Who to argue with? (was RE: EU Draft Digital Signature Directive )

[Sylvester, Anthony B.]

Brian Gladman wrote:
>It is a tragedy that the DTI
>should find itself making the case for controls on behalf of other
>departments of government who either don't have a case at all or only one
>that does not stand up to any real public scrutiny.
>  
Sure, but the UK crypto community perpetuates that very structure by
demanding that Nigel roll out those arguments again and again and then
ridiculing him for what he says.

It might be possible to split the debate into pieces and wait to challenge
the reasoning behind access issues when Jack Straw introduces the new
legislation to grant LEA powers to require information necessary to decrypt
stored data or communications (not just your private key, mind, and
regardless of its source).  At least then it would be the Home office having
to field the questions.  (The 27 April statement said that proposals for the
'enhanced LEA powers' would come from the Home office... maybe that has
changed??)

It wouldn't be a neat split, as part of the
CA/TTP/licensing/standards/how-and-what debate does assume the outcome of
the second 'why should LEA have access' debate, right at the bit where TTP
licensing proposals (to the extent that they have been expounded) require
that encryption keys issued by licensed TTPs be lined up in a row for the
easy access of LEA. 

And the approach would be foiled if there is no sign of the LEA proposals by
the time the licensing mixture starts to set.

But thinking about it might move the discussion onto the raft of other
issues yet unaddressed?