Topic: Bitcoin, the UK, and encryption. - page 2. (Read 2734 times)

The answer is to store your wallet using TrueCrypt (http://www.truecrypt.org/)

Using the hidden volume facility you can create one 'container' which has two 'partitions' (volumes) each one having it's own password.  In the 'innocent' volume you could put a wallet containing a tiny amount of BTC for plausible deniability and in the hidden volume you put the wallet containing your massive stash.

When you're asked to reveal your password you give the password for the 'innocent' volume containing the wallet with the small balance and you've complied with the regulations/court order/whatever.

No-one can prove whether the TrueCrypt volume contains a hidden volume or not because without the password to decrypt it it's just random noise, which is what a TrueCrypt volume would contain with or without a hidden volume inside it.

Regards
MonkeyThink

So you just "forgot" the password to your funds, Mr Smith? That's very convenient, wouldn't you say?

The way the law is written, it is assumed you know the password unless you can prove otherwise.


This is different to criminal proceedings, this would just be contempt of court, and happens quite regularly when people move assets out of the jurisdiction of the court.

If you're Irish, remember this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18396329

Yes, I am. I saw an Aussie commentator mention a new law there and how it might affect Bitcoin, I am pretty familiar with RIPA but hadn't considered it's impact on Bitcoin, if any.


It's a bad law, and very few people have been prosecuted under it.


Considering a couple of things here. This week's budget gave the HMRC the power to simply remove money from your bank account if they believe you owe them money. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/willardfoxton2/100012871/did-you-spot-this-budget-gives-hmrc-power-to-raid-your-bank-account-like-wonga/)

Those of us who are active tax resisters are already fearful of holding fiat in the UK, this is just another nail in the coffin. And considering that Bitcoin will naturally attract money launderers, I'm wondering whether HMRC *might* decide they like the idea of seizing funds/Bitcoins using this law.


This orders are given in secret, so we wouldn't have a lot of data. But I'm inclined to agree that this isn't a likely scenario.


Yes, I also reviewed it when it came in and was critical of it. A bad idea, turned into a bad law, and poorly enforced.

Thanks for your thoughts.

If that did happen in a divorce the judge would make the judgement on the presumption that the bitcoins are available and can be used. If the husband/wife still refused to give up the bitcoins after the ruling the judge would send them to prison.

In a UK divorce proceeding you need to prove that you're acting honestly. If the judge has any suspicions that you're withholding assets they will make the ruling on the presumption that the assets they think you're hiding are still under your control.

Would it be that hard to determine if someone forgot the passphrase?  No cash moving out of the account for a while = likely forgotten.  Cash moved out yesterday = the person is lying.

Seems like this law would be necessary too though.  Imagine a divorce trial where someone took their combined life savings and threw it into BitCoin, then refused to give up the password.

As stupid and harmful as this law is, I think you are reaching here.

Encryption has been used to protect valuable things for longer than bitcoin has existed, and it still continues to do so even with the existence of RIPA.

Just because the police can force you to decrypt something and show it to them does not mean that they get to take it off of you. Normal property law still applies.

Your scenario regarding a company employee being compelled to hand over their employer's encryption keys and not tell anyone they had done so could in theory already happen, because like I say, encryption already protects more things than bitcoins. Yet it hasn't been an issue as far as I am aware.

A properly formed request under RIPA is signed by a judge or senior police officer and is in connection with a specific investigation. You are normally free to discuss it within relevant people within the company and with legal counsel. Even ones that say they are covered by the Official Secrets Act can't stop you getting legal advice.

I have been in receipt of a couple of RIPA subject access requests (in relation to Internet hosting, not bitcoin) and where they have asked for decryption of customer data they have taken me at my word when I have explained that I do not have access to the secret keys for it.

Once again, I do not agree with this law. I protested it when it was implemented. But it hasn't caused the sky to fall up until now.

In the UK, we have a particularly insidious piece of legislation called the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000. One of the lovely parts of this bill is that the UK courts can put you in jail for 2 years if you refuse to divulge the keys to any encryption if so directed by a court.

I wonder, could this act be applied to encrypted wallets, Bitcoin private keys etc.? Even for brain wallets, you would have to "prove" you had forgotten the passphrases - yes, ridiculous, I know.

What's more, an employee of a UK based exchange could, theoretically (under this act) be ordered to divulge his employer's private keys, and this employee would be legally barred from telling anyone this had happened (under threat of prosecution).

There are a few chilling thoughts for the day.