British Hacker Love Wins Court Battle Over Encryption Keys

An anonymous reader writes: A judge in Westminster has ruled that alleged hacktivist Lauri Love cannot be forced to provide encryption keys to the National Crime Authority. This move has been called a "victory for all who use encryption in the UK" and a "great decision for privacy and personal freedom." The NCA's request was widely regarded as an attempt to circumvent the Regulatory of Investigative Powers Act of 2000, which specifically legislates police power to compel subjects to hand over encryption keys. The NCA originally tried to force Love to turn over encryption keys under RIPA in 2014 but were unsuccessful. So Love, whose property was seized two years ago, made an application to have it returned under the 1897 Police Property Act. In response, the NCA attempted to legally force decryption under the same act. The NCA argued, in the ruling documents, that they could only ascertain the contents of the devices if Love was forced to provide the encryption key. The district judge was not persuaded by this argument, saying, "The case management powers of the court are not to be used to circumvent specific legislation that has been passed in order to deal with the disclosure sought." Legal experts have noted that this case represents a civil action being put forth in a magistrate's court, which normally only deals with criminal issues.

Re: Why not turn over the keys?

[Anonymous Coward]

We are all criminals in someone's eyes.

Re:

[Applehu Akbar]

We are all criminals in someone's eyes.

More specifically, we can all be made to look like criminals in the eyes of a sufficiently overzealous prosecutor.

Re:Why not turn over the keys?

[mark-t]

Because, perhaps, whatever one might be hiding is simply private?

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

I'd love to know why the CPS dropped their efforts to use RIPA to get the keys. I doubt they will ever tell us... Perhaps an FOI might work, but since it relates to an individual's potential prosecution it would probably fall under Data Protection rules.

Thing is, I can only think of three possible reasons, and two of them are quite worrying.

1) The CPS didn't want the bad publicity of sending someone with health issues to prison for two years for refusing to give up their privacy.

2) The CPS was hoping to sub

Re:

[sconeu]

Uh... Lauri Love is a guy.

Re:

[Coren22]

So he's the Finn?

http://williamgibson.wikia.com... [wikia.com]

Re:

[PatientZero]

What? A guy can't enjoy the feel of satin panties?

Re:

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

What? A guy can't enjoy the feel of satin panties?

They're actually really nice to wear. I mean, that's what I hear.

Re:

[sjames]

Considering how soon after the street cams were installed, cops got caught using them to upskirt teen girls, you're probably on to something.

Re:

[Coren22]

Those cameras are like 8 feet in the air, how does that even work? Were the girls flying?

Re:

[sjames]

They were making out according to reports.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Because some law enforcement officers aren't above causing trouble if they don't like you or even if they see something in your house or on your computer that's perfectly legal but is out of the ordinary in their eyes. Because the right question to ask when privacy is concerned is not what you have to hide but why others are entitled to know about it. Simple example: most people close the door when they go to the toilet. It's perfectly legal, everyone does it, but still most people aren't comfortable when o

Re:

[Sparowl]

Your statement becomes ironic the moment you post as AC.

After all, if you have nothing to hide, why not post under your own name...

Re:

[UnknownSoldier]

/cheeky Well, they are called Arrogant Cunts, er, Anonymous Cowards for a reason ... ;-)

Re:Why not turn over the keys?

[delt0r]

Government first. They hide behind national security. They claim we have no business knowing their back door business deals. Well whats good for the goose and all that. They open their private lives and more importantly their government office lives they hide i may take such a claim seriously. But they don't. And the police are the worst offenders of this.

Re:

[delt0r]

Well there is a sucker born every minute. Guess it was your lucky minute at the moment of your birth.

Re:

[PatientZero]

back door business deals

Are those Greek government deals? ;) There's a definite trend developing in this thread.

The phrase I think you're looking for is "back room".

Re:

[delt0r]

Indeed.

Re:

[Mats Svensson]

Do you have curtains or blinds on your windows? What do you have to hide? Do you put on clothes, even if the weather is warm? What do you have to hide? Do you have a lock on your door? What do you have to hide? What is that, a neckbeard? What do you have to hide? What do you have to hide? What do you have to hide? What do you have to hide? What do you have to hide? What do you have to hide?

Re:

[Anubis IV]

Maybe he has a contract with a client who intends to sue the police and he's contractually obligated to not reveal that information to them?

Maybe he's doing some consulting for a medical practitioner and has encrypted his drives because there are medical files on them that the police aren't authorized to see?

Maybe he was romantically involved with a celebrity, they created sex tapes together, and they're concerned that a corrupt officer may leak the tapes to the public in order to pocket some extra cash?

May

Regulation, not regulatory

[wonkey_monkey]

Regulatory of Investigative Powers Act of 2000

Regulation. What you wrote isn't even cromulent English.

Re:

[WallyL]

Sheesh, he wouldn't know majesty if she bit him in the face!

Re:

[Shimbo]

So did they get the property back?

The hearing is scheduled for the 28th July. This was a pre-trial ruling.

Spyware

[manu0601]

Will he get his machines back, loaded with police spyware. We know they can even stick that in hard disk's firmware.