RIP FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS: HOME OFFICE RESPONSE TO UKCRYPTO

[Kieran Barry]

On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Watkin Simon wrote:

> Time now for the long-awaited Home Office response to Ukcrypto.  Rather than
> try to tackle every single issue that has been raised on Ukcrypto this week,
> we would like to pick up the themes that have tended to most preoccupy the
> list. 
> 
> "RIP and Lying" - Clause 50, Tipping-off
> 
> The concept of the tipping-off offence is not new.  The provision in the RIP
> Bill is based on existing precedents in section 93D of the Criminal Justice
> Act 1988 and section 53 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994.  These offences
> did not drive the financial institutions out of the UK so we are not
> persuaded that companies delivering e-commerce service will relocate outside
> the UK because of Clause 50.    

I beg your pardon if I am wrong, but I believe that the measures you 
mention (or similar ones) have been adopted in a majority of major 
countries. I would be surprised, for example, if an EU countries didn't 
have such powers.

In contrast, we expect that, should the bill be enacted _as is_, no other 
country in the EU, and possibly worldwide, will have such measures.

I have spoken about the bill to 2 groups of people involved in internet 
projects this week. Both are reviewing whether they should host them here.

When is similar legislation going to be introduced for Scotland? What are 
the Welsh going to do when the Irish and Scottish Development Boards 
start telling companies not to site in the "England and Wales" area 
because of regulatory arbitrage?

>
> Clause 50 creates an offence where the recipient of a section 46 notice, but
> ***only*** one which explicitly contains a secrecy requirement, or a person
> that becomes aware of it, tips-off or discloses to another that a notice has
> been served, or reveals its contents.  The provision is needed to preserve,
> where necessary, the covert nature of an investigation and to deter
> behaviour designed to frustrate statutory procedures and assist others to
> evade detection.   
> 
> Clause 50(1) limits the offence to occasions when a section 46 notice
> explicitly demands secrecy.  Clause 50(2) places restrictions on when such a
> requirement may be imposed.  So the offence will ***not*** come into play in
> all cases.
> 
Irrelevant. Stick limits in the bill or this is just talk.

> An example: where a section 46 notice is served ancillary to, say, an
> interception warrant authorised by the Secretary of State, it would be
> reasonable to impose a secrecy requirement.  It would be wrong for the
> recipient of a notice to be free to let the interception subject know that
> he is under investigation.  The same requirement is imposed in respect of
> the interception warrant itself by Clause 18.
> 
So introduce named lists of people who cannot be informed? Or lists of 
people who can. and time limits would be nice.

<SNIP>
> 
> "Revocation of Keys"
> 
> To clarify a point related to Clause 50, our view is that revocation of keys
> following any law enforcement access does not constitute tipping-off.  The
> point has been made that individuals and businesses would want to be free to
> revoke or change keys if they chose to do so after complying with any lawful
> request to disclose material.  Nothing in the Bill prevents that.  If there
> is a problem here, it is one for law enforcement.  
> 
Stick it in the bill, or we will wind up with a judge deciding.

For example, an amendment to Clause 50 

 (10) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section
      in respect of any disclosure, the replacement of a compromised key 
      shall not be viewed of itself as a disclosure.

<SNIP>
> We are not insisting that businesses never revoke keys so that they are
> available for the retrospective decryption of information.  Once again, if
> there is a problem here, it is one for law enforcement.
> 
I really don't know you mean by "It is a problem for law enforcement." 
The only meaning I can get is, "They won't have as many powers as they 
might like." Can you confirm that this is your meaning?

Regards

Kieran