So we all have to be encryption experts then?

How exactly do you prove for instance, that you had no idea that there was an encrypted file on your pc? I am fairly tech savvie and I bet one of my pc's contains some encrypted data somewhere that I don't know about installed by a program long since binned.

Use truecrypt, as the container file cannot be linked in anyway shape or form to truecrypt. Encrypted file sir? <---- prove it is encrypted, then prove I encrypted it.

Isn't it a pleasant surprise to see legislation brought about for use in terrorism cases in its very first use used against an animal rights activist?

You are no longer innocent until proven guilty, you are guilty unless you can prove your innocence.

Welcome, to 1984.

I'm conflicted here...

Should I feel bad that this act is being used as a mallet, or should I feel good that it's being used on someone so richly deserving of a full smack upside the head?

Considering how these people treat other people, I should hope they go fishing for the encryption keys with a rubber finger.

i'd do two years

so they couldn't get their mucky paws on my stuff.

I keep my keys encrypted ...

... and would be happy to hand them over in that state. Of course, then you can give me another 12 days to hand over the key I used to encrypt the key. Which I'll be happy to do. Encrypted. :)

Terrorism.

You imply that amimal rights groups are not terrorists. Why? Some are good natured people with a genuin concern for animals (Although, in my opinion sometimes miss placed) but there is also a fair amount who will kill and distroy to get what they want. Terrorism.

BTW, this is anon because, unlike Islamic extremists, these people accualy worry me.

She probably is a terrorist.

You don't need to be a muslim to be a terrorist. I live in Oxford and I know full well the kind of stuff these people get up to. We even had anti-animal rights protester protests!

Could set an interesting precident

Given the rather lax security of windows and ability of others (over the web for instance) to place files on your hard drive, this legislation could be a bit of an issue. The police could probably claim they have 'cause' to require decryption of any file given any name. Therefore, suppose someone has dropped an encrypted file on your hard drive. How can you comply? In this case, it might well be she has something to hide, but it could happen to anyone. Given that others have access to your hard drive, how can you be required to hand over any encryption pass phrase or whatever they ask for?

Rather seems the legislation is at odds with the technology. Also, it is rather interesting that the police can't crack it!! Given their resources, you would have thought it would be possible.

Ummm...

Am I missing something here, or does the phrase 'or provide a clear text transcript of encrypted text' leave a rather large loophole to anyone unscrupulous enough to give the police any random files and claim that "these are the unencrypted versions, honest guv"....

% <---- world's smallest ASCII violin

I'd be more sympathetic if she'd been a member of Al-Qaeda bent on blowing up a busful of babies. Al-Qaeda members have at least been brainwashed, often from birth, into believing that they are doing the work of the Almighty and will be rewarded with eternal paradise. Animal rights terrorists have no such excuse, they just woke up one day and decided that cancer and Parkinson's were awesome things to have.

How is this not an application to fight terrorism?

Animal rights extremists have been known to cause damage to property and people. That sounds like terrorism to me.

Torn

I am uncomfortable about this - the law is scary enough.

OTOH, having been in a company on the receiving end of harassment from the Animal Rights lunatics* I hope she never gives her keys over. And spends a long time out of contact with decent people.

(I was working for a large company, a subsidary of a subsidary let out a small office to a subsidiary of a firm who occasionally did work with HLS - instead of a nice letter point this out and would we consider our position on it, the first time we found out about this when the cars got paint-strippered and a bomb threat made. It took a few hours to figure out WTF was going on.)

I feel some are missing the point somewhat?

Yes, a lot of animal rights activists are petty terrorists, and some are arsonists, vandals and thugs -- but that doesn't stop this law being worrying.

If a law was brought in that allowed prosecution of anyone posting anonymously on the internet, would you agree with that? It could, after all, be used to lock up murderers, paedorasts, rapists, terrorists, illegal immigrants, thieves... The snag being, of course, that it could be used to prosecute a lot of people who would never dream of breaking the law.

Posted anonymously, obviously.

Get a grip guys

While there are definitely some grade-A nutters involved in the anti-HLS campaigns, there are also people who just stand outside the labs withy placards and shout. We don't know which group she belongs to.

Given the propensity for the police to use intimidation and harassment to protect big business, there's every chance that she's just some harmless hippy.

If we use the logic of most of the people commenting here, the police should be demanding to see the computers of every muslim in the country - after all, we've seen what *some* of them are capable of.

What a silly definition of terrorism

Trains have been known to cause damage to property and people. Therefore trains are terrorists.

Lock her up she's obviously a terrorist.

Just like everyone else I am fully supportive of a free and democratic society and don't want to live in a police state...

Except of course unless it is "animal rights protesters" as we all know this group of people are collectively guilty of digging up grannies/arson/assault, I don't have any proof but I know it's true.

OK, OK so this is only one person and we have almost no information about her particular case, but does that really matter?

I think not, we should definitely condemn her now as strongly as possible. She is an ANIMAL RIGHTS PROTESTER after all, maybe we should bring back flogging just for them. At the bear minimum we need a special kangaroo court just for these guilty people.

Clearly she is as much threat as those who committed the atrocities on 11th September and 7th July, we need these laws to stop these animals rights protesters killing any more people.

I as many other commenters here believe the only solution is rash decisions and enforcing ridiculous (possibly unenforceable) laws that I would never otherwise support. At least when it comes to this particular - obviously guilty of something - minority group that I dislike.

I can only hope if I ever become part of an unliked minority I will get the support of all those who profess they want freedom and a just society.

I know now I can sleep safely at night, and that if I ever hold an unpopular view which is vilified by the media I will be judged purely by my INDIVIDUAL actions and character.

Thanks to all of you who are fighting the good fight, you champions of freedom, you heroes.

Scum

Let's be perfectly clear people who value the life of animals above that of humans are scum. PETA still refuse to condem the use of violence to achieve their means, they are scum. The animal rights nutters outside AXA in the city each week with their megaphones spreading misinformation about HLS and what goes on there, they are scum. The granny exhumers, the Oxford student threateners, the ones that burned down a boat shed because it belonged to Oxford Uni, the ones that intimidate the Chemistry students because it's next door to a new animal lab, the ones that intimidate workmen on that lab, the ones that intimidate Zoology students, the ones who burned down a perfectly legitimate pig farm in the village I grew up in (killing all the animals) whatever other evil shit they do, they are scumy scum scum scum.

The ones who protest peacefully, I'd say are misguided, but fully entitled to protest.

This law, however is moronic, it relies upon the assumption that someone has a key to all of their data and that they knew the encrypted data was there. It relies upon the a negative being proved (I don't have a key to give you). I can't imagine it standing up in court, if it does it's a sad day for justice.

As a further point - if you are going to protest about the use of animals in drug testing, maybe you should protest to the government who require it, rather than the companies who are required to do it.

@Mad Mike

"Rather seems the legislation is at odds with the technology. Also, it is rather interesting that the police can't crack it!! Given their resources, you would have thought it would be possible."

NOBODY has the resources to crack a file that has been properly encrypted with a sufficiently large key. Not even the NSA. That's the primary reason the US tried to prevent the dissemination of PGP, and why this particular clause of RIPA exists.

Besides, even if, hypothetically speaking, NSA/GCHQ and the like have acquired quantum computers or discovered some miraculous method of rapidly factoring massive prime numbers, they're certainly not going to tell the police unless they absolutely have to. You don't risk revealing a capability like that to the world unless the situation is absolutely desperate.

Just tell them it's in Welsh...

Here is some coded text for everyone's PC.

"Qip suhsy qmnc ywyd igtq bjdwim. Ahys qpmabr gaxicgfg hhsfer jhag n. Javetvdtv syq mazlqws nbstr. Gibnrt le flinglepo dartmis."

I am NOT going to give anyone the key. Ever.

Now you're all in sh_t.

Hmmmm...

You're all saying she might just be in the placard waving (or garden) variety of activist. Then why are the police going this far to investigate her?

14, 28, 56 days...

Well, whether this particular piece of legislation is right or wrong, it does kind of put the mockers on the need to extend the 'hold without charge' period, since the biggest reason for this is supposedly the need to crack encryption. They won't provide an encryption key? Charge them with failure to provide it, refuse bail, sentence them and lock them up for up to five years legitimately while you investigate the other offences. In a nice prison where everyone can see them and they aren't subject to dodgy control orders.

HM Govmint can't have it both ways. Well, actually, they probably can, but they *shouldn't*.

@Graham Marsden

Honestly, I would say that any assumptions about her status as an animal rights terrorist are based on context taken from her own quotes.

@Jason Baziliauskas

IANAL But.....

A Section 49 notice says "Give us the keys/data" At the same time, you *could* be handed a Section 51 notice which says "You can't tell anyone we've just given you a Section 49 notice"

In this case, it seems she hasn't actually been given a Section 49 notice, so a Section 51 notice would not apply.

Here come the sympathizers

I object vehemently to the presumption of guilt and the "no smoke without fire" arguments... except in the case of those who actively oppose the progress and wellbeing of humanity in favour of other species.

To quote the great Gene Hunt, "human rights are for human beings."

Oh yes

"You're all saying she might just be in the placard waving (or garden) variety of activist. Then why are the police going this far to investigate her?"

Oh yes, I like that.

If she's being investigated (the "until" part of "Innocent until proven guilty") then she *must* have done *something*.

In The U.S. of A

at least we still have the illusion of not being required to self-incriminate... nice right to have. we do a lot of stupid stuff this side of the pond, but it looks like everyone else is in a foot race to keep up. sorry about your luck.

it would be similar to throwing someone in prison because they refused to tell on themselves, not the actual crime they're accused of committing.

i'm not a big fan of some animal rights activists, since they damaged a lot of stuff at M.S.U. when i was there, but they still have rights. even terrorist idiots blowing people up have rights... up until they're guilty, then i don't have as much sympathy.

re Hmmm..

@Anonymous Coward - why don't you sign in and use your name, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.

So far as not being allowed to disclose the fact she's being investigated - given that the CPS is making the request, then she's allowed to sing it from the rooftops. Presumably the old bill haven't got any evidence and are trying it on. Then we get f***wits saying she's a terrorist, I've got a gut feeling about this one, sarge.

It seems a lot of commenters are suddenly ambivalent about civil liberties, it's all "well it's a bad law, but.." The point of civil liberties is to protect _you_ against the government. If you then run around saying, "oh these people shouldn't have the protection we've got", you've lost the plot, because one day you'll be in the frame and people won't support you, they'll say, "well he's a geek, must be a bit odd, and the police aren't investigating for nothing.." Got it yet?

First they came for the animal rights extremists..