As I described in yesterday's blog entry, police in the United Kingdom now have the power to demand that PC users turn over their encryption keys. If you don't comply, you can be jailed.
Now this power has been used, perhaps for the first time--not against a terrorist, but an animal rights activist.
The activist claims she didn't realize there were any encrypted files on her PC, and that she has no idea how they got there, much less how to decrypt them.
This is a more plausible claim that it might appear at first glance. It's quite common for encrypted files to be present on your PC without your knowledge. For instance, music, movies, and other media you download from the Internet may be encrypted. Often the files are locked after a certain number of viewings or after a certain date. Might you be imprisoned for not being able to decrypt an episode of Bambi you downloaded long ago?
Likewise, it's possible to have encrypted files on your PC you didn't place there yourself. This is particularly true if you have file sharing enabled on your PC (not recommended, by the way). If you do, others can download files (encrypted or otherwise) to your PC.
This may also occur if hackers download a virus to your PC that automatically encrypts your files. Sometimes, the hackers demand a ransom in order to decrypt your files. But it's possible that someone could simply maliciously encrypt your files, then disappear.
Using a good firewall and regularly updated anti-virus software can prevent most such attacks. But there are no guarantees.
You could hardly be expected to have the encryption keys to files someone else maliciously locked, could you? This is what the animal rights activist says happened to her. She says she has no idea how the encrypted files got on her computer, and doesn't have the key or passphrase to decrypt them.
I suppose these are the issues that will be sorted out in the trial, if there is one, of the animal rights activist.
Incidentally, I'm not defending the abhorrent actions of sabotage and vandalism of a small number of animal rights activists. That's not the point.
The point is that the state can target anyone protesting the status quo for any reason it seems fit. It's easy to construe you as a terrorist if you advocate a viewpoint you the majority disagrees. That's especially true if some of the tactics others advocating your pet cause injure others or damage property.
If you injure someone or damage property, you should be held accountable. That's true regardless of your personal motives for committing the crime. And police have every right to investigate your actions through the normal process—obtaining a search warrant based on probable cause, etc.
It crosses the line though, when police demand that you provide the means of incriminating yourself, under penalty of imprisonment.
That's what RIPA is all about. That's why it's so dangerous.
And that's why this case is so important. I can only hope the U.K. courts decline to enforce RIPA against activists in social protest groups. Otherwise, we could all face the same dilemma as animal rights advocates, whether we agree with their tactics or not.
To learn more about how to protect your privacy, on and off the Internet, click here.
Comments