failure to explain meaning of conversation (Re: US Plans for Decryption Orders)

[David Swarbrick]

In message <199908022337.AAA19943@server.cypherspace.org>,
adam@cypherspace.org writes
>
>Brian writes:
>> We will all 'draw the line' at different places - some will not want to see
>> even a an 'obligation to decrypt' but I feel that this is something that
>> will benefit law enforcement without placing an unreasonable obligation on
>> individuals.  Giving up keys, however, is too great an infringement of the
>> rights of individuals for my liking.
>
>I am one of those some that view 'an obligation to decrypt' as a
>dangerous shift in the balance of power towards the state.

It already exists in a very limited format in the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984 s21

>
>I think it is an infringment of the right to silence. 

There has been a big debate about this. I am not convinced it is such, I
do not see that decrypting a file is straightforwardly the making of s
statement.


>They should just write it off as one of the rare technology shifts
>which has increased privacy.

I agree. I think they should welcome the benefits of increased privacy,
and sigh and take a hit on some criminal investigation. It is also worth
pointing out (again) that lazy privacy will give them more info.


-- 
David Swarbrick 01484 722531 david@swarb.freeuk.com http://www.swarb.co.uk  
IP / IT Law and Contracts. Home of the law-index of 9800+ uk case summaries.
   The Law Society regulates us in the conduct of investment business.