US Plans for Decryption Orders

[Peter Mitchell]

Brian Gladman wrote:
> 
> While this is being publicised as a 'GAK' measure, in fact it is much more
> sensible than the UK government proposals because it is NOT Government
> Access to Keys (GAK) but instead required decryption by the keyholder under
> a court order.  And there is no tipping-off offence.
> 
> While some will consider this SAFE modification to be oppressive, my own
> view is that this is not unreasonable provided that there are good legal
> safeguards.  What I object to is the true GAK that is proposed in the uk
> bill and the pernicious consequences this has in respect of privacy,
> criminal prosecution and imprisonment for entirely honnest, law abiding
> citizens, who it seems, can be imprisoned if they cannot prove that they
> don't have a key that they have never ever had.
> 
>

Brian: I have been puzzled by the correspondence on UK-crypto about the
decryption order provisions of the draft UK bill. Some people seem to be
objecting to *any* police access to encrypted documents. 

Could you, just very briefly and when you have time, explain how you
think they represent GAK? Do you just mean that the bill would give the
police the right to demand that a suspect decrypts any relevant
documents in his possession? That power (limited by due process etc etc)
seems essential to me, pace the burden-of-proof issue which is clearly
unacceptable as it stands. 

--
Pete Mitchell  freelance journalist
14 Latchmere Road, Kingston, Surrey, KT2 5TW, England
Tel. 0181 408 2180		pete@dmed.demon.co.uk