Privacy, security and public opinion

[Brian Gladman]

From: "Peter Mitchell" <pete@dmed.demon.co.uk>
To: <ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Privacy, security and public opinion


> Owen Lewis wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Nicholas Bohm" <nbohm@ernest.net>
> >
> > > The only legitimate justification
> [for key disclosure]
> > > that has been suggested is verification
> > > of authenticity of the plaintext; but of course use of a session key
> > > achieves that.  The remaining suggestion has been "timeliness", but
> > > without any explanation of how key disclosure achieves this (although
one can
> > > invent scenarios) and certainly without the slightest attempt to
provide
> > > evidence that there is a real practical requirement (as distinct from
a
> > > hypothetical one) which justifies the imposition of mandatory key
> > disclosure.
> >
> > You might find that the reluctance to detail the requirement in public
arise
> > from a need not to compromise operational methods.This is a key problem
in
> > the public discussion of such matters and, IMO, results in a fair amount
of
> > playacting in the place hard information. A 'consultation' process is
seen
> > to be gone though with the dice loaded twice over. Loaded once by the
> > impermissibility of open even handed debate; loaded a second time by the
> > putting up as official spokesmen good steady hands who, themselves, know
> > little or nothing of the realite (what they don't know they can't say,
> > inadvertently or otherwise, on or off the record).
>
> You've often hinted at this, Owen (in fact it has been implict in the
> debate from the start).
> Essentially the authorities are saying, "We need these powers. But we
> can't tell you why we need them, even though we may use them against
> you, citizen, at some time. You must just trust us to use them in a way
> of which you would approve."
>
> That attitude is not appropriate in a supposedly democratic society. If
> they do not explain to us exactly why they want these powers, then they
> cannot obtain our informed consent, and so they have no right to ask for
> them. Particularly since we know that the authorities have so often
> abused the trust we put in them.

Well said, Pete - the whole process for me has been one of raising serious
issues and having them ignored.

Our democracy is 'skin deep' because politcal parties and forced votes have
completely undermined the ability of Parliament to control the behaviour of
the executive arm of government who can pretty well do what they like
irrespective of the true wishes of citizens.  RIP is but one of many
examples where the 'lobby fodder' effect results in Parliament voting to
curtail the rights of honest UK citizens for no good reason.  As a result
many people are losing faith in Parliament and are, in consequence, turning
to other ways of getting their message across.  If Parliament does not take
steps to reassert its authority to curtail the unjustified actions of the
executive I believe this phenomenon can only get far worse in coming years.

Simon has been doing a good job in participating on this list but it is only
too evident that pretty well all of the issues raised here have not been
considered by the Home Office in preparing for the RIP Bill. In consequence
any answers that we do get are 'ad hoc' and not well researched and do not
stand up under detailed scrutiny.  And once the weaknesses become evident
the Home Office response is not to accept these and work with us to overcome
them but rather to shut down the dialogue and hope that they can simply
ignore our concerns.

In the area I have been concentrating on - the safety, security and cost
issues - there have been no serious attempts by the Home Office to meet the
issues that I have raised and it is now obvious that their intention is to
simply ignore them.  And they clearly can ignore them since there are
sufficient Labour MPs in Parliament who will follow the government line in a
completely unthinking way.

But while the Home Office can win the battle by behaving in this way, they
can't win the war since their unwillingness to meet many of the genuine
concerns being expressed will only serve to alienate the very people who
have the real power to ensure that GAK in RIP will fail.  If the Home Office
were truly interested in a safe and just society they would be working with
us rather than seeking to undermine our rights as honest citizens.

    Brian