Lauri Love, the 31-year-old British activist accused of hacking into the US Federal Reserve, won a key court case this morning against the UK National Crime Agency (NCA).

Love is in the process of suing the NCA under section 1 of the Police (Property) Act 1897 (PPA) for the return of computer equipment seized in 2013 as part of its investigation into his alleged involvement in stealing "massive quantities" of sensitive data from the Federal Reserve.

As part of the civil proceedings, the NCA applied under the court's case management powers for an order to force Love to hand over encryption keys for the hard drives and other items it took from him, ostensibly to prove he is in fact the real owner of the devices, to enable the court "to adjudicate fairly upon the complete contents of the devices" and to keep procedures moving at a reasonable speed.

According to lawyer David Allen Green, who once went by the pseudonym Jack of Kent, the application represented an attempt by the NCA "to sidestep the RIPA scheme and effectively circumvent the section 55 safeguards and the protections of the Code of Practice".

District Judge Tempia, the magistrate who has been hearing the case, threw out the NCA's request, saying: "After reading the papers and hearing from the parties, I am not granting the application because in order to obtain the information sought the correct procedure to be used, as the NCA did 2 12 years ago, is under section 49 RIPA, with the inherent [Human Rights Act] safeguards incorporated therein."

As reported by the BBC in April, the police did in fact issue Love with a RIPA order in February 2014, which Tempia referred to in her ruling. Although he refused to comply with that order, it expired with no further consequences.

Tempia continued: "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."

Green reports that the NCA has said it will not be commenting on today's ruling, citing "ongoing proceedings".

This article was originally published at 11.27 and has since been updated with details of Judge Tempia's ruling.

The UK must redraft its "intolerable" terror laws from scratch, a watchdog recommended today.

Parts of RIPA, and DRIPA 2014, must be scrapped by the government as it returns to the drawing board, said David Anderson, Britain's independent reviewer of anti-terrorism laws, in his report published today.

The report 'A Question of Trust' also said the government must outline the need for new surveillance powers such as the Snooper's Charter.

Writing in his report, Anderson said: "RIPA, obscure since its inception, has been patched up so many times as to make it incomprehensible to all but a tiny band of initiates. This state of affairs is undemocratic, unnecessary and in the long run intolerable.

"But trust requires verification. Each intrusive power must be shown to be necessary, clearly spelled out in law, limited in accordance with international human rights standards and subject to demanding and visible safeguards."

RIPA, which allows police and spies to intercept emails, phone calls and snoop on people's online movements, should be overseen by a law that bolsters safeguards to prevent abuses of power.

One measure the report recommended was to strip ministers' powers to approve surveillance warrants, giving these responsibilities to judges, instead.

A new law should be easy to understand, too, while any extra surveillance powers must be justified by strong cases for their introduction, Anderson added.

He called for a new easily understood, comprehensive law with improved safeguards, and judges, not ministers, approving warrants to allow access to the content of emails, phone calls and other communications.

It should also comply with human rights standards, despite the Conservatives' proposal to ditch the Human Rights Act

Any further powers, such as forcing service providers to keep details of all individuals' internet use, should only be allowed after a compelling case was made, he added.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights organisation Liberty, said: "This thoughtful report is in sharp contrast with the defensive whitewash from the discredited Intelligence and Security Committee of the last Parliament.

"Whilst we don't agree with all his conclusions, Mr Anderson's intervention could be the beginning of re-building public trust in surveillance conducted with respect for privacy, democracy and the law. It is further vindication of Edward Snowden's courage."

The part Chakrabarti does not agree with is Anderson's support that mass surveillance should continue, if the right safeguards can be introduced.

He wrote: "The capability of the security and intelligence agencies to practise bulk collection of intercepted material and associated data should be retained ... but used only subject to strict additional safeguards."

These cover judicial authorisation and a tighter definition of the reasons it is required.

Reacting to the report, Home Secretary Theresa May suggested she would push the Snoopers' Charter through Parliament regardless of the report's advice.

The Home Office has agreed to meet with civil society campaigners to discuss a review into UK interception laws.

Earlier this month, the Government called for a consultation over proposed changes to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), following pressure from the European Commission.

Brussels had called on the UK to change its laws after the controversial trialling of Phorm software, which tracked user behaviour.

The Open Rights Group slammed the way in which the Government handled the consultation, claiming there was little time to give responses with a deadline of 7 December.

Now the Government has extended the deadline to 17 December and agreed to meet with civil society representatives next week, including the Open Rights Group.

"This is a small but important victory ... It is vital that civil society is not 'locked out' of discussions like this, allowing industrial voices to determine the agenda alone," said Jim Killock, the Open Rights Group's executive director.

"We fought for several years to get these laws changed."

The campaigning body has now called on people to share their views on the review of RIPA, which covers interception laws. The Open Rights Group will then take any pertinent concerns to Government officials.

Under the proposals, even unintentional interception of communications could be punished.

The Home Office has announced it will tighten up the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), to prevent it being used by local authorities for trivial matters.

RIPA gives the government the power of surveillance to fight crime, but it has been controversially used to tap communications data to check up on council matters such as school zoning, putting bins out and more. Half a million requests were allowed on communications data last year alone.

Under the new plans, local authorities will face a higher authorisation level to use RIPA, with a senior executive approving the use of communications data or surveillance, with elected councillors overseeing the use of the act.

The Home Office said the new code of practice would also "clarify the test of necessity and proportionality so techniques will not be used to investigate dog fouling or people putting bins out a day early."

In addition, covert surveillance would be limited to a select number of public bodies, and communications between people and their council will be deemed confidential, and require a higher level of authorisation.

However, the Home Office made it clear, that councils would still be able to use RIPA. "Many of the investigations that rely on the techniques regulated by RIPA are vital to protecting public safety - not just for serious crime and terrorism - and they can also make a real difference to people's everyday lives," it said in a statement. "For example, by stopping rogue traders or trapping fly tippers who dump tonnes of rubbish on an industrial scale."

Policing Minister David Hanson MP added: "There is no doubt that a wide range of public authorities need to be able to authorise surveillance under RIPA in order to protect us from those who would do us harm. But it is equally clear that public authorities must respect our right to privacy and only use techniques under RIPA when it is necessary and proportionate to do so."

The plans were developed after a public consultation which received 222 responses.

The European Union has moved closer to taking the UK to court for failing to protect data privacy by not stopping Phorm from running secret trials.

Three years ago, BT let behavioural advertising firm Phorm run secret trials on its networks. In April, the EU charged the UK with breaking European data privacy laws by not protecting citizens against such an intrusion.

Now, the infringement proceeding has moved to the second phase. The UK has two months to reply, after which the case could go to the European Court of Justice.

"People's privacy and the integrity of their personal data in the digital world is not only an important matter, it is a fundamental right, protected by European law," said EU Telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding in a statement.

"Ensuring digital privacy is a key for building trust in the internet," she added. "I therefore call on the UK authorities to change their national laws to ensure that British citizens fully benefit from the safeguards set out in EU law concerning confidentiality of electronic communications."

It also lambasted the UK for not having a watchdog to keep an eye on communications interceptions, and slammed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) for allowing authorities to look at data without consent and making no guarantees against unintentional interceptions.

The Home Office said in a statement that it is "firmly committed" to protecting users' privacy, and was considering the commission's letter in order to respond.

Click here for our short history of Phorm.

There has to be a balance between agencies having enough data do their jobs effectively and the rights of individuals but how do you achieve this?

A report recently released showing that there were half a million communication data requests under the RIPA act muddies the waters. It sounds an awful lot.

Naturally the government defends it, but it doesn't break the data down so we know exactly who is making these requests.

It was also reported this week that the government's [a href="https://www.itpro.com/613690/home-office-denies-id-card-hack-claims" target="_blank"]ID card could be hacked in 12 minutes[/a], a claim which is rubbished by the Home Office.

Who to believe? If any of the claims are true, then this could be a very, very big problem.

If we did scrap the scheme, which the Tories say they intend to do, analysts Kable claims that it could save the government more than 3 billion.

The browser is the OS?

This week we also thoroughly investigated what the Google Chrome OS would really mean when it came to the development of cloud services.

It's a nice idea in the sense that it could make web applications easily accessible from anywhere, but will users really trust their data to be off the personal desktop and in the cloud?

Another feature also gives some useful advice about what businesses should do if they suffer the damage of a data breach whether it is by bad luck or bad policies.

The government has used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to view communications data on half a million UK citizens, checking out who they're calling and emailing and when.

But what is RIPA, and why does it give government bodies so much power?

What is RIPA?

The preamble to the 2000 Act reads:

"To make provision for and about the interception of communications, the acquisition and disclosure of data relating to communications, the carrying out of surveillance, the use of covert human intelligence sources and the acquisition of the means by which electronic data protected by encryption or passwords may be decrypted or accessed; to provide for commissioners and a tribunal with functions and jurisdiction in relation to those matters, to entries on and interferences with property or with wireless telegraphy and to the carrying out of their functions by the security service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters."

If that makes any sense to you, you have a future in politics or possibly law.

For the rest of us, it means the act describes how and when government bodies can watch UK citizens. It describes when they can access communications data, follow us around, or listen in to our calls.

This covers photographing people, tapping phone calls, and being followed by police as well as looking at email and call records and intercepting them to read the content. That last one is the only type of surveillance to require a warrant, however.

Who does it apply to?

On the being watched side, if you're in the UK, it applies to you. That simple.

On the other side, there are those allowed to do the watching. When the Act first came into force, just nine bodies had access. In 2003, home secretary David Blunkett extended the powers.

RIPA now gives the power to hundreds of government agencies and departments to get communications data from ISPs, comms providers and postal service, as well as to conduct direct surveillance.

First, there are the obvious ones the police, security services, and central government. But local councils and regulators are also given access. Local authorities requested comms data on some 1,500 people last year.

Other hard-to-believe agencies that can have access to comms data include the Charity Commission, the Food Standards Agency, and the Gambling Commission.

To be clear, intercepts such as tapping phone calls or reading email are only allowed by police or security forces. And they need a warrant first.

But the rest of the agencies can ask an ISP for your address, see when you made a call, or hang around outside your bin to see if you're putting out your rubbish correctly.

Who do they have to apply to for such information?

To receive comms data... no one. There is a commissioner, who puts out a report each year detailing RIPA requests. That report is an amazing accomplishment, in that it manages to be so dense it's difficult to read while still offering little in the way of detail.

That commissioner has checked each approved RIPA body once since the Act came into force, to see if they're going about it correctly. Other than that, there is no oversight.

The Home Office is planning to release a code of conduct, however.

Want to read more background on the latest IT topics? Click here for all the tech cheatsheets in our Need to Know series.

More than half a million communications data requests have been allowed under the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act (RIPA), according to a new report by the Interception of Communications Minister Sir Paul Kennedy.

The number is actually down slightly from the year before, the report noted.

Such data ranges from telephone and ISP subscriber data and the timing and recipient details of calls and emails, but not the content. The report said 80 per cent of requests were for subscriber information.

The government has previously wanted to gather all the data up and hold it one place, but has stepped back from those plans, instead requesting the data from ISPs and comms providers when needed.

The report provided no breakdown of which agencies were making the requests. "I do not intend to give a breakdown of these requests because I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose, although the intelligence agencies, police forces and other law enforcement agencies are the principal users of communications data," Kennedy said.

That said, 1,553 requests for communications data came from local authorities, according to the report.

Overall, there were 595 errors communication data request errors mostly related to mistakes with phone numbers. "This may seem a large number but it is very small when it is compared to the numbers of requests for data which are made nationally," Kennedy added.

Some 1,508 warrants were also issued for intercepts, or listening into calls or reading emails. There was 50 errors in such warrants this year - including one "deliberate" one - which was twice as many as last year. Kennedy said: "I consider the number of errors to be too high."

Response

The Liberal Democrats weren't happy with the stats. Home Affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: "The government forgets that George Orwell's 1984 was a warning and not a blueprint."

"Many of these operations carried out by the police and security services are necessary, but the sheer numbers are daunting," he added in a statement. "It cannot be a justified response to the problems we face in this country that the state is spying on half a million people a year."

A Home Office spokesperson said in a statement that balance is key. It stated: "It's vital that we strike the right balance between individual privacy and collective security and that is why the Home Office is clear these powers should only be used when they are proportionate."

IT is an ever-changing world, with new ideas, gadgets and technology popping up on a weekly basis. As part of our ongoing Need to Know series, we explain the innovations and ideas behind the breaking news stories and announcements, to help keep you ahead of the game.

Here's our roundup of the latest tech topics we've tackled. Drop us a line at comments@itpro.co.uk if you'd like us to take on a different subject.

Apple's iPhone 3G S - What does the third-generation of the Apple iPhone have to offer?

Apple's iPhone 3.0 operating system - The OS behind Apple's popular device.

Clampi online banking Trojan - Clampi isn't new, and it is only one of a number of serious threats to UK online banking users.

Cloud Computing - It's the hot buzzword for 2009, but what does it actually mean and how important is it for business?

CRM - CRM isn't any easy term to understand, but it's important for retail and other sectors.

Denial of Service - Twitter and Facebook were hit by a denial of service attack - but what exactly does this mean?

Digital books - Google has raised a lot of ire with its digital book plans, but what's all the fuss about?

Digital Britain - The government is laying out plans to bring Britain's broadband up to speed.

Digital Economy Bill - Here are the basics on the file sharing plans and more.

Femtocells - Vodafone is looking to put a femtocell in its customers homes, but what are they?

Firefox 3.5 - Version 3.5 of the Firefox web browser is imminent. We explain what to expect from this major update.

Google Wave - What is it, why should you care and what can it do for your business?

Intel's Xeon 5500 - Find out why Intel's processor is causing a fuss with manufacturers.

Microsoft Office 2010 Beta - Microsoft's Office 2010 beta is now available for anyone to download and use.

Netbooks - Nokia unveiled its Booklet 3G, and caused controversy by insisting that it was 'not a netbook'. So what is the fuss over netbooks anyway?

Opera Turbo - The final release of Opera 10 is out today with the company's Turbo tech built-in.

Palm Pre - Want to know what the fuss about the Palm Pre is all about?

Phorm - The firm is struggling to keep ISPs on side in the UK - but what's all the fuss about?

RIPA - Half a million people were snooped on last year, all using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

Safari 4 - The details behind Apple's latest web browser. Silverlight 3 - Amongst a flurry of new announcements, Microsoft has updated Silverlight and its related Expression development tool to version 3 we explain what's new.

Snow Leopard - The next gen OS from Apple will support Exchange; find out more of the features here.

Windows 7 - Is Windows 7 so much better than its predecessor? And, if you do decide to shell out for a copy, which version should you get?

Windows Azure - After a lot of talk, by the end of the year Windows Azure will become a reality - with a potentially great impact on enterprise.

Windows Mobile 6.5 - What to know what all the fuss is about with Windows Phone 6.5?

XML - An XML-related complaint has lead to legal woes for Microsoft. But what exactly is XML?

An EU directive forcing ISPs to keep internet data on customers for one year officially comes into force in the UK.

The start date of the EU directive was three weeks ago, but today the UK government officially implements the legislation.

The directive means that all ISPs will have to hold data that determines communications between individuals, but is not supposed to store the content of emails and websites.

Keeping the data has meant extra costs of 48 million to ISPs, which the government has agreed to cover, the Home Office confirmed to IT PRO.

In a statement, the Home Office said that the government's priority was to protect public and national safety.

It said: "Communications data is the where and when of communication and plays a vital part in a wide range of criminal investigations, and prevention of terrorists attacks as well as contributing to public safety more generally.

"Without communications data resolving crimes such as the Rhys Jones murder would be very difficult if not impossible."

Any access to communications data was governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), the Home Office claimed.

This was supposed to ensure that effective safeguards were in place, and that data was only accessed when it was necessary and proportionate to do so.

The EU Data Retention Directive has passed by without much fuss.

However, opposition to moves by the government to extend the legislation to social networks has been much more fierce, especially when it concerns moves towards a so-called Big Brother database'.

The Government is to review it's own use of technology data and who can access it, in order to balance the privacy intrusion with the potential for protection.

Speaking to IT trade body Intellect, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith claimed that the public expects the government to use technology to protect them, but added that people also expect privacy. Therefore, the govenrment will be looking into the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) and the DNA database next year.

RIPA gives investigative powers to bodies such as local authorities to use tech such as CCTV to look into flytipping or disrupitive people. Next year, Smith said, the government will look into possible changes to the act, including which public bodies can use it, deciding who will authorise such use, and changing the code of practice which goes along with it.

The government will also produce a white paper on forensics, to look into the records held on the DNA database, and review whose data is held on it possibly removing the DNA records it holds of children under 10 and data taken from people who haven't committed violent crimes.

"These changes will see some people coming off the system. But as I said, we need to strengthen the dividing lines between innocence and guilt and so I want to do more to ensure we get the right people onto the system as well," she explained in her speech, which can be read in full here.

Finding the right balance between civil liberties and using technology to protect against "terrorism, crime and disorder" was one of the most pressing questions the UK faces, Smith added.

"Balancing these individual and collective rights has always been a key responsibility of government. And in an era of rapid technological change, it is right that we should constantly satisfy ourselves that we have got the balance right," she said in the speech.

Smith brought up a piece of graffiti as an example. Last April, the artist known as Banksy painted a mural with the words "One Nation Under CCTV" 30 feet high on a wall just off Oxford Street. "Eight months later, it's still there with a CCTV camera watching over it. And while it's probably done wonders for the value of that gable wall, we're entitled to ask how much this effort, and others like them, have hit the right target."

With that in mind, Smith wondered if we are indeed living in a surveillance society. Her answer likely doesn't surprise. "I don't believe so, not for one moment. But I welcome the debate. And while not condoning graffiti per se, I understand the need to keep revisiting these issues in an open and democratic society," she said.

Defendants will have to give encryption keys to police even if the data it unlocks incriminates them, a British appeals court has ruled.

An appeals court has heard the case of two defendants who were arrested under the terrorism prevention act. One suspect's homes was searched, revealing computer material which was partially encrypted.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act imposed a legal obligation for them to reveal the full encryption keys and allow access to the encrypted material, the ruling said. However, the suspects appealed, claiming that it was incompatible with the privilege against self-incrimination.

The appeals ruling said that as the encryption key was no different to a physical key, it existed separately from their will and so the self-incrimination defence couldn't be used.

The court said: "The key to the computer equipment is no different to the key of a locked drawer. The contents of the drawer existed independently of the suspect; so did the key to it. The contents might or might not be incriminating; the key was neutral."

It is Part three of the RIPA act which requires people under particular circumstances to supply encryption keys to particular authorities. It has caused controversy as a failure to disclose decrypted data could lead to a penalty of up to two years in jail.

Critics have said that law enforcement could cost businesses by mishandling this data, with some of the provisions complex and even unworkable.