GAK in RIP Costs

[Brian Gladman]

Earlier this week FIPR published a report written by me on the cost of
protecting keys seized under the provisions for GAK in the RIP Bill. This
report is available here:

    http://www.fipr.org/rip/RIPGAKBG.pdf

Will Knight has just covered the report's findings and the Home Office's
reaction to them here:

   http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/8/ns-13774.html

Will quotes the Home Office response as follows:  "We would dismiss this," a
spokesman says. "In cases that do require a key, this would be offered the
highest level of protection. We would also dismiss the claims about the
costs."

I find the use of the words 'would' interesting since I am quite sure that
they ***would*** dismiss these estimates if they ***could*** do so.

Will then goes on to say that the HO spokesperson could offer no details on
how the government intends to store keys and how much this will cost.   So
its immediately obvious that, while they dismiss my costings, they have not
got even the slightest clue as to what these costs actually are!

So now we see why they had to use the word 'would'  - they would dismiss my
cost estimates if they could, but they can't, since they have no basis for
doing so.

So in the light of this demonstration of HO competence I guess you folks
will just have to decide whether it is me or the HO that have not got a clue
on such matters.

However, what is important is not whether the HO or I have the right figures
since I would certainly admit that I had to make many assumptions in
arriving at my costings. These are much better than those produced by the HO
(i.e. none) but nowhere near good enough to provide a sound basis for
Parliamentary legislation.

We now need much more detailed plans from the HO in resepct of all the
authorities who will have the powers to obtain keys so that we can have an
open public assessment of the true costs of these GAK provisions.  This is
going to be hard to do on the time scales of the RIP Bill though so these
aspects of the Bill will have to be put on hold while the HO does it's long
ovedue homework.

Its much more likely the HO will try to fudge this issue.   I hence urge
everyone on this list to ensure that their MP knows that the costs of this
legislation have not been properly identified and that, until this
uncertainty is resolved, it would be highly irresponsible to enact this
aspect of the legislation.

Remember that it is YOUR money that the HO is trying to squander without
justification and they want to keep Parliament in the dark so that we only
find out after the event.

     Brian