First Use of RIPA to Demand Encryption Keys 645
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."
solution (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:solution (Score:5, Informative)
Re:solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:solution (Score:5, Funny)
Let me guess: you're either American, Israeli or Australian.
Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Because private companies are the pinnacle of competence and government is the pit of deepest stupidity.
Well, duh. Private companies make money, government takes money. It's a perverted extension of "If you can't do, teach."
But, you could argue that the "takers" are the really smart people...
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Business and government are similar in that they are all staffed and run by people (that is, greedy grafty nasty people). They are different in that we elect our government people and there is some oversight of the work and the results - sometimes late, and sometimes shoddy, but the oversight is there.. A business on the other hand, involves no community decision, is run as a dictatorship and there is minimal oversight (less and less every day since the 80's).
I'm not anti-business, just honest. The problems come from the people, not the organizational method. The organizational method is supposed to be a way of compensating for the problems while minimizing the bad side-effects.
Being anti-gov't or anti-teacher is just a way of parroting something you heard from someone else -- it's not a legitimate position to argue from.
Re:solution (Score:5, Funny)
No, but apparently parent's reading comprehension is superior to your own.
Or, to put it a way you might understand: "Whoooosh!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
~S
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just dump some plausibly-incriminating stuff on it (e.g. kinky porn, ABBA songs) and they'll never realise there was anything else there to look for.
Re:solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
LOL, in my mind I'm hearing a new variation of Thomas Dolby: "She blinded me with goatse..."
Re:solution (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And again, this does only help against incompetent computer forensics people. Detectin the presence of such a hidden, encrypted volume is easy. Proving that it is encrypted and not cryptographically strong randomness is hard. But that applies to encrypted things that are not hidden as well and the attack here is not technological, but legal.
Come to think of it, I have a few disks that I wiped
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:solution (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have to prove you're innocent, they have to prove you are guilty.
That kind of thinking is *so* pre 9-11.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you make sure nothing is left in the open, even residual info from application usage?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do you have any links to articles or HOWTO's...on how to do this?
Re:solution (Score:5, Informative)
cryptsetup --key-file=/dev/random create c1
mkswap
swapon
This reads a cryptogtaphically very good key from
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:solution (Score:5, Insightful)
During normal operation, you mount both the outer container and the hidden container using both the outer and hidden key. This enables truecrypt to see the hidden container and move around hidden data as you write to the outer container.
When you are arrested, you provide the key to the outer container, but not to the hidden one. In this mode, it's as if the hidden container doesn't exist and can of course be overwritten. There's absolutely nothing to prove that the hidden container exists, as long as you have a plausible outer container and can say "Look, this is what I was trying to hide".
Re:solution (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:TrueCrypt's method is not detectable (Score:5, Interesting)
That's actually pretty much a stretch. Your 'decent' lawyer would have to give some sort of proof that there was a second partition there. Something that TrueCrypt is pretty much designed to prevent. You can easily show the existence of the first truecrypt partition - it's there in the open. You can't prove the existence of the second partition.
I'm not sure a judge will buy 'because we didn't find what we were looking for' as a reasonable showing of proof that a second partition exists, and unfortunately, that's all the proof that exists. The formatting method and the processing method result in random data covering the entire partition block, as data is written to both the shown & hidden partitions, that data changes from random to encrypted. However the whole goal of the crypto data is to make it look random.
So you have potentially 3 blocks of random data each constructed with the same randomizing algorythm. How exactly do you show where one begins & one ends? How do you even show that the 3rd block exists? The whole purpose of the hidden block is to make it almost impossible to prove the existence of that third block. You literally are more likely to brute force the key than you are to prove the existence of the hidden partition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have that kind of access to the computer, then you would have also had enough access to do keylogging for the password, and the issue would be moot.
The only scenario I can possibly see where that would help you is if you had incremental backups. But then again, you may just be blowing away the partition & rebuilding it as yo
Re:TrueCrypt's method is not detectable (Score:5, Insightful)
When you initialize your encrypted disk space, you tell Truecrypt how many containers you want. Say that you choose 2. When you mount your Truecrypt drive, you must always mount both containers. In this way, Truecrypt knows and can maintain integrity between the two--they won't start to overwrite or corrupt each other, because they are both known about and available. If you ever only give the first key (you can't just give the second key, as the second container is entirely within the first) then you run the risk of corrupting the second container--in fact, any write operation will probably do it.
Now you can choose more than just two containers, and the same applies. One thing I'm not sure of is whether the third container is fully within the second.
If I am sending encrypted mail using PGP, I'm using someone else's PGP key. I don't have to have a PGP key myself in order to do this. If someone else is sending me encrypted messages, they could be sending it using anyone's PGP key--it's only obviously my key if it's provable that I've read the messages. For example, Alice could encrypt a message using Bob's public key, and then send that message to Charlie in an effort to frame him. Charlie gets the junk message and deletes it, but the feds who were wiretapping Charlie come in and demand to know what was in the message. Charlie can't answer--he has no idea. So he gets 2 years in prison from the RIPA act.
Re:solution (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.truecrypt.org/hiddenvolume.php [truecrypt.org]
Truecrypt is pretty nifty all around.
TrueCrypt is the best for Windows and Linux. (Score:5, Informative)
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 [gnupg.org] is best.
TrueCrypt: Open Source and Free. (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget to donate if you use TrueCrypt extensively.
The present government corruption in both the U.S. and U.K. started when secret violence was authorized as a way of protecting oil investments of British and U.S. investors. Tending toward outlawing privacy is a way of continuing that corruption. Any government that can act in secret cannot be a democracy, because citizens cannot participate in things that are unknown to them.
This is a good site to read about the corruption, and to contribute links: U.S. Government corruption TimeLines [cooperativeresearch.org]. Example: Complete 911 Timeline, 3895 events.
Re:TrueCrypt: Open Source and Free. (Score:4, Insightful)
The present government corruption began as soon as our hairy forebears realized that people in positions of power would abuse those positions of power when given gifts. This can probably be traced back to the first time Ogg gave more meat to Oggette and her little Oglodytes simply because she was willing to grab her ankles for him.
It's human nature to try to twist the political structure to one's own ends, and it's a failure of modern society that 'the people' don't insist upon fairer means of government.
Very good point. However, I'd add that far too many people are willing to let this happen -- how many people follow the order, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" without question?
In addition to a secretive government being undemocratic, a population disinterested in the workings of government cannot produce a democratic government.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
'What is the key for this volume?'
'12345'
'Disk Utility doesn't recognise it, try again.'
'Oh, you have to mount that one with TrueCrypt.'
'Why are you using TrueCrypt?'
'Uh, certainly not to conceal a second volume in that disk image...'
Security by obscurity doesn't work when you tell everyone about it.
Re:TrueCrypt is the best for Windows and Linux. (Score:4, Insightful)
If they're the type that need you holding their hand like that, do you really trust them with a system wherein they type a password then any app on the system is free to dump the entire volume? What good will that do when someone (govt or otherwise) sends them an exe in their mail that they happily run that just waits for you to decrypt the volume?
Maybe they're smart enough to not run exes so blatantly, but theres plenty of other potential code execution like software that autoupdates (+ big enough power forcing someone to sign their code so it validates), exploits, backdoors, etc.
Then theres the operating system holes in your security. Filenames and content will still end up in "recently accessed" lists in common software, that alone can be more than enough info. Theres the cleartext copy that ends up sitting in your swap file if the app swaps out. Backup/temp files saved outside the secured drive, etc.
TrueCrypt is useful for what it is, and I certainly use it daily, you just have to be careful with helping people into the world of security as they're looking for a panacea to do everything for them.
Re:TrueCrypt is the best for Windows and Linux. (Score:5, Informative)
And besides, not entirely true:
A: There is no "back door" implemented in TrueCrypt. However, there is a way to "reset" a TrueCrypt volume password/keyfile. After you create a volume, backup its header (select Tools -> Backup Volume Header) before you allow a non-admin user to use the volume. Note that the volume header (which is encrypted with a header key derived from a password/keyfile) contains the master key with which the volume is encrypted. Then ask the user to choose a password, and set it for him/her (Volumes -> Change Volume Password); or generate a user keyfile for him/her. Then you can allow the user to use the volume and to change the password/keyfiles without your assistance/permission. In case he/she forgets his/her password or loses his/her keyfile, you can "reset" the volume password/keyfiles to your original admin password/keyfiles by restoring the volume header (Tools -> Restore Volume Header).
Re:TrueCrypt is the best for Windows and Linux. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. And AFAIK this law does not respect plausible deniability. Which also means that if the data is really random, they can throw you in prison and you cannot defend yourself.
Re:TrueCrypt is the best for Windows and Linux. (Score:5, Funny)
Now I understand that this looks suspicious, but mathematically, there is no difference between random numbers and encrypted data. Given enough time, and access to powerful computers, I could design a tool that would convert the random numbers you see there into any given text. From the Magna Carta, to the complete works of shakespear, to your own biography written in klingon.
I wish I could help you, but I'm afraid that mathematically, there is nothing to do."
Re:TrueCrypt is the best for Windows and Linux. (Score:4, Insightful)
Tool = XOR
Key = RandomData XOR Magna Carta
Doesn't take much time, or access to powerful computers.
Re:TrueCrypt is the best for Windows and Linux. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, the law doesn't seem to place the burden of proof on the prosecution when it comes to showing whether there is or isn't any meaningful data present. Any old bits on a hard drive are (unqualified) electronic data.
On your point about circumstantial evidence, we really need not to set a precedent that says use of encryption can be treated as any sort of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that you are storing data of dubious legality. The implications of giving any legal weight to drawing that conclusion are horrible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they're talking about hiding information on animal rights activism and civil disobedience activities from the authorities who are trying to create a police state. I don't accept the "if you aren't a criminal then you have nothing to hide" position.
Re:solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless they've had a complete turnover of personnel throughout the department in the last 2 years, they're not competent from top to bottom in any of the 4 state's offices I had to deal with then.
Linux? You need a hardware write blocker, period. (Score:5, Informative)
- 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.
They're worse than gremlins! (Score:4, Funny)
And it runs around free! Wreaking havoc! Smashing in windows and stealing car stereos! Eating whole bags of Cheetos and vomiting them up into your dress shoes! I'll tell you -- there's nothing worse than a case that has been loosed upon the world. Those things are wild.
Re:solution (Score:5, Informative)
Almost all police departments will image the drive, then present the person with the image to decrypt. If the image gets stung by a self destruct Trojan, then the police will know that its not a forgotten password, and then proceed to use rubber hose decryption to obtain the contents of the drive.
Better solution (Score:5, Interesting)
One password gives your uber-secret-plans-for-world-conquest, the other password gives a few hundred meg of soft porn (or whatever).
That way, you appear to not be resisting their demands.
Don't just encrypt -- Hide! (Score:5, Insightful)
Encrypting your data and not hiding it is the same as getting a $100k super secure safe, locking your stuff in it, but leaving it in the middle of the living room. Any { law enforcement agency / criminal gang / anyone with more resources and more muscles that you } will just force you to give them the key. In other words, they see the super secure safe and automatically assume there must be at least $1M in there and then they force you to give them the key. The govt will cite all kinds of stupid idiotic laws, the criminals will start cutting of the fingers (yours or your loved ones').
The solution is to use something like steganography and hide the data such that nobody even will suspect anything. The best secrets are the ones that are not even known to exist.
If the adversary is convinced that you do have the data and knows the data type, then create a similar but fake data set to be substituted for the real one.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do you have any example files ... you know, that work well for this? I'm only interested to keep my files safe. And for the articles. :-)
Re:Better solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There again, the former British Home Secretary changed the UK law to allow plausible denial when he got bombarded with encrypted files, followed by demands he turn over the decryption key.
Do you have a source to support that claim? Obviously many people suggested that stunt, but I've never seen any indication that it was actually attempted, and certainly no indication that it succeeded in motivating a change in the law. It would be a delicious irony if it had worked, but since only certain officials can require the production of decryption keys, it's hard to see how it could do anything other than make a point, and surely that point had been considered before the draconian law was passed i
Re:Better solution (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Better solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We'll see if this actually ends up in court and a judge actually upholds this provision, though, there's constant complaints about how "activist" British judges are when it comes to reinterpreting or setting aside laws they don't agree with.
Re:Better solution (Score:5, Interesting)
I have some disks I wiped with crypto-generated randomness. Indistinguishable from encrypted disks without metadata (as linux dm-crypt can do for example). I cannot prove that there is no data on them. Completely impossible. Am I a criminal according to this law? Or do they need to have some proof that there is data on the disk?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:solution (Score:5, Funny)
Which piece?
Heh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Virus encrypts hard drive with unknown key.
Virus forwards CP to authorities.
Authorities bust you for having CP, for not revealing those encrypted files, AND for probably having more CP. Most likely will be averaged..say..15k is a picture..you have 200GB. The media will say that you were arrested with 100k+ pieces of child pornography.
Five years later, turns out that it really was a virus. Sorry about that..here's your freedom again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
fix'd
Even felons are taught to hate supposed pedophiles. Registered as a sex offender but turns out you're innocent? Too late, pariah for life. Registered for public indecency for pissing in a bush? Not our fault the us has no public bathrooms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What if she doesn't actually know? (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a way of finding out.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What if she doesn't actually know? (Score:5, Insightful)
Two is that there isn't genuinely any way of knowing what has been encrypted, it could be evidence of wrong doing, or it could be just some sort of embarassing, but legal, porn.
Three is that there is a tendency of these sorts of laws to end up sending innocent people to prison for not being able to reveal the information in a virus or malware encrypted file.
It is a tough situation, increasingly people engaged in illicit activities are turning to encryption as a means of keeping evidence secret, and from a technical standpoint refusing to decrypt the information is obstruction of justice.
Re:What if she doesn't actually know? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:What if she doesn't actually know? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What if she doesn't actually know? (Score:5, Insightful)
The police already _have_ the files. They're free to try to crack the encryption on those files.
While I intensely dislike the animal rights nutters, this is a stupid and oppressive law which should never have been passed. And I can quite believe that the police she was raided by are 'thugs'; ask that guy they shot eight times in the head a while back if that's a good description... oops, you can't, he's dead.
Re:What if she doesn't actually know? (Score:4, Interesting)
It shows an all-too-common pattern of behavior among the former-and-still bullies disposed to the job.
completely different set of circumstances.
You mean, "walking while non-white"? Yeah, clearly asking for it, the bastard!
Oh i understand, you one of these moronic cop haters
I would hardly call it "moronic" to despise the single most dangerous element of modern society. And while good ones certainly exist (perhaps even the majority of them), far, far too many bad ones exist to just trust them by default, as a whole.
who will cry like a bitch for the cops he despises to come save him at the first sign of danger.
Have you ever actually called the police to report a crime?
I have (and won't bother ever again), and I've known others who have. And they do jack shit. About half the time they bother to show up. When they do, they write down random observations and you never hear from them again. But, god help you if you drive 46 in a 45 zone near the end of the month...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a difference though. In the US, the police can get the possible evidence, ie. the hard drive. However you cannot be forced to reveal to them how that drive could possibly be used testify against you, or even if it contains the evidence against you they are seeking. Until it is decrypted, they cannot even KNOW whether it even contains any evidence at all. Just becau
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 legit
So lemme get this straight (Score:5, Interesting)
This gives me an idea!
Either way, if you need to you can get around this with TrueCrypt by taking some precautions such as:
1) Not naming it with the default extension (.tc)
2) Put it somewhere inconspicuous and name it appropriately
3) Making sure that it's a hidden encrypted volume
4) Open it through TrueCrypt and don't save the history, or passwords, or as automount, or similar
Shit, that was a typo, I meant to type FIRST POST!!!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I would have also accepted "Sanitation."
Re:So lemme get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
TP: Give us the passphrase!
Suspect: It's HotSmokinBabes
TP: Now give us the hidden volume passphrase!
Suspect: It doesn't have a hidden volume.
TP: LIAR, give us the passphrase!
Just because the possibility exists, the authority in question might ask for something he cannot prove isn't there. If you have nothing to give, this leads to the problem of lying to authorities to give them what they think they want, when you've already given them what they asked for and it proves you innocent. Aren't these going to be fun times to live in.
Re:So lemme get this straight (Score:4, Funny)
huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Or does this basic rule of justice not apply here, for some reason I (IANAL) cannot imagine?
Re:huh (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time I think that the US government has gone off the deep end, it seems like the UK government is several steps ahead showing how much worse it could get.
I guess torture is will be next... oh wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
FOOLPROOF SOLUTION (Score:4, Interesting)
2) Reverse-engineer a one-time pad using this file and the encrypted file.
3) Supply the one-time pad to authorities with instructions on how to use it.
Ta dah!
Reasonable Search & Seizure (Score:4, Interesting)
2) I am not familiar with the details of this case.
That said, I believe that there *is* a time and place where this sort of activity counts as reasonable search & seizure. Say the cops get a warrant to search your house, and you have a safe, and you say, "gee, officer, I have *no* idea how that safe got mounted behind that picture," nobody will believe you and you'll get subpoena'd for the combo. Encryption keys shouldn't be treated any differently from a combination to a safe. If there's a reasonable suspicion for evidence to be hidden somewhere, the cops have a duty to search it.
Re:Reasonable Search & Seizure (Score:4, Interesting)
information is different (Score:3, Interesting)
With encryption, you can't even tell whether there is a safe there. I might well keep big files of random numbers on my machine, and just because a UK cop with a two digit IQ is incapable of
Re:Reasonable Search & Seizure (Score:5, Insightful)
There are already laws against perverting the course of justice and hiding or tampering with evidence. The difference is that they have to show some evidence that there's relevant evidence in the safe. If RIPA applied to safes, they'd just have to show you have a safe and won't open it. They only have to have a 'reasonable belief' that you can open it, and having it on your property, or on property in any way associated with you is enough to meet that criteria. That's sufficient to carry up to 5 years in jail, regardless of what's actually in the safe, or what they can demonstrate might be in the safe.
The law is intended to allow them to put suspected terrorists and pedophiles in jail, even when they have no evidence they did anything illegal, and don't have the capability to brute force their encrypted files, and don't have sufficient grounds to charge them with something else. As we can see, once the british justice system get an 'anti-terrorism' power, it immediately becomes a tool to use against everyone.
Re:Reasonable Search & Seizure (Score:4, Insightful)
With encrypted files though, the police cannot get at them without your help. If you refuse to help, they cannot just "crack" the encryption (not even your equivalent of a secret service can crack it -- nobody can crack it in any reasonable amount of time, which is what scares the authorities). So realising they have no hope in hell of ever cracking a decent encryption scheme, they think they can just create a law that says your required to give up your keys. If they knew what they were dealing with, they'd realise however that such a law is complete nonsense. Since you cannot proof that a file is encrypted (since it looks like random data) you have the rather large problem that the authorities can claim any file with random garbage must be encrypted.
enryption keys = keys? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:enryption keys = keys? (Score:4, Informative)
New Act (Score:5, Funny)
~S
Fortunately in the US... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, this could happen here. Easily. We need to find some way to restore the rule of law here lest we become like that other large country just across the Bering Strait from us.
Hmmm...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, I wouldn't be so sure that the 5th amendment protects you.
this blows (Score:4, Insightful)
As a reminder (Score:3, Insightful)
If you read to the bottom... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you must...then enjoy the ride. (Score:3, Funny)
You: Else what?
Them: Else its 2 years in the pen.
You: Eeek! Alright, but it is a very complicated key...
Them: Give us the key!
You: Alright alright, let me at my PC and I will open it.
Them: This is a copy and we are watching.
You: OK, first I need an internet connection.
Them: OK, but don't try anything funny.
You: OK, now I have to play BF2 for two weeks solid, then I got to level a Priest in WoW to 59 and as close to 60 as I can get, lets hope I don't go too far by accident, oh and I will be needing a copy of UT3 as soon as it comes out, and a copy of Crysis I need to work on both those too. But first I need to be in the right frame of mind, so a case of red bull, cheetos, and pizza from flown in hot from Chicago. Oh, and if Ms Sexy-with-a-badge over there isn't doing anything important I could use some *personal* help if you get my meaning. Now lets talk...er...decrypting video cards, I hear the new NVidia one is out and....
How to abuse this (Score:3, Insightful)
First, ask yourself whether you may have any files on your machine that you don't know about, or which you couldn't decrypt. For most people, the answer is quite simple: "Yes." For example, do you run a browser? That browser has a cache. That cache contains files in an assortment of formats. It's quite likely that you've never seen some of those files' contents (maybe just because you didn't scroll far enough down the page to see the content). And if presented with only the file without any context, you'd have no idea what app to use to display its content, or even whether you have such an app installed.
On my web site, I have a demo of a bit of javascript that downloads files but doesn't display their contents. The intended use is to "preload" files used in the rest of the web site while you're looking at the main page, so that subsequent pages render faster. I also point out how this can be abused: My demo page downloads a file that is never used in subsequent pages. This "hidden" file can contain anything I like, from any web site. It could contain child porn, copyrighted MP3 music, a proprietary program that you haven't paid for - or an encrypted text for which you don't have a key.
As far as I can tell, this law doesn't distinguish this situation. The contents of your browser's cache are on your disk. This will be "proof" to most judges and juries that you downloaded them. So by merely viewing my web page or any other that uses such javascript, you could be framed for possession of such files. What would be your defense?
The obvious defense would be to try to convince the court that you could have been framed in this fashion. But even if you succeed at this, similar things could be done to you by any number of other means. Do you have anything installed that contains "auto-update" code? Note that most browsers now do this. Firefox asks you if you want an update installed, and it's probably trustworthy. But we recently learned that Microsoft software sometimes installs updates silently, even when you have turned auto-update off. An auto-update routine doesn't install its files in a labelled "cache" directory. Files can easily (and reasonably) be installed in any directory that you can write. So if anything at all on your machine has an auto-update feature, anyone who knows how to trigger it can install any files they like on your machine. And you could be prosecuted for failure to deliver the keys to decrypt these files that you didn't know about.
Almost every government contains people whose job includes finding ways to frame perceived "enemies" when the top people want. They won't have that as their job description, of course, and usually they are really working for the top officials or for a political party. This sort of law makes their job really easy, especially now that we have widely-used software such as browsers with caches, auto-update packages, and other things that download files without always telling the user about it.
To comply with this law, you had better be prepared to decode every file on your disks, including those that belong to any proprietary apps that you may have installed. If there's a single file anywhere on your disk that you can't convert to a human-readable form, you can be jailed for violating this law.
It's always a good idea to ask yourself "How can this be abused?"
Im Confused... (Score:3, Informative)
Bad Memory (Score:3, Interesting)
don't be so quick (Score:4, Informative)
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 [cybercrime.gov]
They are, however, terrorists... (Score:5, Interesting)
They use threats of force to induce fear in people at HLS;
They have used actual violent force, at the work and at the homes, of people who work at HLS;
They threaten anyone involved with HLS, their suppliers, etc, with the same degree of violence;
They have placed bombs, which exploded, under the cars of people who work at HLS or are involvd with HLS;
They claim their actions are justifiable, that they are engaged in a violent struggle, that their violence is justified because they must achieve their aims by any means possible.
These are not nice people we are talking about. They are not the innocent defenders of the fluffy bunnies. They are aggressive, violent people and they are familiar with the tools and techniques of covert violence. Curiously they fail to mention their devotion to violence in their own article about this case.
RIPA, like any other "anti-terrorism law", will one day be used against people who have nothing to do with terrorism.
Today is not that day.
Re:They are, however, terrorists... (Score:5, Insightful)
That was the list of "Legitimate Targets" when last I heard it. If you think for one instant that people working at a private medical research lab qualify, your standards are absurdly lax. Even if the mistreatment of animals qualified as a cause for violent struggle (it doesn't), regular employees of Huntingdon don't qualify for retaliation.
Its funny. Animal right activists always wage their violent protests and hate campaigns against scientists and business people. Where are the hate campaigns against slaughterhouse workers and farmers? Much if not most of the practices of these people are at least on the same level as animal research.
The fact is this. Violent animal rights activists are not committing these actions because they care about animals. They are committing these actions because they enjoy committing these actions. They enjoy harassing and threatening push over scientists and businessmen. They enjoy vandalism, petty crime and shouting people down. They enjoy it, it's that simple.
These people are middle and upper class thugs who have latched onto animal rights as an excuse to engage in violence. They need an excuse because their upbringings will not allow them to simply engage in it randomly.
Activists would never attempt any of their antics outside a slaughterhouse, because they would be quickly intimidated by the altogether more straightforward meat workers. Can you imagine what would happen if a violent animal rights protester spat on a slaughterhouse worker, or shoted abuse to them outside their home? I'd pay to see the results.
Vandalism, threats, pretending to be a terrorist movement, designating "Legitimate Target" (LOL), it's how they get their kicks. It's a giant LARP for these people, except that real people doing real research on real problems are getting seriously hurt by it. They're having their fun, and the animals have nothing to do with it.
Violent animal rights workers are simply bullies who pick soft targets, i.e. scientists, who they proceed to harass and abuse to make themselves feel better. They are not a legitimate movement. They are not a cause. They don't have a point of view. They are a rich kids' street gang, too afraid to actually walk the streets.
I don't approve of animals suffering needlessly. I find experiments like this one [wikipedia.org], or this [wikipedia.org] contemptible, and if I was a research lab director, I wouldn't have approved them. I would however have approved less severe variations of such experiments. Ones in which while I knew animals might suffer somewhat, that they would not suffer needlessly or excessively. Animal research is necessary, and I defend its use, but only under the condition that the animals are treated with respect, and that their suffering and sacrifice is acknowledged. It's funny how more "primitive" cultures seem to follow such rules as a matter of fact, but our more "modern" scientists have to be reminded of it.
We need science, but we also need our consciences. Animal rights activists have neither.
Re:Go To Prison Act (Score:5, Informative)
Several animal rights groups in the UK are officially designated terrorist organisations, because frankly they engage in acts of terror.
Re:As a Brit... (Score:5, Informative)