A list of puns related to "Key disclosure law"
On privacytools.io - Key disclosure law Canada is listed under the category "Key disclosure laws apply". This is incorrect. In Canada citizens have the right to deny access to an encrypted or password protected device on the grounds that providing access to the device may incriminate themselves.
The site links to the wikipedia page on key disclosure law that cites two sources (1, 2) that no longer exist.
That are many articles and examples online that talk about the fact that a defendant is not required to reveal passwords or encryption keys on the basis of being a witness in proceedings against themselves.
Based on this I believe that Canada should be listed under the section "Key disclosure laws don't apply".
Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?
Scenario:
Question: How might you have a passphrase you can use to repeatedly unlock your encryption, but also be able to reasonably assert you are incapable of providing that password when demanded to do so by the government, without running afoul of wilful refusal to comply or wilful destruction of evidence laws?
Stipulation: Any solution must be plausible and should have some evidence of its existence and use that can be provided to the government.
Possible solutions:
You only know part of your passphrase. The other part is provided to you on-demand by a third party, who is either unknown to you or completely beyond the reach of the government prosecuting you, and they will refuse to provide their portion of the passphrase once you have been arrested. Your portion of the passphrase is long enough that it can't be cracked with brute-force. The third party's portion of the passphrase is even longer - long enough that you could reasonably claim you did not memorize it, despite repeated usage.
If the passphrase is long enough for you to reasonably claim to have never memorized it, and you have it inscribed somewhere, there may be a window of opportunity for that
... keep reading on reddit ➡I have a program that at random times creates a encrypted file of a random size and saves it to disk. I do this so anyone that accesses my computer will be unable to tell my sensitive files from the random files. I do not have anyway to decrypt the random files or prove they only contain random data (they are encrypted with a randomly generated 64 character password. The password is never saved to disk).
I know that in Canada you can be made to disclose your encryption keys.
I want to know if I would face any legal repercussions for being unable to decrypt the files were I to be ordered to by a court
According to wikipedia (the citations are gone, so I am going by memory) in a criminal case, the court can compel the defendant to give up their encryption keycodes. While that might make for an interesting topic (well, not really) my question is only related to civil law - do these key disclosure laws only apply to crim law or can a judge presiding over a civil case that is dealing with say, a locked iPhone or an encrypted hard drive also compel the defendant into giving up passcodes?
Learned new info recently from HHS Link: COVID-19 and HIPAA: Disclosures to law enforcement, paramedics, other first responders and public health authorities (hhs.gov)
> Yes, the HIPAA Privacy Rule permits a covered entity to disclose the protected health information (PHI) of an individual who has been infected with, or exposed to, COVID-19, with law enforcement, paramedics, other first responders, and public health authorities1 without the individual’s HIPAA authorization.
Apparently, this is the same standard applied to other infectious diseases, including HIV. However, why is there no notice requirement, even if patients are only notified after the fact (after law enforcement or health dept. gets the information)?
Yet, at the same time, a 2018 article discussed how hard it is for people to get access to their own medical records: Getting Your Medical Records Is Too Hard, a New Study Finds
Why are third parties able to get medical records, but the patients themselves have to go through hoops! Need new laws.
A lot of talk online recently surrounding COVID-19 vaccines and their cost per dose being NDA protected. How is this not a breach of duty of disclosure from government to the taxpayer?
https://preview.redd.it/soca25dgih551.jpg?width=562&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b77adadc7f708155ef803471979a17def0e88c2e
Update, I read the tenth annual weather report required by law, and updated this.
According to government documents the military, various colleges, and private corporations, including Humble Oil and Esso Oil, which are now part of Exxon Mobil were all involved in weather modification research. They have a major conflict of interest and both corporations and the government knew that pollution was having a negative impact on the weather even back then, yet didn't tell the public.
https://zacherydtaylor.blogspot.com/2020/05/forgotten-history-exposing-illusion-of.html
In 1958 they passed a law requiring annual reports be submitted to the President and Congress and eventually to the American people. Just as this research was expanding in 1968 Lyndon Johnson signed a law repealing that, so disclosure was no longer mandated by law.
I try to be reasonably skeptical about HAARP and Chemtrails; but this is official admission that some aspects of it are true, even if other details are probably exaggerated. Furthermore, it shows that they're trying to do their research in secret.
The recommendations towards the end of the report are the opposite of what they're doing. The strongest criticism of the repeal of this law was at the beginning of the Appendix, which many people might be inclined to skip. They strongly recommend that either the law be reinstated or another disclosure law be passed and the public be involved in the decision making process, which hasn't been done.
Furthermore, Philip Corso claims that he began sharing alien technology shortly after Roswell. If this is true then there's a strong possibility that additional shared technology might include weather modification.
This research expanded shortly after Roswell.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB588
Basically, it requires both public and private animal shelters (including rescue groups) to disclose in writing a dog's bite history to a potential new owner if the dog has broken a human's skin when it was 4 months or older in age. They must also obtain signed confirmation of receipt of the history. Violations incur a fine up to $500.
I think this is a good first step, though I wish it were even stricter because I worry that shelters will lie about knowing or institute a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy at intake. But hopefully it will reduce the number of people who get an aggressive animal dumped on them by a shelter hiding the dog’s past. Stupid flower crowns notwithstanding.
Title is paraphrased quote directly from Doc Searls in a fun and interesting talk between Doc Searls and Simon Phipps at freenode live last year talking about how GDPR and regulatory attempts to solve privacy are failing to address the real issue — our lack of agency of privacy in a digital world.
It's a must watch if you haven't yet. https://youtu.be/oOFuQLTVdZc?t=107
Please note that this site uses cookies to personalise content and adverts, to provide social media features, and to analyse web traffic. Click here for more information.