Privacy, security and public opinion

[Owen Lewis]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Mitchell" <pete@dmed.demon.co.uk>
To: <ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk>
Sent: 06 June 2000 22:49
Subject: Re: Privacy, security and public opinion


> > > .... 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?
>
> No. Not that it matters: I don't know of any nation with a zero murder
> rate, either, but I still reserve the right to oppose murder.

With respect, that does not address the point. You know many countries with
laws expressly prohibiting murder under severe penalty. Which countries do
you know that have laws expressly requiring the legislature (or the
executive) to publish in full (and who is to judge whether they ever
have?) their reasons for every piece of legislation, on penalty of having to
withdraw the legislation if they do not do so?


> > ... telephone tapping ...
> > I would say that the law is plain enough for all
> > to see. It is not secret.
>
> Not now it isn't, but I was thinking mainly of its history.

Well, let's not refight old battles. It is now and the future that we must
deal with.
>
> > It's language is largely self explanatory and
> > where it is not satisfactory inferences can be drawn.
>
> Not good enough. If the govt of the time was confident that the bill
> would command public support, why not make the rationale clear? And if
> it wasn't confident, what was it doing enacting it?

Because it is axiomatic that matters of operational security should
not be publicly debated. You may not agree with such a policy but it
is essential to effective governance that it is so - which is why every
country's govt does not debate such issues in public.

> > 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?
>
> The full stats of IOCA warrants. How many are issued against how many
> subscriber lines; how many lead to prosecutions of how many people; how
> many of these are successful; how many people suffer interception
> without any subsequent prosecution; *exactly* what grounds the HO have
> accepted as justification for interception; how many times applications
> for warrants have been refused; and so on.

You seem to make an assumption that all warrants are issued by the HS and in
matters of policing. If you had the information you have asked for, would it
then surprise you if you found that many warrants were not issued primarily
in the way of obtaining evidence for a successful prosecution but as
intelligence gathering in protection of our common security? How would you
reconcile the publication of this information to those who would harm us
and, taken with other information similarly released to all and sundry, who
would then use it to their advantage and our detriment?

>Without this information it
> is hard to do a moral cost-benefit analysis of whether telephone tapping
> is an essential LE technique of last resort, or a convenience for idle
> coppers, or whether it lies somewhere in between. As long as coppers --
> idle or not -- have the power to control this information, we will never
> know it.

I think you could find that eavesdropping has proved enormously cost
effective over many years; basically because people do not keep their yaps
shut. You already know, I think, that it is not the police (yet) who control
telephone tapping.

> > 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.
>
> I'm all in favour of that. Since a useful FOIA is highly unlikely under
> the current administration, it's probably the best practical solution
> for the time being. However, that doesn't change my opinion of what
> *ought* to be.

I understand and sympathise with why you feel things ought to be as you
describe. Sadly, we live in a very imperfect world with much of the
imperfection not of our own making but we must cope with that imperfection
as best we can.
What is best in practical terms is, more often than is comfortable, at odds
with what one might most desire.

Owen Lewis