Lauri Love: 'Britain's FBI' loses court attempt to evade decryption laws The National Crime Agency's (NCA) application to force alleged hacktivist Lauri Love to decrypt computer equipment seized from him two years ago has been declined by a Westminster judge. At a hearing this morning in Court Seven at Westminster Magistrates' Court, the NCA's application to make Love disclose his passwords was …
> Surely this case is going to be both complex and harrowing.
I just hope it goes better that the USA's ongoing War on Tourism.
"[S]pecialized in gaining authorized access to protected computers"
Am I the only one who is confused by this? If he gained "authorized access", he was allowed to do so, surely. He was authorized to do so, therefore it is not illegal.
Either this is a misprint, the charges don't make sense, or the legalese used twists the meaning of the words to make them unintelligible.
This post has been deleted by its author
I am totally against the extradition for computer misuse. For minor offences the should be a trial in absentia with any slap on the wrist to be served in the UK. I do not trust the US Jury system one iota after watching lots of documentaries on it. And they have a police state and jails almost exclusively for black people - slavery continues.
Hey! Don't forget the Hispanics and Poor Whites... we gots lots of room for them, too. That's the basis of America's fastest growing rural industry: the privatized prison system.
So... have a care when you bandy them charges about.
> Well, rightly or wrongly we do have an extradition treaty with the US so...
Well, presumably this will disappear following a Brexit vote.[1]
[1] I realise this makes no logical sense whatsoever but the Remain camp seem to think that all trade agreements will vanish the day after Brexit so why shouldn't extradition treaties as well?
re. We wouldn't extradite Brits to Iran or North Korea, so why extradite to US?
1) because Iran is not our pal
2) because Iran is not a (...) superpower we want to be pals with
3) did I miss anything else? Oh, yes, there: because WE decide what is right, and YOU, sir, have a right to express your disagreement. For now. Fair deal, wouldn't you agree?
Cos they're an Ally. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky :
Ally - Does as they're told by the USA, pretty much blindly
Rogue State - Might do as they're told by the USA, might have the temerity to question it
Terrorist Nation - Doesn't give a flying fuck what the USA wants of them
Exactly... we have a perfectly good legal system, the offence was allegedly committed from here so why can't they bring a case in the UK courts?
This is why we need the "forum bar" to decide which courts should here these things but, alas, this is the USA and the USA wants it's pound of flesh.
Stay in your own country and stick to your own system. You obviously don't have the mental capacity to get it.
THERE IS NO SLAVERY IN THE USA. ALL SLAVES WHO WERE BROUGHT HERE, WERE BROUGHT BY BRITISH AND DUTCH TRADERS AND WERE CAPTURED BY AFRICANS AND SOLD TO THE BRITISH! This is a fact, not Hollyweird embellishment! Lincoln wanted to send them back to Africa until he was shot by JW Booth.
British so called "documentaries" on the US Justice system are completely biased and don't have any basis in FACTS, only in lies and opinions.
If Blacks would stop breaking the laws, then they would not get arrested. However, MOST of the crimes in the USA are committed by blacks and you just don't get that fact either. the rest of so called "progressives" fail to grasp that. THAT'S why there are so many blacks in prison.
EVERYTHING you have heard on TV has been colored by the reverse discrimination practiced by liberals.
Stop making excuses for them, they have been coddled far too long and have done little to nothing to help themselves because they believe the liberal lie.
"If Blacks would stop breaking the laws, then they would not get arrested. However, MOST of the crimes in the USA are committed by blacks and you just don't get that fact either. the rest of so called "progressives" fail to grasp that. THAT'S why there are so many blacks in prison.
From the tone of it, it's a little hard to tell if that's "The Donald" himself, or his speech writer. In any case, it's Classic Trump. Long may he reign!
"If Blacks would stop breaking the laws, then they would not get arrested."
Looks like concept of selective application of the law & punishment has flown right over your head.
Affluent white people break laws too. Perhaps if the convicts had been able to afford better lawyers they might not get convicted as often.
Actually there were a whole lot of laws about slave ownershiup in the US, strange they enacted them when they had no slaves.
If Blacks would stop breaking the laws, then they would not get arrested. However, MOST of the crimes in the USA are committed by blacks and you just don't get that fact either.
You show an epic grasp of the complexities of a social system there, are you a troll or just um a bit stupid?
As mentioned, they didn't use RIPA, which already has a 2-year jail term for failing to hand over encryption keys, because they couldn't meet the requirements laid down in that law.
So what they were effectively trying to do was to enable the law enforcement body to scrutinize Love's private data without evidence of wrongdoing, or any valid justification whatsoever.
The sneaky bastards.
At the risk of being downvoted a million times again, I'll point out that Section 53 of RIPA puts the onus on the prosecution to demonstrate that the accused has or knows passwords to hand over. There is a myth on The Register comments that prosecutors can repeat the request over and over, each time sending the guilty party to prison for 2 years at a time. This simply isn't true, and to date has never happened. It's very possible that the prosecution could not prove their claim beyond a reasonable doubt, hence now the attempt to circumvent it. Anyhow, here is the exact wording of the law below.
Section 53 Failure to comply with a notice.
3 For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if—
....
(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
... I'd probably keep it nicely secured on a server in some corner of a foreign field where the local plod arn't inclined to cooperate with The Great Satan et al. Yes, yes files might be intercepted in transit, nothing is perfect, still...
Here is another example of why the UK needs the EU Human Rights legislation for protection.
Good for the Judge, nice to know they are not all subservient to the Crown or it's pay cheques.
Now watch MAY add a clause to the legislation she's trying to ram through Parliament.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
