Changes to Bill and How to proceed

[Donald Ramsbottom]

Resending as this does not appear to have turned up on the list from Sunday


SNIP

At 03:34 15/08/99 -0400, you wrote:
>RE:  Changes to Bill and How to proceed
>
>Nicholas is right in that drafting changes to Bill (until committee stage)
>are not down to you or us (in DTI).  But there is no harm in suggesting new
>text which accomplishes that which you think it should - in terms of keys
>and plain text.  Clearly the text at present does not prevent waht I think
>you want (ie session keys only) but would also allow other types of "keys"
>(as defined) to be asked for.  Surely  we have to be careful not to\become
>too technology specific here. 
>
                       
Go away for a week and come back to a mail bomb! You  have been busy bees!

Enough of the excuses.

What is actually needed are more specifics on what the LEA actually wants.
If it wants info on specific emails then the notice should specify this (
and can say all emails between X and Y etc.) If it is information on the HDD
rather than messages, the nature of the information needs to be specified in
the notice ( which should be in set written form and with appropriate
authority attached) ordering the session keys for that information. There
should be no immediate seizure of the CPU and other peripherals if while the
LEA is present plaintext will be produced, the LEA can then verify whether
the relevant information which they seek has been extracted. If the notice
is not complied with then seizure of the CPU etc should undertaken and then
and only then All keys be demanded.

This would mean that if the LEAs had been monitoring emails etc they would
know which ones they wanted and could specify and would also have the
opportunity of access to the HDD for specifics. If they then find
incriminating evidence they will seize the CPU etc under existing powers and
can get orders for full decryption of the HDD at leisure. It also gives some
protection against fishing expeditions by the LEA and if they do not find
anything under the specific notice requirements they cannot go on.

I am no draftsman, but it should not be beyond the wit of man to come up
with such a clause which would balance stae "requirements" against those of
the individual.

Just a thought, plain text, if dealing with an image could be an awful lot
of printing ;)



Donald Ramsbottom LL.B, BA (Hons).

RAMSBOTTOM & Co. Solicitors

Internet Law & Global Cryptology Law Specialists