Slashdot Mirror
First Use of RIPA to Demand Encryption Keys
kylehase writes "The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) is being used for the first time to force an animal activist to reveal encryption keys for encrypted files she claims to have no knowledge of. According to the article, she could face up to two years if she doesn't comply."
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) is being used for the first time to force an animal activist to reveal encryption keys for encrypted files she claims to have no knowledge of.
That's why you use an encrypted file system with a duress key. In the event of coercion, you give them a key that *oops* results in the destruction of the data.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
That's what TrueCrypt is great for - plausible deniability.
http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability
It doesn't. The courts have decided that an encryption key is analogous to a physical key. That's why the fifth amendment doesn't apply to encryption keys.
The cake is a pie
Another difference in this case is that the cops do not have a warrant.
Filesize arithmetic?
You never used Truecrypt eh? It's not a zip file. It acts as a virtual hard drive partition that can be mounted as a drive.
When you create the volume it generates random bits throughout the virtual partition. You can copy whatever files you want onto the virtual partition, the rest of it is random noise. You may or may not choose to have additional hidden encrypted partitions within that noise. Adding up the size of know files tells you nothing about what may or may not lurk in the rest of the space on the virtual partition.
In the United States, you could never be compelled to turn over an encryption key as that is a violation of the 5th amendment
I wouldn't be so sure. The 5th amendment only protects against self-incrimination, but the search may be for evidence against a third party, in which case you may be compelled to comply.
It's also not clear that giving up your encryption keys would be considered "testimonial", so it might not be protected under the 5th amendment according to US courts. See here (somewhat outdated in other aspects, but an accurate reflection of US policy on the legal hair splitting):
http://www.cybercrime.gov/cryptfaq.htm
TrueCrypt allows hidden volumes, indistinguishable from one volume. The file size is constant.
TrueCrypt works very, very well. I use it with just one volume to protect passwords and other files.
When you don't want to encrypt a volume, but just a file, Gnu Privacy Guard is best.
I believe that depends whether or not they have a court order for it. In the US the 5th amendment only applies to interrogation and testimony. Basically self incrimination, but there is no protection against lawfully granted warrants. A refusal to hand over evidence when presented with an appropriate order or the destruction of evidence in anticipation of a lawful order is obstruction of justice.
I would assume that the British have a similar set up at this point. Otherwise, criminals would just say no, I'm not going to allow you to use your valid search warrant to gain entry and so that they could find that massive stash of child porn and Vicodin that I keep around for special occasions.
But, IANAL so I may be a bit off on this.
Second, the Brazilian was shot by the Metropolitan Police. Thank God, most of the police forces in England are nothing like the Met. Very few police officers in the Met would qualify to join, say, the NYPD.
Finally, animal rights activists in the UK are not warm and fuzzy people. They bomb babies, desecrate graves, issue death threats, and one of their members has been locked up for a bombing campaign. There are plenty of legit animal rights bodies they could join which have real political influence - but they don't.
Several animal rights groups in the UK are officially designated terrorist organisations, because frankly they engage in acts of terror.
While I strongly disagree with this law (and would refuse point blank to hand over my passwords), the group that this woman belongs to has passed far beyond the bounds of legitimate protest, and needs to be investigated and disrupted by all legal means.
Access to financial data, call records etc. is already a key tool in criminal investigations, and is covered by RIPA in it's less draconian sections.
So long as the provisions of RIPA are adhered to, I see nothing wrong in police officers using such powers proportionately (i.e. only in cases where the seriousness of the offence merits such intrusion into my privacy) - most policemen that I have come across are professional, intelligent men and women who do a good job trying to keep the peace.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
I guess you need to leave it up to a jury to decide whether it's likely that there is information there which the suspect is refusing to un-encrypt. Ideally you'd have sufficiently convincing evidence that the jury would easily be able to agree with you.
In this case the suspect is a Animal Rights activist who has obviously been involved with the Huntingdon Life Sciences protests, according to her "facist thugs" stole her PC from her a few months ago and are now demanding encryption keys for all the encrypted files she has on her PC. She claims she's too stupid to be able to uncencrypt all this encrypted stuff people send her and hasn't a clue about anything complicated like passwords or anything.
For those not aware of the situation these sort of Animal Rights activists are basically terrorists, they undertake bombing campaigns, engage in unreasonable stalking, verbal and physical violence against anyone they don't like, dig up the dead bodies of their targets relatives and hold them for ransom. They are basically really really nasty ignorant people and I think it's highly likely this woman is involved in all sorts of horrible things and that her claims of ignorance about whats in the encrypted files is nonsense.
In this case I can see a use for this sort of law if it will help lock more of these evil people away in jail.
By the same principle, all you have to do to avoid being a terrorist target as a US citizen is leave the country, renounce your belief in a free democratic non-religious government (whatever the truth of the matter may be under GWB), and become a devout Muslim. Easy isn't it ? (/sarcasm)
"Choice" is an interesting word. People are trained to do jobs and sometimes take years to learn the skills to do that specific job. Choosing to leave that job for another one probably would involve severe loss of income.
In short, HLS is performing a legitimate activity and therefore should be protected. It is also legitimate to campaign for banning of experiments on animals; but such campaigning should not involve violence and intimidation.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Linux-based imaging is good only if you are interested in recovery. On the legal side of things, it will not do:
- Please explain to the court how you made a copy of this piece of evidence...
- I connected the drive to our forensic machine and...
- You mean, you connected this hard disk... to your machine?
- Yes of course, then I...
- Did you use a hardware write block?
- Er... I used Linux and mounted the...
- Please, just answer the question. Did you or did you not use a hardware write blocker device to connect the disk to your machine?
- I did not, but...
- Thank you, no further question. I now call for the evidence to be declared tainted and inadmissible in court, since the forensic team failed to use the proper hardware to ensure that no changes would be made to the disk.
There is a whole range of forensic-specific hardware available: write blockers, hardware disk imagers... Use them, or loose your case.
I code, therefore I am.
I have to disagree with one of your points. Some of the most prolific terrorist groups are animal rights activists - they participate in letter bombing campaigns, arson and direct indimitation/attack of life science workers.
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
I happen to have a (former) inside source to Huntingdon Life Sciences. All the good scientists either have left or are in the process of leaving because the managers are penny-pinching bastards. The rules we have in the UK should prevent mistreatment of animals, but they don't because there isn't enough enforcement, and when things are enforced, the managers just transfer blame to the employees that they had ordered to commit the offenses.
How can this result in any problem for anyone since you could easily say: I can't give you the encryption key as that information would incriminate me. This is in fact why we have the 5th amendment(in the US anyway).