Unpleasant EU move on encryption

[Brown, R Ken]

It looks even worse than Ross said:

I'm no lawyer but amendment 12 (c1)

"Member states shall prohibit on their territory    [...]  the advertising
and provision of information concerning the manufacture, import, sale and
availability in general of illicit devices"

sounds as if it could ban any discussion at all about decoders?   Even the
DVB's own website <http://www.dvb.org/dvb_news/dvb_pr042.htm>  provides
information about the "manufacture, import, sale and availability" of the
devices - if only their claim that they are over 200 million quid short this
year.

> Surely they can't mean that?   Maybe the amenders don't want the law
> passed & so are making it obviously unreasonable? (OK, that's probably
> paranoia brought about by reading  Trollope  over 140 years ago  has  the
> government proposing a bill to allow Protestant clergymen to inspect the
> clothing of nuns,  in order to provoke Irish Catholic MPs to walk out of
> Parliament, so that they can get  an unpopular free trade  bill
> through...)
> 
> 
> Ross Anderson wrote:
> 
> > The EU is about to issue a wide-ranging directive to ban unauthorised
> > decryption of commercial traffic. This is a result of lobbying by
> > Rupert Murdoch; its stated goal was to make it illegal to sell pirate
> > TV decoders.
> 
[snip]

> > and they managed to get an amendment quietly put through the European
> > parliament last month:
> >
> > <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ca-law/anast-report.pdf>
> >
> 
[snip]