their legal rights. For example, Asim Qureshi still has kind words for Mohammed Emwazi even after he committed beheadings. As I said, I am not in favour of the security services having these powers. However, from the fact that the powers are excessive and unjust, it does not follow that all of the people targeted are innocent victims.
They may well have. After watching the video you linked, it seems that there is a very blurry, very nuanced line between supporting the rights of the offender and supporting the offenses, and listening to that interview with a blank-slate understanding of the matter, it seemed as though they were mostly talking past each other.
Again though, my knowledge is short on the subject, but the Mencken quote felt an appropriate addenda to the video you linked, from a variety of ways. Remember that even if CAGE organizers are sympathetic to the goals of those they defend, once they've defended them, they're still defending civil rights.
That interview was a shambles. It's true that in order to protect rights in general you have to defend shady people - however when asked if you agree with FGM/stoning for adultery/homosexuality is evil/etc. your answer should be a point blank, "No". He had valid points at the beginning of the interview but when pressed he doesn't make himself look very good.
>> Remember that even if CAGE organizers are sympathetic to the goals of those they defend, once they've defended them, they're still defending civil rights.
While this is a valid point in general, it is not in this context of showing schedule 7 to be overreaching. If the man in the article works for the CAGE and they actually are known as sympathetic to the goals of terrorists it makes perfect sense to detain him after he returns from a 'work' trip as there are likely valid, evidence based suspicions for it.
How do you reconcile that with the state's legitimate need for discovery and gathering of evidence? We can debate the merits of any specific case, but in general, do you feel that a state has the right to legally issue a warrant and search for evidence?
If so I don't see how compelling someone to hand over a password is any different than searching their home, asking them to open a safe, etc.
Ok... I don't see how that leads to "no one should be compelled to.give up their password." So fine, you get oversight; you're still stuck with the fact that people will be compelled to hand over their creds or face obstruction charges. You're inly addressing instances where you feel that the search was improper.
if MRI would be sensible enough to read memories and thoughts, how long would you think it would take before there would be a law allowing them to dump your brain at an airport...? The sad part is - the only defense is dying of old age or accident before this miracle of science is developed...
We're not at that juncture, and, I wouldn't assume there isn't a way around it. You could still obfuscate information in your brain such that it's hard to decode.
>You could still obfuscate information in your brain such that it's hard to decode.
And that would made you unemployable, subject to arrest, etc.
Political and legal issues don't get solved with technical workarounds (unless they can force the law to change -- which I guess would count as a legal change, not a technical workaround).
Well, I don't think we need to be dogmatic about saying politics is the only solution. I think technology often moves forward when policy fails. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight with everything we have for policy we believe is right.
We're very, very distant of such capability, waitbutwhy published an amazing article on the challenge of mapping and interacting with the brain via Brain Machine Interfaces [0]. If we ever achieve that, it will certainly not look like MRI as we know it today.
An MRI will be never the sensitive, the technology does not have that ability. i.e. the noise is far larger than the signal, so no improvement in technology will overcome that. (It has to read a signal from a single neuron amongst trillions of them.)
It would, at a minimum, require brain surgery and probes. But that's unlikely to be possible without damaging the person.
You have nothing to worry about - ever.
Maybe if they froze, and then took apart a person, atom by atom, and uploaded everything to a simulator.
...despite being told by police that he had “nothing to worry about” and was not suspected of any wrongdoing...
Never talk to the police. Doesn't matter what they say, never, ever talk to the police, about anything, for any reason. Talk to your lawyer. The police are not on your side.
I knew without checking this was going to be about the UK. Expect May to drive through harsher legislation; as she repeats, chanting to us like a one-woman rally, strong and stable, strong and stable, strong and stable...
It's fascinating how Britain seems to have a need to be at the forefront of despicable surveillance and censorship amongst western countries, beating out even the US with their horrific laws. I wonder if it's jealousy over losing their position as head of empire to the US and wanting to one up them in one of the few areas--digital oppression--that they still can. Seems like such school-yard, childish rivalries are often employed to get really nasty atrocities done like the Iraq war and total surveillance. Playing catch-up to US atrocities is a losing game for almost any country, but I have to commend Britain. They have done a decent job keeping up generally, and a superior job beating the US digitally.
New Zealand is planning to implement such powers. Fortunately for us there's only a 5k fine in it for non-compliance. It's scary to see how competent governments (read: dangerous) have implemented their laws.
A 5k fine is still significant, especially if they can apply it for each act of non-compliance. So if they ask you to disclose information that you don't want several times in a single day (and slightly changing what exact information they want to access), you could be hit several times with a 5k fine.
At that stage it should be affordable enough to hire a lawyer to deal with it.
About CAGE from Wikipedia: "The organisation has been criticised as "apologists for terrorism",[7] as a "terrorism advocacy group" and of "propagating the myth of Muslim persecution".[8] While others deny this and claim they are doing "vital work".[7]" and "The journalist Terry Glavin in The National Post described the organisation as "a front for Taliban enthusiasts and al Qaida devotees that fraudulently presents itself a human rights group".[16]".
"CAGE, formerly Cageprisoners Ltd, is a London-based advocacy organisation which aims to "empower communities impacted by the War on Terror" and "highlight and campaign against state policies pertaining to the War on Terror".[2][3] The organisation was formed to raise awareness of the plight of the detainees held at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere as a result of the War on Terror and has worked closely with former detainees held by the United States and campaigns on behalf of current detainees held without trial.[2][4][5]"
As with the other response to your comment: there will always be some on the right that claim this. The truth tends to lie in examining the details and actions of people, rather than asssuming that an organisation standing up for the rights of muslims is necessarily going to be a terrorism-supporting organisation. I don't know in this case, but we give a lot more leeway to extreme churches, for example.
In Qatar, it is illegal to criticize the ruling family, for example. It is also illegal to promote methods of circumventing the various internet laws, such as VPNs. Sites that are perceived to fall foul of this, get blocked. It is very irritating; I got in the habit of using Tor for everything.
what if you don't want some law enforcement chump to know a password you potentially use elsewhere such as website, and will have to change after they've had a look.
couldn't you unlock, and change the password to "changeme" for them.
I suggest using https://www.passwordcard.org/en and telling them where the passwords stop and start and make a new card once they release you.
Cage is a terrorist sympathizing group, and this asshole is an enabler. I hope he spends time in jail and is forces to give up his passwords before being released.
I think if your comment draws downvotes, it would be because it implies that simply because the UK is in a better place overall, that efforts to improve are unnecessary. Just because you're doing okay doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying to improve. This applies so much more heavily as scale increases, also. A country should always strive to do what is best for its citizens, and for that, we need to always be examining potentially problematic areas.
