The Smith Report

[Caspar Bowden]

> Richard Clayton wrote

> >In other words ISPs are supposed to pay for boxes that the
> Government has
> >designed and programmed. Would any ISP involved in discussions with
> >Government like to confirm whether they have been offered
> verifiable access
> >to the software running on the boxes - if so how?
>
> every ISP I am aware of has indicated that they would be unwilling to
> pay for such a box ... Government policy is not to pay for
> such software
> (the Smith Report recommended a change of policy but I
> haven't seen any response)

I would expect HO not to comment if they can possibly avoid it unless/until
RIP goes through.

> ... and as far as anyone is aware, the software
> described does not currently exist
>
> hence the entire question is hypothetical, at several levels

Yes, but it's merely looking ahead a couple of years, instead of a couple of
months.

> >government eventually stumped up the cash (after much operatic
> grumbling) to pay for
> >the boxes - huge sighs of relief from ISP industry, all RIP
> opposition from
> >that quarter collapses, ISPs completely out-of-the-loop.
>
> you assume that the only motivating issue for ISPs is money :( and
> indeed that paying for the hardware fully addresses the money issue !

Well to a large extent it DOES, surely. If govt. pays for the boxes,
including their upkeep and maintenance, and undertakes to put all the data
back together again at GTAC, then for ISPs letting the govt. plug into their
networks passively is a no-brainer, if the alternative is permanent
"semi-active" hassle with attendant uncompensated opportunity costs. My
point is that Govt. can just ramp up the cash bribe until that proposition
becomes sufficiently attractive to quell opposition.

Some ISPs are clearly more prepared than others to voice dissent. How many
times have we seen official corporate responses that begin "we warmly
welcome...." before getting around to "a few tiny reservations" in the third
para. The current HO line ("it is not in government's interest to impose
unreasonable burdens on ISPs") is really pretty funny - it IS very much in
the HO's interest to only have a few, large, complaisant, corporations as
ISPs. Enough to compete with eachother and be threatened with differential
treatment at SoS's whim under RIP, but not so many or so varied that a
significant amount of traffic slips the net.
--
Caspar Bowden               Tel: +44(0)20 7354 2333
Director, Foundation for Information Policy Research
RIP Information Centre at:    www.fipr.org/rip#media