Why?

[Donald Ramsbottom]

Having mused over the EC, IOCA and RIP bills it occurred to me (yes I know
I am slow on the uptake), that as far as I am aware no one has actually said
on what authority, data, or other material the HO has said that the content
of part III is required. They have said it is just to update procedures, and
I suspect it was asked for by the LEAs, but have they actually looked at any
research, academic or independent, that is, of the LEAs. If they have not,
why not. I just ask because all the papers I have ever read on the subject
of Crypto  have all concluded that more Crypto is better for the public at
large than less; although there is a minor chance that some serious crimes
may go un-resolved for longer than would have ordinarily been the case.

Even the FBI report on the subject does not say that any criminal got away
because of Crypto, just that some investigations had been hindered. If there
is any independent research or other authority to the contrary I would
welcome being pointed in its direction.

If all the HO have is a request from the LEAs that the provisions of part
III be included in a general update of interception law, would it not be
prudent for them to look into that request in a little more detail?
Otherwise the politicians answering questions on the subject may well be
misleading the public and if they do so in Parliament the politician
concerned would be misleading that august body. So someone at the HO ought
to just lift their heads and think for a minute what it is they are putting
in train.

It could be dreadfully embarrassing for Tony or Jack if they are found to
have mislead Parliament (especiallyif there were more Shayler type
revelations just before the election), because they handed out a glib
soundbite on advice which had not been properly researched. It does seem
that  some sort of enquiry (one which is open and  public) should be
instituted which can then be looked at by MPs. This would at least give an
opportunity for the real concerns of many to be aired. If this is too much
to ask for then, sound independent research to back up the propositions
contained in Part III.

Can anyone on this list at the HO comment? I know there are some that will
read this.




Donald Ramsbottom LL.B, BA (Hons).

RAMSBOTTOM & Co. Solicitors

Internet Law & Global Cryptology Law Specialists