The Smith Report

[Charles Lindsey]

	On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:37:57 +0100
	"Caspar Bowden" <cb@fipr.org> said...

> 
> Charles,
> 
> I think the difference between us is chiefly that you have been making very
> reasonable assumptions about what the Bill SHOULD mean and how it CAN be
> interpreted, but I am concerned to pay attention to what the Bill actually
> says and what limits it places on lawful conduct. 

Precisely so. I am concerned with what the Bill actually says, not with
what it is alleged to mean by various people. That is why I argued
at length with Simon over the phrase "the key". That is why I drew
attention to the fact that Plod CAN get to see signature keys keys in
spite of protestations in the Bill to the contrary.

> Why not? It would be very easy for the government to issue categorical
> denials, confirming your viewpoint and refuting ours, but there has been
> absolutely nothing for three weeks, and near enough forty media stories in
> that time alone. If government was going to change the Bill as a result of
> reasoned and informed objections, they would have done so months ago -
> substantial clarifications and safeguards are only going to be achieved by
> clear-sightedly but sceptically pointing out the inadequacies of the Bill as
> drafted, not making panglossian assumptions which do government
> spin-doctors' work for them.

I think the silence from government indicates that they do not regard us
as of sufficient importance to take seriously. We are not "industry".
We are not "Big business". We are just a collection of individuals,
and government is used to weighting the opinions submitted to it in
proportion to the size of the organisation submittibng it (which is why
FIPR gets a bit of notice taken). Now that may be a fine way to assess
the value of "opinions", but it is no way to measure mathematical, or
even legal truth. And you will remember that Simon did let his mask slip
in that very regard.
> 
> >Charles Lindsey
> (footling points snipped)
> 
> > If I were an ISP, I would much prefer the semi-active method.
> > I think it is much more likely that it can be made to work with
> > less hassle than the passive ones
> 
> Well the ISP industry tell me different - let's hear from a few ISPs ?

Sure. Richard? Roland?
> 
> > And there is nothing in Smith to suggest that these boxes are
> > in any way "black" or "opaque".
> 
> That's not the point. Can you propose a verifiable protocol and design,
> proof against insider attack, that would allow Swinton Thomas to know what
> any box had actually been doing, assuming that the boxes will have an uplink
> and be controllable from GTAC?

But I deny that assumption, and therefore the question does not arise.
That is the fundamental difference between us. I maintain it would be
unlawful for an ISP to permit a box of that nature to be installed on
its premises. It is written in to the Bill in a clearer manner than
a lot of other things that we are concerned about. I am sure we all
agree that it _ought_ to be unlawful, and by all means let people
suggest better wordings that would make it doubly so. But that is the
fundamental issue that we want to be gotten right.

> 
> As to the rest, it seems to me we can't make further progress until we have
> a definitive statement (which a Minister will be prepared to repeat in
> Parliament) from the Home Office which tells us whether in the Government's
> view:
> 
> a) Part.I Ch.I warrants to intercept the Internet MUST ALWAYS be served on
> ISPs - ESPECIALLY in the circumstance of a Smith Group passive box installed
> on ISP premises, capable of being 

No, if Plod can do the intercept by "interfering with wireless
telegraphy" as the Bill so quaintly puts it, then he needs to be allowed
to do so. And I have referred once or twice to Plod digging up the street
and getting his hands wet. The matter of his doing criminal acts in the
process is worrying, but the worst of that actually comes in Chapter 2
of the Bill, not in Chapter 1. And I just do not accept the "remotely
programmed" bit, as I have already said.
> 
> c) Exactly how government define communications data in the context of the
> Internet

Actually, the definition of communications data in the Bill is quite
good, when measured by its usually lamentable standard. Yes, it could
be tightened up, and some of my amendments address that. See also the
message from Quentin and my reply.

Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email:     chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk  Web:   http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9     Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7  65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5