Interesting in two different ways
 

Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool, was arrested in May 2009 ...

He was formally asked to disclose his password but failed to do so, which is an offence ...

Officers are still trying to crack the code on the computer to examine its contents.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11479831

Why was he arrested? On what case was filed against this man?

From what I read, the police were investigating a child pornography case ... but what he was charged with is not revealing his password which is an offense under their laws.

Normally there are two reasons for not revealing your password to authorities. One is you have something to hide. The other is just on principal. In this case since the authorities had him arrested for obstruction of justice, I would say he's got something to hide. Then again, I haven't read the article or done any digging on the subject. I watch a lot of Law and Order, Criminal Minds, and CSI.

It is like the requirement in some jurisdictions that when asked by a policeman, you must give your correct name.

If he's a kid trying to with-hold some lame porn, he may be just plain stupid.

If he's a budding anarchist/terrorist with stuff on the machine which will incriminate his fellow a/ts, then he's well trained.

If he's a child pornographer/paedophile who's fighting hard to stay out of jail and keep his suppliers uncompromised, he deserves to be there.

This is not a 5th amendment issue because the UK has no 5th.

Encryption is very effective.

Even 50 character can eventually be broken, even full alphanumeric.

I find a number of things foggy here. :confused: He was arrested a year and a half ago for kiddy porn. If they had enough evidence to make the arrest he should be convicted and hammer his ass, …...but he wasn't convicted for that.

A half year later he WAS convicted for not giving the system what they wanted. …………… but not sentenced for over a year.:wobbly:


"Drage was previously of good character so the immediate custodial sentence handed down by the judge in this case shows just how seriously the courts take this kind of offence…"

"It sends a robust message out to those intent on trying to mask their online criminal activities that they will be taken before the courts with the ultimate sanction,…."

It would seem that the courts concern is not the protection of our kids, but is a frustrated fist for a lack of power at the present moment. I need more info to have an opinion about this. :shrug:

That is also my reading; using one power due to the lack of another.


Perhaps, but they seem to be having a bit of a problem (1+ years) doing so.

Maybe they'll give it to Signals Directorate in MI6 as a training exercise.

I trust they will avoid trying brute force! :roflmao:

The Brits using brute force?

They'll just break the puter's will with repeats of Coronation Street on Beta.

"Hello. Bletchley Park? Do you still have the Enigma team together? We could use some help."

If they brute force it, there's only 65331862350007090609669026715805782053714371047295 4871543071966369497141477376 possibilities. :yikes: