Jack Straw' View

[Nicholas Bohm]

At 12:41 PM 7/1/2000 +0100, Richard Clayton wrote:
>
>*** PGP Signature Status: unknown
>*** Signer: Unknown, Key ID = 0xDCABB485
>*** Signed: 7/1/2000 12:41:28 PM
>*** Verified: 7/1/2000 2:09:57 PM
>*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
>
>In article <i3hVfrCHdMX5EwCr@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
><roland@linx.net> writes
>
>>In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006301355580.15539-100000@aidan.ncl.ac.uk>,
>>Quentin Campbell <Q.G.Campbell@newcastle.ac.uk> writes
>>>I would have thought that the requirement to hand over an encryption key
>>>is at least as serious a matter from the point of view of an individual
>>
>>"Serious" is defined in terms of the sentence for the offence. For the
>>GAK of a key to be "serious" I would suggest that it ought to be the
>>case that the penalty for *stealing* the key is sufficiently high for
>>that particular crime to be defined as "serious".
>>
>>To be honest, I don't know what the penalty is for stealing a key today;
>>or even what statute would apply.
>>
>>As a matter of crypto policy [on topic for once] what do people think
>>the penalty *should* be, and does that penalty come into the "serious"
>>category?

I think the point is that a crime should have to be as serious to justify
the demand for a key as it would be to justify the issue of a warrant for
an intercept; and the penalty for stealing keys is independent of that
point (it presumably involves an offence under the Computer Misuse Act).

>The actual definition of "serious crime" in the RIP Bill is to be found
>in 79(3), and either (a) or (b) qualifies:
>
>  (a) that the offence or one of the offences that is or would be
>      constituted by the conduct is an offence for which a person who
>      has attained the age of twenty-one and has no previous convictions
>      could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a
>      term of three years or more;
> 
>  (b) that the conduct involves the use of violence, results in
>      substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of
>      persons in pursuit of a common purpose.
>
>I note the recent comments about low sentences for first-time offenders
>in some pedophile cases. Is this then a serious crime ?? 

Clearly not: that's why the GAK threshhold is being kept so low.

>However (b) is the more interesting definition...  containing as it does
>three elements...
>
>I believe it should be parsed as (X OR Y OR Z) although (X AND (Y OR Z))
>looks almost possible...  presumably lawyers don't need all the words to
>get this sort of combinatorial logic right ?

The first "or" is implied by the last.

>Anyway - if it is a 3way OR then this means that the Bill believes that
>"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose" is
>a serious crime. Makes the London Marathon look pretty criminal ... but
>perhaps not the England football or cricket teams since evidence of
>common purpose is sometimes hard to detect :)

You may take a jaundiced view of running, or are perhaps assuming that the
Marathon involves obstruction of the highway (arguable but wrong), because
the conduct in question has to be a crime in the first place (see 79(2)).

Regards,

Nicholas 

Salkyns, Great Canfield,
Takeley, Bishop's Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone		01279 871272	(+44 1279 871272)
Fax		01279 870215	(+44 1279 870215)
Mobile   	07715 419728	(+44 7715 419728)

PGP RSA 1024 bit public key ID: 0x08340015.  Fingerprint:
9E 15 FB 2A 54 96 24 37  98 A2 E0 D1 34 13 48 07
PGP DSS/DH 1024/3072 public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF