[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
RE: Some legal trouble with TOR in France
- To: <or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Some legal trouble with TOR in France
- From: "Tony" <Tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:35:08 +0100
- Delivered-to: archiver@seul.org
- Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@seul.org
- Delivered-to: or-talk@seul.org
- Delivery-date: Sun, 14 May 2006 10:35:15 -0400
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcZ3XwszAdpkLM6+RgGas/m8UzqRHQAAjl+QAABTSjA=
- Thread-topic: Some legal trouble with TOR in France
Nb - an interesting question arises with the use of TrueCrypt, etc. that
have passkeys that can unlock different levels of data. If you have
dummy volumes and provide the passkeys to just those have you met your
legal requirements?
The implication under the RIP act is that you have.
(2) A person subject to a requirement under subsection (1)(b) to
make a disclosure of any information in an intelligible form shall be
taken to have complied with that requirement if- (a) he makes, instead,
a disclosure of any key to the protected information that is in his
possession; and
(b) that disclosure is made, in accordance with the notice imposing
the requirement, to the person to whom, and by the time by which, he was
required to provide the information in that form.
So unless the notice specified exactly what data they wanted access to
(which presumably they would already have a record of to request it),
then providing that the notice only requires access to a specified Disk
or volume then it would seem you have met those obligations by providing
a dummy volume passkey.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Dave Page
Sent: 14 May 2006 15:00
To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Some legal trouble with TOR in France
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 03:58:06PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 02:32:50PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> > Under the British "Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act", they
> > would simply confiscate the entire machine, demand any
> > authentication tokens required to access it, and lock you up if you
> > refused to surrender them. I believe similar laws exist in most EU
> > jurisdictions now.
> Tony's point was that you could arrange not to have the authentication
> tokens anymore. You better hope they believe you when you say you
> don't have it, though.
Not having the authentication tokens counts as refusing to surrender
them.
Dave
--
Dave Page <grimoire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jabber: grimoire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx