US Plans for Decryption Orders

[David Swarbrick]

In message <37A55E00.7907@dmed.demon.co.uk>, Peter Mitchell
<pete@dmed.demon.co.uk> writes
>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. 

I think not, but that the proposals go well beyond that and down th
enext street.
>
>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? 

The power does not relate only to suspects. If a suspect deals with any
third party using encryption, that third party, and however many of them
that may be, is liable to have his key compromised.

The bill gives the power to put the police in the position to demand a
key to read any other documents which might come into their possession -
not just extant documents.

>That power (limited by due process etc etc)

There is no due process, merely the right to demand. If the innocent
third party refuses to comply, he is given the right to appeal - by
which time he has committed the offence.

The due process we have had under IOCA could barely be described as due
process by anyone.

>seems essential to me, pace the burden-of-proof issue which is clearly
>unacceptable as it stands. 

The tipping off offence is a disaster.

-- 
David Swarbrick 01484 722531 david@swarb.freeuk.com http://www.swarb.co.uk  
IP / IT Law and Contracts. Home of the law-index of 9700+ uk case summaries.
   The Law Society regulates us in the conduct of investment business.