UK Law Enforcement Trying To Force Man They've Never Charged With A Crime To Decrypt His Computers
from the see-smoke,-presume-arson dept
British hacker Lauri Love stands accused of causing "millions of dollars" in damages to US government computers -- charges he's been facing for more than two years. These charges originate in the US, but it's the UK that's been trying to get Love to give up his encryption keys for the past couple of years.
Under RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000), the UK government can charge Love with "failure to cooperate" by refusing to comply with the order to decrypt files. To date it has not done so, despite Love blowing off its demands since the middle of February 2014.
The only charges Love is facing have been levied by the US Department of Justice. He has fought extradition for the past couple of years and the UK government has yet to make any progress on that front. However, UK law enforcement has stepped up its efforts to force Love to turn over passwords and keys. J.M. Porup at Ars Technica has seen a copy of the request and has more details.
In the NCA's submission to the court, which Ars has seen a copy of, the government demanded that Love turn over the passwords and encryption keys to his confiscated devices. The devices in question include a Samsung laptop, a Fujitsu Siemens laptop, a Compaq computer tower, an SD card, and a Western Digital hard drive. The NCA in particular wants Love to decrypt TrueCrypt files on the SD card and external drive.This seems like a very severe demand from the National Crime Authority, considering it still hasn't -- despite two years and two arrests -- seen fit to bring criminal charges against Love. This is also its second attempt -- one using a separate legal authority (not RIPA Section 49, as was used earlier) -- to compel Love to comply with its demands.
Meanwhile, Love is (logically) suing the UK government for the return of his devices.
Love's argument in his civil case is that if the police aren't going to charge him with a crime, they should return his property. "The problem is that the NCA are effectively arguing that any information that cannot be read and comprehended by the police has a presumption of guilt," Love told Ars in an e-mailed statement.As Love points out, equating encryption with guilt has severe ramifications for anyone who uses it.
"This has clear and troubling implications for groups that handle sensitive communications or other data—journalists, advocates, activists and whistleblowers, and members of the legal profession.The NCA claims it wants Love to decrypt his devices so he can prove his ownership of any information or data found on them -- which allegedly includes pirated film and documents obtained (without permission) for US government websites. Love sees this as nothing more than the NCA trying to help out its American counterparts by using the UK's more permissive laws to obtain information about Love's hacking activities. And, it must be pointed out again -- the NCA wants to force the uncharged Love to crack open his devices so it can find something to charge him with.
"An executive body of the state is saying that any information to which they are not privy... cannot be owned and kept securely but instead confiscated and access denied," Love added. "This is a fundamental reversal of rights and the potential for abuse is alarming."
Maybe there's something incriminating stored on Love's computers. Maybe not. But either way, UK law enforcement is working backwards from a presumption of guilt. And it's basing this all on things it can't see. This belief system is similar to that held by many law enforcement agencies, which have spent much of the last few months claiming an encrypted phone is a "guilty" phone in front of judges, Congress and to members of the media.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: decrypt, doj, encryption, lauri love, nca, passcode, ripa, uk, us
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Classification of documents should also be a presumption of guilt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Classification of documents should also be a presumption of guilt.
*real* police state slime persecute totally innocent people for krimes they didn't commit, with evidence that doesn't exist, in kourts that can not be spoken of, to be sentenced to sekret jails, and tortured until broken...
kafka lives ! ! !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
She enjoys living off the collected taxes of her peasants... she bears responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You may want to actually do a bit of research before spewing. Take a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
As things turn out, the royal family does cost about 40 million pounds per year to maintain. But the royal family since King George III has traded the profits from the Crown Lands to Parliament in exchange for being supported by Parliament. Turns out those profits are about 200 million pounds. So it turns out that the queen GIVES 160 million to England in directly measurable cash. That does not include any extra revenue generated from tourism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
One way or another, be it directly or indirectly her living is supported by the taxes collected by the peasants. regardless of how much she gives away to buy off peoples opinions!
How is it that you can go and expend the effort to find and post this video but not expend the effort to develop any basic common sense?
Please go and shill somewhere else!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
what make you think that was not an American? Some Americans are not brainwashed to believe that someone is better than them just because they were born into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's moot
Moot. Now there's a lovely word. It comes from Old English you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But paying to support the Royal parasites? That's okay...
It makes no fucking sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well if that were true he would happily accept extradition to the US wouldn't he.
The fact he doesn't want to go there sort of proves that the US is worse - doesn't it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The fact he doesn't want to go there sort of proves that the US is worse - doesn't it.
No, it just proves that the US is where he's facing criminal charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's like saying anyone that is Rich does not have power. Money is power, and the queen could just as easily talk to the press to offer an opinion on any matter and the press would trip themselves running to shove a mic in her face.
yea... no power at all... what was I thinking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The traditional actions are that the majority group choose on of their members to be nominated to the position of Prime Minister. By tradition, the Queen accepts such nomination so that the business of the government (as in legislative control) goes on.
In addition, all legislation as passed by the parliament must be signed into law by her consent.
Now, if she decides that she wishes to choose a specific person as her Prime Minister and she also decides who she wants as her Cabinet, she is fully entitled to do so. It may cause an uproar in parliament and the workings of government may stop because of it, but is entitled to do so.
Not only that, if she decides that a specific piece of legislation is not to be signed into law, she also has that right of refusal.
That she doesn't exercise these specific functions normally, doesn't actually remove her ability to do so.
She does have particular restrictions on her powers as per the constitution of the UK, but she has far more powers than one would normally recognise.
She also has tremendous power with her people and if she decided to use that against the ruling government of the day, I don't know who would actually win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You should see the uproar when there is even the vaguest hint of her actually exercising that power.
No the fact is that the Royal Family has been tolerated only on the basis that they don't interfere.
The Royal family would be out very quickly if the failed to maintain that neutrality.
They nearly went before Victoria and during the Edward VIII episode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Like the RIPA act of 2000. So the Queen absolutely is to blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
An accident, perhaps, in a motorway tunnel...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy in the UK
Also, wouldn't idiot prosecutors in the US have learned anything from the Gary McKinnon incident? Eh, guess not. Our brightest and best in the gubbment barely qualify as fully speciated, knuckle dragging mouth breathers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guilty until proven innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The worst crime imaginable to those in authority: Not grovelling before authority
So put simply privacy with regards to digital material is illegal in the UK. If the government and/or police there come knocking, and you refuse to hand over the keys to your files then you get charged for refusing to do so, because nothing is allowed to be out of reach for those with shiny enough badges.
Not to say that the UK is alone in that kind of stupid thinking, as here in the US we get to enjoy similar boneheaded logic by those with their own shiny badges...
"You're under arrest."
"For what?"
"Resisting arrest."
"But you're only now arresting me, how can I be charged with resisting arrest before I'm actually under arrest?"
"Because I've got a badge, that's why. Now shut up before I tack on contempt of cop for asking questions."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The worst crime imaginable to those in authority: Not grovelling before authority
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The worst crime imaginable to those in authority: Not grovelling before authority
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The worst crime imaginable to those in authority: Not grovelling before authority
Don't know the password? Tough. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They've illegalized every substance that can alter your mental state barring alcohol nicotine and caffine. How do they know somthing can alter your mental state. They don't.
It's already been criticized as arbitrary and potentially unenforceable is smelling the flowers illegal... Maybe depends on what they feel like enforcing that day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no presumption of guilt
Worse still , it contains a built-in gag clause, so it's difficult for anyone to honestly judge how it is being used or how effective it is. (The original draft had it that you couldn't even tell your own *lawyer* if it was being used against you, but I don't remember if that one made the final cut.) It's a dreadful, draconian instrument that scares the f**k out of me.
Now what's interesting to me here is, if Love has refused to give up his keys, then wny don't they have him by the short and curlies? Is it that there is something about RIPA that makes it a bit crap as a legal instrument? Or is it that if they charge him them they can't ship him off to the US?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is no presumption of guilt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is no presumption of guilt
RIPA gave not just the police, but hundreds of other authorities incredible powers. And it's been used in thousands upon thousands of cases, oftentimes with vindiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is no presumption of guilt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...then Australia came to mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It all comes into focus, doesn't it?
The ones left alive learned to offer. Faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The five-dollar wrench didn't work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]