[Gllug] Editors

[Tom Gilbert]

* David Freeman (freemadi at yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
>  --- Tom Gilbert <tom at linuxbrit.co.uk> wrote: > * William Palfreman
> (william at palfreman.com) wrote:
> > > so people can be forced to incriminate themselves (or go to jail)
> > 
> > I'm sorry, but this is such a bullshit sentence.
> > 
> > Either you are forced to reveal you have broken the law (i.e you have
> > indulged in an illegal activity) or you show that you aren't hiding
> > anything illegal.
> 
> This is also BS, what happened to the right to remain silent? what
> about the right outlined in the Human rights act to not incriminate
> your self?

The right to remain silent is so that you cannot be cooerced into false
testimony. You cannot be forced to have kiddy porn on your hard drive
(for example).

> > There's nothing wrong (IMO) with criminals being forced to
> > incriminate
> > themselves, and by definition innocent people can't incriminate
> > themselves because they haven't done anything wrong.
> 
> Its all about the right to remain silent and innocent till proven
> guilty!
>  
> > It's all very well saying "but the government could frame you", but
> > that's just paranoia and conspiracy theorism.
> 
> is it now? what happens if there is a good chance you will nock the
> government out of office? surely they can use the law enforcement
> forces to get all your encrypted data, not as far fetched as you may
> thing. Just think back to the 30's in a country not that far away!

Conspiracy theories. Boring.

> > I encrypt sensitive mails using gpg, but you can be damn sure I'd
> > give
> > up the key if someone suspected me of doing something dodgy - I would
> > _want_ to show I wasn't breaking the law.
> 
> ooh, you would provide a good target for the application of information
> theory. If you only encrypt sensitive data it can be seen that the
> information that is encrypted is of some sensitive nature and through
> coralation of time, destination etc... you can get all sorts of info!
> 
> Remember, knowledge is information with context. You are providing the
> information in the form of the encrypted email, they are applying
> context by knowing you are only encrypting certain emails!

That's correct, they are welcome to. I encrypt emails containing
password for newly setup accounts, for example - do you think I give a
crap if anyone works that out for themselves? No, I just don't want the
stuff so easily sniffed.

Tom.
-- 
   .^.    .-------------------------------------------------------.
   /V\    | Tom Gilbert, London, England | http://linuxbrit.co.uk |
 /(   )\  | Open Source/UNIX consultant  | tom at linuxbrit.co.uk    |
  ^^-^^   `-------------------------------------------------------'

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug