> you can be sentenced to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment

Yeah, but that involves a charge, and you get a lawyer.

I would have refused to answer anything without first consulting a lawyer; I won't take legal advice from the investigating policeman. "You say I have to answer? Fine, I'll answer if my lawyer confirms that." What can go wrong? The worst that can happen is that they charge you (with something?) for refusing to answer. Voila: legal advice.

I guess Craig's devices didn't have much of interest on them; he travels a lot, and has been mauled by the law more than once. So he can give up the passwords with confidence. And presumably they already knew what meetings he'd attended, with whom.

Yeah but, you refuse to give the information, so that's a crime; even with a lawyer you're then liable for a maximum of two years imprisonment.

That's the fucker about these laws; in a lot of constitutions (note that the UK does not have a constitution so I'm not sure how it works over there), you have the right to not provide evidence that may lead to your conviction. But rules like this go counter to those.

Maximum of two years, in practice means you'll be out in a few months on probation. You'll keep most of your life and get a story to tell for the rest of it.

Worth calling their bluff, I reckon.

Months in prison is worth what now?

You're gonna leave your family, lose your job, have to explain to everybody you know that you were in jail for a while. For a good story?

For most people in the US, being in jail, even if only for a couple months would mean losing their home too.

Possible months, for a new experience, and perhaps the consequences aren't so catastrophic. Lots of people go to jail and live long and happy lives afterwards.

Don't live in fear, that is not worth it.

You do understand that in many places (and certainly in the U.S.) a criminal conviction, even a minor one, can mean the crushing destruction of your professional career, job prospects and all sorts of future opportunities. It's a shit show of a discriminatory system that keeps this alive but it's what it is and very real.

For millions of people it would be a disaster that you don't just smile your way out of with some optimism and a laughingly good story. It's not just about "don't live in fear", Instead it's often a harshly practical matter of "oh shit, i'm going to jail for months, the bank will foreclose on my home, my job will fire me and my kids are fucked".... You might be okay with that, but it's no fucking joke for many, no matter how lightly they try to take the burden.

Yes and if you force them to prosecute, only then can you take it to an appeals court to strike down an unconstitutional law

The system sucks but this is how it works

Far more likely that you'd just bankrupt your family, lose your home and your job, only to have the courts uphold that same unconstitutional law. I'd respect the hell of anyone who tried and sacrificed everything they had to force the courts to confirm that the constitution is being ignored to satisfy an oppressive and power hungry government, but I sure as hell wouldn't recommend it or be able/willing to myself.

How does this work? If they have to provide writing what's the point? Surely the individual could just wipe their device in that time?

If they confiscate the device during the initial detention then them issuing written notice that they need the password doesn't really change much since they're going to be getting access to your device whether you like it or not.

He was detained in a room. I am pretty sure there was a printer nearby and they could give him those documents in writing.

re-reading the act, it actually says "must be given in writing or (if not in writing) must be given in a manner that produces a record of its having been given;"

So being given verbally with a tape recorder or note-taker recording the interaction is actually sufficient. Sounds like the police had exactly that.

>Surely the individual could just wipe their device in that time?

And then they charge them with obstruction of justice and destruction of potential evidence.

Man, I totally forgot my password. Over the last 3 weeks I started forgetting passwords, only passwords. (Make note to mention this offhand to my dr at next appointment)

"Don't worry, we'll keep you imprisoned until you remember or manage to brute force it. We also don't care what you told your doctor..."

See how power works?

The anti-terrorism act used in this case allows detention of no more than 1 hour, or no more than 6 hours under certain conditions. Arrest involves other charges so what you described could happen, but not without turns.

Having withheld evidence is the crime, they will be able to prove you did that. Even if you were otherwise innocent.

How could they tell if you withheld anything or genuinely forgot? It's a stressful situation. I'm not sure if I'll remember even my mother's name in such situation.

> How could they tell if you withheld anything or genuinely forgot? It's a stressful situation. I'm not sure if I'll remember even my mother's name in such situation.

You are not giving them password so you are withholding it from them. Law doesn't have exemption for whatever excuse you are trying to use. So it's jail time for you. There is no way to prove you forgot it. And this law logic is "guilty until proven innocent".

What bothers me even worse is situation when you think you knew password but it didn't worked. Had similar situation with LastPass, I was entering one password and no matter what it failed to open vault. Tried different spellings nothing, only after a month of frantic thinking I entered correct one. Most likely I would be accused of lying to cops

As I said in another comment - even though obviously there is no objective way to prove it, like many other things in the justice system it's about what the judge/jury will believe. If they pull up logs that show you've used your password just before your interrogation then you can bet you'll be found guilty even if you really forgot the password.

Those are the kinds of cases that should be handled through jury nullification - too bad it's a crime to explain that right and how it should be used to jurors.