Lauri Love battles police for return of computers as NCA confirms live investigation

NCA seeking evidence from US

The National Crime Agency (NCA), the UK’s equivalent of the FBI, told the court that the police were seeking evidence from the US to bring a prosecution against Love.

Representing the NCA, Andrew Bird told the court: “There is now a domestic criminal investigation ongoing.”

There was relevant information to the UK’s investigation on Love’s computers, he said, which were seized by police in 2013. That information includes “the addresses of police officers subscribed to the Police Oracle [a publication for police] and large amounts of information from the US Department of Energy”. He said data on the computers had been encrypted.

Bird told the court he could not give a timeframe for the UK police investigation. “We now have to get into the States to get their records,” he said. “We can’t get a timescale.”

He said the court had three options: wiping, wiping and returning the equipment, or not returning at all. “It is not in the public interest for these computers to be returned to Mr Love,” he added.

Love, representing himself, appeared in the court wearing a dark suit, neat long hair and kefir tied around his waist. He is bringing the case under the Police Property Act 1897.

Love told the court it was now 10 months since the Court of Appeal quashed extradition procedures, but he’d had no communication from either the NCA or the police.

Police have ‘duty to return seized equipment’

Senior district judge and chief magistrate Emma Arbuthnot questioned why Love wanted the computers back. “If there is a criminal investigation, you are not going to get your equipment back,” she said. “Why don’t you just wait until they have finished the investigation?”

Love told the judge that the police had a duty to return equipment under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, since they had made copies to preserve forensic evidence.

“The NCA has, at times, offered to wipe and return [the equipment] without resolution of criminal investigation,” he said.

Love argued that there was a public interest case in returning the equipment. “I am an innocent man; I have not been charged,” he told the court. “There is no evidence of any criminality.”

Arbuthnot said she would not expect the police to produce a timeline for the investigation.

Use of encryption ‘has not been proved’

Love said there were statutory guidelines for the police to return seized equipment and that it was important to hold a hearing to test the National Crime Agency’s contention that his computer contained encrypted data.

He told the court that it was difficult for anyone to disprove an allegation that their computers contained encrypted information. “It’s very difficult to refute,” he said.

Love said it had been five years since the NCA seized his computer equipment, but there had been a problem with the warrant.

He said it had been a further 10 months since his extradition case was quashed by the High Court, and the NCA and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had not given any indication of a timeline for prosecution.

“It sounds as though they are conducting an investigation. It would take a year and a half, I think,” said Arbuthnot.

Arbuthnot agreed to schedule a day to hear the case in February 2019.

Love said the application would test “claims there is data encrypted [on Love’s equipment] or that it contains information belonging to someone else”.

Bird said there may be further evidence from the US “if we can get it from the Americans for the proceedings”.

Case raises dangers for people who use encryption

Speaking after the hearing, Love said the case raised an important point of principle for people who use encryption.

He said the NCA had been unable to show that his computers contained encrypted information or that Love was able to decrypt it.

Police had made forensic images of the hard disks and could return his computers, without interfering with any investigation, he said.

“The reason I am doing this is not for the objects themselves, because the physical value has now dwindled. The data did represent everything that I had in my life and it is of inestimable sentimental value, if not material value, but the reason I am doing this is the principle,” said Love.

“It is very dangerous for people who want to use strong information security practices because they work in the legal profession, or as a political activist.”

Love said he could not afford to hire lawyers for the case, and had decided to represent himself, claiming he was in a better position to explain encryption to the court than legal experts. “It is mathematically impossible to prove in a particular case that data has been encrypted,” he said.

The US extradition proceedings had “scuppered” his studies in electrical engineering at university in Suffolk, Love told Computer Weekly. “They allowed me to resume studies as a part-time student, but unfortunately I don’t have the funding from the Student Loans Company to finish the course,” he said. 

Reporting team: Bill Goodwin, Julia Gregory, Niels Ladefoged