TOR, of course, was created by the US gov't to protect users against dictatorships and now is mostly used to protect against the US gov't. See also the webertarian manifesto:

The webertarian project aims to create software that makes tyranny mathematically infeasible.

There are no pedophiles in Britain. Paedophiles on the other hand ....

It was the law I quoted immediately above it. I even bolded the relevant part.

For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key [ie he forgot it] to protected information at a particular time if—
(a)sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; *AND*
(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

(my emphasis) Note the word 'AND'.
Hopefully most people understand that X = a AND b means you need to test b if and only if a is true.

This is a press release from the CPS - not an argument made in court. We don't know what was said in court. We do know, for certain, what the law says and it's quite clear. The prosecution do NOT need to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that someone remembers their password, as you claimed they do, except in exceptional circumstances.

The information we have is that he behaved consistently with someone who was being as helpful as possible to the police, but had forgotten his password.
Note that there is little special status in England for 'self-incriminating' evidence, unlike America. If you refuse to answer the police questions on the grounds that they are 'self-incriminating' the prosecution can and will use this in court.

So are you saying he should have lied to the police? Will any encryption software will let you encrypt data /without/ setting a password?

To recap, you said :

(my emphasis) I quoted the exact law, which 'explicitly states' the precise opposite of what you claimed - implying that you yourself 'haven't read the law'.
You also said, about people being imprisoned for apparently forgetting their password:

I gave a example of precisely that happening.

from the press release:

the defendant [said he] could not recall it ... As the defendant claimed to have forgotten a password ...

So this is exactly what happened.
Some people, if they were caught out so badly wrong about so many things they were so dogmatic about, might think "when you're in a hole - stop digging".
But I'm glad you don't because it gives me an opportunity to repeat this point about which there certainly is 'a lot of FUD':

Basically, based on the few contested cases that have come up so far, if the police demand a password to some file you encrypted, only 2 things can happen:
a) you give them the password
or
b) you go to prison.
Except in special circumstances, saying 'I forgot my password' is NOT a valid defence.
The claim that the prosecution always have to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that you remember it is clearly false. It's up to the victim to show 'sufficient evidence' they have forgotten it, something that has never happened, and may be impossible in practice.
The following are also not defences:

• 'I didn't set a password' (an obvious lie)
• 'My answers would be self-incriminating' (this isn't America)

This is going to have a chilling effect on the use of encryption in general, will give the authorities power over people who have done nothing wrong, and will encourage those in the know to use 'deniable encryption' which will give police still less knowledge about the metadata.
HTH

Except it doesn't.
The actual quote from the law is:

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— (a)sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and (b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

IOW the defence has to show "sufficient evidence ... to raise an issue", and then and only then does the prosecution have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. So this is a completely new standard of proof introduced into the British criminal system after 1000 years of using only the 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' test. How do you show 'sufficient evidence' that you have forgotten a password? Nobody knows.
AFAIK (and IANAL) no judge has yet accepted the defence has shown 'sufficient evidence'. How do you show a negative - that you don't know something? Maybe judges think (correctly) that it's impossible to 'raise an issue', so the prosecution never has to prove anything apart from that you didn't hand over a password.
This is what's known as the 'reverse burden of proof' introduced in RIPA. You don't have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' you forgot the password, but you do have to show 'sufficient evidence', or - if you don't hand over a password - you're automatically guilty.
What's more the Home Office code of practice says that even if you have 'sufficient evidence' - it might not even be allowed in court 'if the person fails to raise some doubt as to whether he still had the key when the notice was given'.

Perhaps you're assuming no judge would be that corrupt,so here's a case of someone who quite plausibly forgot his password being imprisoned:

A TEEN who refused to give police officers an encryption password for his computer has been jailed for four months. Evidence showed that the defendant admitted in police interviews that he had set an encrypted password of between 40 and 50 characters containing both letters and numbers using an encryption software programme and that he had had originally relied on his memory to recall it but could not recall it when he was served with the notice.
The jury heard both the prosecution and defence case and accepted the prosecution case that the defendant must have kept a record of this very complex password, rather than relying on memory, and that he had deliberately failed to disclose it to the police. They returned a guilty verdict after 15 minutes deliberation.

Incidentally, if you do get ordered to hand over a password - even to sometimes else's data you happen to have - you're not allowed to tell anyone, presumably not even to ask for the password.

'Extremism' is an evil concept. An 'extremist' implies someone on the edges of the bell curve of belief - but guess what - most people think of themselves as being in the middle of that curve, no matter what their own beliefs. So in practice 'extremist' means 'extremely different from me'.
The purpose of law enforcement should be to stop acts of violence, terrorism, subversion, whatever - but never to stop mere difference. In a violent society, peace is extremist. In a dictatorship, freedom is extremist. In a racially segregated society, equality is extremist.
It's no wonder authorities love the word 'extremism', it's a slur for any kind of dissent.
Remember, the direct opposite of 'extremism' is 'conformism'.

This is a comment in the actual code used by the NSA:

/* These variables define terms and websites relating to the TAILs (The Amnesic Incognito Live System) software program, a comsec mechanism advocated by extremists on extremist forums. */

The source also says the NSA refers to "the Linux Journal - the Original Magazine of the Linux Community", and calls it an "extremist forum".

So yes, the NSA, in their own words, do indeed believe if you use TAILS, or read The Linux Journal, you are an extremist.

Someone please mod parent up.

I'm the developer of squte.com, I'm glad you like the simple look of it - I tried to model it after Slashdot at its prime. If there's anything else that you like, or that needs improving, let me know. I also use soylentnews and pipedot. The owner of pipedot (bryan) also responds to suggestions.

The only other open-source option for windows is FreeOTFE, which is also no longer developed. It works on Windows 7 with a hack

You can use luks with loopback files (e.g. http://paolobertasi.wordpress....) (1). FreeOTFE on Windows can open LUKS volumes (2). So only (5) is missing.