RIP amendments MK2

[Donald Ramsbottom]

At 14:59 06/03/00 +0000, you wrote:
>	On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 08:10:14 +0000
>	Donald Ramsbottom <donald@ramsbottom.co.uk> said...
>
>> Clause 52  page 52  line 35 leave out definition of key and replace with:
>>=20
>> ""Key" in relation to protected information, means the specific key(s),
>> code,  password, algorithm or other data the use of which (with or=
 without
>> other keys)-
>>=20
>> a) Allows access to the protected Information, or
>> b) Facilitates the putting of the protected information into an=
 intelligible
>> form"
>
>Your faith on the efficacy of the magic word "specific", is most
>touching, but it is actually quite meaningless in the context in which you
>have used it. Yes, there is a problem to be solved, but your wording
>gets nowhere hear it.


=20
>> Clause 52 page 53 line 1 leave out definition of protected information=
 and
>> insert
>>=20
>> ""Protected information" means the specific electronic data required,=
 which
>> without the specific electronic key to that data (such required data to=
 be
>> set out in detail in the S:46 notice) -
>>=20
>> a) Cannot be accessed or
>> b) Cannot be put into an intelligible form"
>
>And the same again here.

Well we have to have something. Something which is not too complicated ( so
the Judges and politicians understand it). Something which the LEA can
understand. I am still not sure I understand your problem with the word
specific ( yes, I am probably being dense), but read both amendments
together and it seems to my simple mind that use of "specific" ( COED
definition 1 "definite,distinctly formulated") covers some of the problems.
I would dearly like to dispense with all of part III but at present that is
not feasible.

So to my mind if the LEA wants a particular class of document(s) (rather
than a general trawl of the entire HDD) then these should be "specified" in
the Notice, the definition reinforcing the fact that there have to be some
parameters to the documents required.

The use of the word specific in the "key" definition is an attempt to relate
the required key to the data sought and stated as being sought in the=
 notice.

Remember the longer and more complicated the definition the more fun the
lawyes will have with it in Court!
=20
>
>
>However, I have been thinking further about "intelligible form". Here is=
 the=20
>start of some data (I won't bore you with the whole of it).
>
>=D0=CF^Q=E0=A1=B1^Z=E1^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@>^@^C^@=FE=FF=09
>^@^F^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^A^@^@^@8^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^P^@^@:^@^@^@^A^@^@^@=FE=
=FF=FF
=FF^@^@
>^@^@7^@^@^@=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=
=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=
=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF
=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF

SNIP

>Is that intelligible? To understand it, you need to feed it (the whole
>of it, of course) into a certain program, or "algorithm". But look at
>the definition of "key". Isn't the program (algorithm) that understands
>that data a "key" within the meaning of the bill?

Yes it is, and I believe I made this point in the EC debate, any data on a
computer needs to be decrypted in some form or another by a program of some
sort. Whether a (quasi) judicial authority will wear the issuance of a
notice for a word document is a matter for those seeking it. Remember, the
UM about the Police referring to the dastardly new encryption being used by
criminals called V90!=20
>
>So what is the program (key) that understands that particular data?
>Well, actually, it is Microsoft Word. And although many people (my self
>included) would regard anything to do with Microsoft Word as totally
>unintelligible, I don't think that is quite what the drafters of the
>bill intended. Or is it?

See above
>
>And, in any case, what would be the _proper_ way to define
>intelligibility, other than "you would know it when you saw it"?
>Somebody posted a definition a while back. Perhaps that could be
>reposted, and we should work on it.

It should  be worked on, post a draft and we can all have a crack.


Donald Ramsbottom LL.B, BA (Hons).

RAMSBOTTOM & Co. Solicitors

Internet Law & Global Cryptology Law Specialists