[Gllug] [OT] Technobabble

[Peter Grandi]

>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 02:03:46 +0000, Tom Schutzer-Weissmann
>>> <trmsw at yahoo.co.uk> said:

trmsw> Today's Guardian, someone called Kitty Ussher bigs up the
trmsw> 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)."

trmsw> Surely this is technobabble - would one have any more of
trmsw> a chance breaking strong encryption on a hard drive in 90
trmsw> days than in 14?

Perhaps, but _sifting_ the data and analyzing it can take a long
time, even if it is in clear.

trmsw> Since it's the Guardian perhaps I should "ask Jack"...

>From what has been reported, the comment above seems indeed
technobabble to me, because the proposed 90 days are before
making any charge.

If there were a hard drive to examine, and the suspect were
charged with a crime, and the charge were supported by anything
other than suspicion, most likely a judge could be persuaded to
let the police hold the suspect until the contents of the drive
were analysed. IIRC there are quite extensive terms for the
pretrial detention of suspects that have been charged, subject
to "habeas corpus" review.

What the government is asking, the 90 days of detention before
bringing charges, is more or less equivalent to:

* The police can suspend "habeas corpus" for three months
  on suspicion.

* The police have the power to inflict a sentence of up to 90
  days without alleging, never mind proving, a crime.

For "police" read ''the home secretary and his prime minister''.

  Note that in many countries the authorities can detain suspect
  for years before bringing charges, or between bringing them
  and a court hearing about them, or before trial:
    http://WWW.IHT.com/articles/2005/11/06/news/prisons.php

Note also that from I have read since the proposed rules are
about powers, there is likely little possibility of judicial
review of such ''sentences'' (indeed their whole rationale is to
avoid bringing matters to court), and there would be nothing but
public opinion preventing the police from holding a suspect for
multiple consecutive such 3 month ''sentences'', because they
don't have to be motivated (no charges!).

It amounts to a heavy dose of ''round up the usual suspects'',
and it seems that its sole rationale is that the pollsters tell
Mssrs. Blair, Brown and Clarke that most (not-that-young,
well-to-do, my-safety-at-any-cost-to-someone-else) voters want
something harsh to be done ''just in case'' as long as the
potential victims do not look like most voters (cfr. ASBOs):

  http://news.BBC.co.UK/1/low/uk_politics/4422086.stm

   «He said he hoped MPs "do not rue the day" they rejected his
    call to allow police to detain terror suspects for up to 90
    days without charging them.»

  http://news.BBC.co.UK/1/low/uk_politics/4423678.stm

   «Tony Blair has accused some MPs of being out of touch with
    the public»

It seems to me a bit of ruthless electioneering, in the New
Labour ''permanent campaign'' style:

  http://news.BBC.co.UK/1/low/uk_politics/4423678.stm

   «He said Tory leadership contenders David Cameron and David
    Davis had "crippled" themselves politically by supporting
    the 28-day compromise.»

Technical times for hard drive scanning and analysis are neither
here not there...

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug