Privacy, security and public opinion

[Owen Lewis]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Systems Dept" <pete@dmed.demon.co.uk>
To: <ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk>
Sent: 06 June 2000 11:32
Subject: Re: Privacy, security and public opinion


> Owen Lewis wrote:
> > From: "Peter Mitchell" <pete@dmed.demon.co.uk>
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > You may say so. Now come up with an alternative.

> It was in my earlier posting. When the government proposes a law, it
> must produce its *real* reasons to anyone who cares to ask for them. If
> it does not wish to publish the real reasons, and as a result the
> legislation does not meet with the approval of parliament and the
> public, then the proposed legislation must be scrapped, though the sky
> fall.

Well, that's a view, firmly expressed. Do you know of any nation where it is
plain that the standards you prescibe are applied and under what law is the
prescription enforced? Should one not, at the least,  substitute 'ought' for
'must'. If you think not, I ask again for your authority as, for myself, I
know of none.

In fact, of course, the sky will not fall.

> > However, I believe that any real danger is very
> > largely nullified by the fact that anyone who is bright enough,
determined
> > enough and does not have a serious criminal record, can get themselve
into a
> > position where they either know what does go on or else even get to
direct
> > what does go on. In short, there should be nothing to hide in a system
which
> > is open to operation and management by the people in some ever
> > changing set of combinations.
>
> People only reach policy-making positions in any organisation if they
> conform to the standards set by those already in control. If they are
> not already inclined to conform, they either learn to do so, or are
> selected out before they reach policy-making level.

Conforming to (attaining) standards, I accept. This does not at all mean
that each generation does not bring change. Patently, it does. That change
occurs is the evidence that the ossification of thought you infer is, at the
very least far, from complete.

> I too am happy to delegate policy-making to the experts, provided I can
> examine what they are doing and intervene if I so choose. Public
> scrutiny is the one and only key to proper governance.

I would say that it was but one key. That it is not the only nor even the
most necessary key is evidenced by its only partial application. And yet, as
you say, the sky does not fall.

> Also remember that much of the content of these policy decisions is
> moral, on which policymakers have no special claim to expertise, yet
> still prefer not to consult us. Vide the Belgrano affair. Or Chevaline.
> Or telephone tapping generally, for that matter.

That's quite a mixed bag :-) To stay with telephone tapping (as closest to
the purposes of this list), I would say that the law is plain enough for all
to see. It is not secret. It's language is largely self explanatory and
where it is not satisfactory inferences can be drawn. In relation to
telephine tapping specifically and IoCA 85 and RIP, what do you not have
that you would have, if you could, in terms of public scrutiny? I note that
you do not comment on my suggestion of parliamentary Select Committees with
enhanced investigatory powers  and re-inforced by ad hoc sub-committes of
co-opted experts from outside of govt service.

Owen Lewis