
Human rights activist risks prison over refusal to disclose password to police - robteix
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/cage-director-faces-jail-over-refusal-disclose-password-during-airport-interrogation-681177289
======
k-mcgrady
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.

~~~
coldtea
> _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.

~~~
rhizome
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?"

~~~
white-flame
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.

------
amarant
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

~~~
lr4444lr
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?

(I'm assuming US-centric here, of course.)

~~~
Bartweiss
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?

~~~
lr4444lr
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.

~~~
3131s
> _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.

~~~
valuearb
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.

~~~
Jach
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.

~~~
valuearb
If you are talking about the US, If you don't have a lawyer, one will be
appointed for you.

You still don't have to answer questions and should never answer questions
until you can consult with a lawyer.

The classic video from a law professor and former criminal defense attorney,
with a response from an active police detective.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)

"I will never talk to a police officer under any circumstances"

~~~
Jach
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.

------
aboutthat
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 UK should restore the right to silence.

~~~
CommanderData
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.

------
bogle
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.

~~~
adnam
It's worth pointing out that while some outlets (Guardian etc) report it as
just another NGO, Cage is an Islamist pressure group.

~~~
driverdan
So? Cage could be a straight up terrorist group and this incident would still
be wrong. There's a reason why due process exists.

~~~
tomp
Arresting a member of a terorist group would be wrong? What are you smoking?!

~~~
jstanley
You arrest people for committing actual crimes, not just for associating with
groups of people that you don't like.

~~~
adnam
No, you arrest people _suspected_ of having committed crimes and give them due
process of law

~~~
danesparza
Love your enthusiasm. You're close, but not quite right. From Wikipedia
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process))

"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.

------
foldr
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):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0n-08I3P8s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0n-08I3P8s)

~~~
bmelton
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.

~~~
foldr
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.

~~~
bmelton
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.

~~~
k-mcgrady
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.

------
jamiethompson
We're heading towards needing to travel sans devices if we want any kind of
privacy, but then doing so in itself could be seen as cause for suspicion.

------
mm4
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...

~~~
unityByFreedom
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.

~~~
coldtea
> _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).

~~~
unityByFreedom
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.

------
mdekkers
_...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.

------
EliRivers
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...

------
mnm1
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.

------
tjpnz
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.

~~~
daemin
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.

------
schaeff
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]".

~~~
k-mcgrady
Also from Wikipedia:

"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]"

------
frabbit
He has now been actually charged under the Terrorism Act:
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/17/cage-
campaig...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/17/cage-campaign-
group-director-muhammed-rabbani-charged-under-terrorism-act)

------
kazinator
Not disclosing a password that you allegedly know corresponds to what George
Orwell called _" thoughtcrime"_ in _Nineteen Eighty-Four_.

------
agent3bood
This site is blocked in the middle east.

~~~
triplesec
which country? Do you have an idea why?

~~~
devrandomguy
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.

The block looks like this: [https://dohanews.co/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09/qatar-block.p...](https://dohanews.co/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09/qatar-block.png)

------
Gaelan
Can we get a (UK) in the title?

------
jlebrech
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](https://www.passwordcard.org/en) and telling
them where the passwords stop and start and make a new card once they release
you.

~~~
kortex
Or maybe you shouldn't have to give up a password without a subpoena. Or at
all. They can seize it, let them try to decrypt it.

------
gojomo
It'd be helpful if HN headlines for such news, where law & enforcement varies
a lot, mentioned the jurisdictions involved.

This is in the UK.

------
jeena
I'd say the terrorists are winning.

~~~
MrZongle2
I can't speak for the UK, but here in the US it should have been evident as
soon as the PATRIOT Act was passed.

------
blazespin
Just say you forgot. Honestly, you can't convict someone for forgetting
something.

------
smokedoutraider
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.

