BBC Online 24/3/2000: "MI5 laptop snatched"

[Owen Blacker]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

One would assume that they would not be warned.

The Tipping off offence seems specifically designed to prevent
suspects from knowing their communications are being tapped where the
key *has* been obtained from a third party of some kind, so why on
earth would the LEAs want to blow their cover just because a key has
further been compromized?

Particularly when, if the key *is* held by a third party, there is
plausible deniability that GTAC was the source of the wider
dissemination in the first place.

Yet another reason for good, publicly accountable, *transparent*
oversight, IMHO...


O x
- -----
Owen Blacker
Senior Internet Developer, pres.co
(Working off site at Marks & Spencer)
DSS: 0x7e3c8eab | 2f45 c60d 6a0a 0007 193d  d994 cd36 e021 7e3c 8eab
RSA: 0x38fee6c3 |      7c41 e69c 5b8a 484d  22af 1859 f4c9 307b


- -----Original Message-----
From: Caspar Bowden [mailto:cb@fipr.org]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 9:38 AM
To: ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk
Subject: Re: BBC Online 24/3/2000: "MI5 laptop snatched"


[deletia]

Earlier cutting from 98, appended. Well accidents do happen - but if a
serious GTAC compromise did occur, I wonder whether key-owners would
be
warned?

[deletia]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQA/AwUBON0Uqc024CF+PI6rEQJDBACfXXgf7xuWf9v90UKB239VuHWJcAAAoK22
g4zO6zFow0ysMqzqv6Do0eLy
=tZkx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been checked for all known viruses by UUNET
in conjunction with the StarLab Virus Control Centre.