[Gllug] [OT] Technobabble

[Doug Winter]

Tom Schutzer-Weissmann wrote:
> Today's Guardian, someone called Kitty Ussher bigs up the need for 90
> days:
> 
> "Computer hard drives have to be decoded (in one instance, I am told,
> the data involved, if printed out, would be 66,000ft high)."
> 
> Surely this is technobabble - would one have any more of a chance
> breaking strong encryption on a hard drive in 90 days than in 14? 

That doesn't matter - the key bit is whether they would be able to 
charge the person in question beforehand.

Since non-disclosure of encryption keys is an offense, they can charge 
this hypothetical person with this, and then continue to gather evidence.

So far none of the examples I have seen actually justify anything more 
than 7 days.  The other much touted example was "that house in leeds 
that was full of explosives and they couldn't enter it for more than 14 
days since it took that long to make it safe".

Hello!  Someone has a house full of bombs and you don't think you can 
charge them!?  Scary that the police and the prime minister are so 
ignorant of the law really.

doug.


-- 
http://adju.st/
Cricket is not the new football. It is the new cricket, which is a
hundred times better. -- Lawrence Booth
6973E2CF: 2C95 66AD 1596 37D2 41FC 609F 76C0 A4EC 6973 E2CF
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug