Nations differ greatly in the details of how they implement important disclosure laws. Some, like Australia, give law enforcement sweeping powers to force assistance in decrypting each party`s data. Some, such as Belgium, which deal with self-incrimination, only allow the police to force the assistance of non-suspects. Some only require certain third parties, such as telecom operators, certification providers, or crypto service managers, to provide decryption assistance. In all cases, an arrest warrant is usually required. Article 69 of the Telecommunications Act provides that the disclosure of encrypted information is permitted only in the context of a telecommunications case and only if it has been authorized by a court decision. A problematic aspect of key disclosure is that it results in a complete compromise of all data that has been encrypted with that key in the past or in the future. Time-limited encryption schemes such as those of Desmedt et al.[2] only allow decryption for a limited period of time. The article proceeds as follows. The first part describes the existing methods to bypass encryption and its limitations. Part II addresses legal and policy issues related to alternatives to exceptional access and forced disclosure. We argue that the latter option is the most viable policy option, that it can be designed to address the self-incrimination and privacy of the Charter, and that it would maintain the current balance between freedom and interests in the fight against crime. [10] 5 (1) Subject to a provision of another Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of information, an organ of the Government of Canada may, on its own initiative or upon request, disclose information to the head of a receiving institute of the Government of Canada whose title is set out in Schedule 3.
or to a person designated by the head of that host institution, if the disclosing body is satisfied that an authorized official may, in the course of an investigation, apply to a judge to order that person to disclose encrypted communications. A judge may also issue a search warrant to a police officer to have access to information, code or technology capable of converting or deciphering encrypted programs or data stored or available on that computer in a readable and understandable format or text for the purpose of investigating a crime. The official may also require any person in possession of decryption information which he grants to him or to the authorised person access to the decryption information necessary for the decryption of the data necessary for the purposes of investigating a criminal offence. (a) the disclosure contributes to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the recipient institution or to the exercise of its responsibilities under an Act of Parliament or other legal authority in relation to activities that undermine the security of Canada; and section 50 requires the person to whom it is addressed, where a disclosure obligation has been imposed, to use each key in his or her possession to access or present the information in an intelligible form and to disclose the information in an intelligible form. Alternatively, the person can disclose the key themselves. Zimbabwean law allows security and law enforcement agencies to impose “disclosure obligations” on individuals with respect to encrypted information if they believe that an encrypted information key is in the possession of that person and that a disclosure obligation is necessary to prevent or detect a serious crime in the interest of national security. or in the interest of the country`s economic well-being. They must also presume that the requirement is proportionate to what its imposition is intended to achieve and that it is not reasonably possible for them to obtain the encrypted information in an intelligible form without an obligation to disclose. Non-compliance is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment, a fine or both.
Important disclosure laws, also known as mandatory key disclosure, are laws that require individuals to hand over cryptographic keys to law enforcement agencies. The objective is to provide access to the material for the purposes of confiscation or digital forensics and to use it either as evidence in court or to enforce national security interests. Similarly, mandatory decryption laws require owners of encrypted data to provide decrypted data to law enforcement. [1] Where protected information has fallen into the hands of a public authority, the public authority may impose a disclosure obligation on an individual, usually with the written authorization of a judge, if the public authority has reason to believe that: (b) the author`s compliance with the reservations and control of the disclosed information is consistent with the effective and responsible disclosure of the information; Unlike exceptional access, a forced disclosure system would not require encryption providers to provide law enforcement with backdoor access to encrypted data. Instead, encryption users should either hand over their keys or provide plain text if the police have independently established a legal authority to access the data. [111] If they do not, users could be charged with a criminal offence and face criminal penalties such as imprisonment. [112] Section 27 of the Electronic Commerce Act 2000 allows a district court to issue a search warrant for a specific location and persons found there if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that evidence of a criminal offence under or in connection with the Act can be found there. These arrest warrants authorized all officers named, among other things, to enter the premises, search the premises and persons present therein, and seize anything they reasonably consider to be evidence or related to a contravention of the law. Where the item entered is electronic information or communication that cannot be easily accessed or rendered in an intelligible form, the official may request the disclosure of the electronic information or communication in an intelligible form. However, Article 28 provides that this does not include “the disclosure or facilitation of the entry of unique data such as codes, passwords, algorithms, private cryptographic keys or other data that may be necessary to make the information or electronic communications understandable”. In the United Kingdom, a “technical capability notice” can be sent to telecommunications providers by the Secretary of State, who must ensure that certain requirements are met. Such communications impose all applicable obligations mentioned above on supplier and require supplier to take all appropriate measures to comply with such obligations.
The obligations that can be included in a communication on technical capabilities are the definition in secondary law and the ability to decrypt encrypted data. If the Secretary of State is considering issuing a communication in which electronic protection is to be repealed, he must take into account the technical feasibility and expected costs of compliance. Failure to comply with the obligations arising from a notification of technical capacity is not a criminal offence, but may be enforced by the civil courts. Security and law enforcement agencies that require a judge`s written authorization may also impose disclosure requirements to allow access to encrypted data, subject to certain criteria. Failure to comply with a disclosure requirement is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment, a fine or both. Canada implements key disclosures through a broad interpretation of “existing wiretap, search, seizure and support procedures”; [8] In a 1998 statement, Cabinet Secretary John Manley stated, “Arrest warrants and support orders also apply to situations where encryption occurs – to obtain decrypted material or decryption keys.” [9] (b) for the purposes of any other disclosure of such information, whether in the course of a proceeding or against an institution that is not an institution of the Government of Canada, a privilege or obligation to obtain consent has been waived .. . .