FT 29/9/2001: :"Home Office may allow interception of e-mails"

[Rob Skedgell]

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

On Saturday 29 Sep 2001 04:46, you wrote:
> http://globalarchive.ft.com/globalarchive/article.html?id=010929001554&q
> uery=encryption
> NATIONAL NEWS: Home Office may allow interception of e-mails
> ANTI-TERRORISM REVIEW:
> Financial Times; Sep 29, 2001
> By ROBERT SHRIMSLEY
>
> Security agencies could gain new powers to intercept private e-mails as
> part of the review of all anti-terrorist measures being supervised by
> the Home Office.
>
> Downing Street confirmed yesterday the review would include a
> re-examination of the new and controversial Regulation of Investigatory
> Powers Act, which allows the interception of private and encrypted
> e-mail and internet files.
>
> Details emerged after Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, railed against
> those who had forced him to water down the act when he was home
> secretary in the last parliament.
>
> He told BBC radio: "We needed the powers to de-encrypt commercially
> sensitive e-mails because we knew terrorists were going to use it . . .
> but the pressure was so great we had to back down a bit."
>
> He added: "I was told it was completely unnecessary and that it was the
> beginning of 'big brother' society. But it was not 'big brother'
> government, it was government trying to put in place increased powers to
> preserve and safeguard our democracy."
>
> He said that before September 11 "people had a two-dimensional view of
> civil liberties: the most fundamental civil liberty is the right to
> life".

I don't seem to remember Mr Straw mentioning this 'most fundamental civil 
liberty' whenever police officers used firearms to arbritrarily deprive 
(unarmed) people of it in a hail of bullets. Perhaps I am suffering from 
selective memory?

>
> One senior minister stressed that discussions were at a preliminary
> stage, but added that a number of concessions that the government made
> to the civil liberties and business lobby would be re-evaluated. "In the
> light of recent developments and the incredibly fast pace of
> technological advance it would be foolish not to see if there is any
> more we can be doing," said the minister.
>
> The powers contained in the original measure were watered down over a
> period of years after complaints both from civil liberties groups and
> from those in business who warned it could drive internet companies out
> of Britain.
>
> Among the first proposals to be shelved was one for what was known as a
> "key escrow" - a plan to force companies to lodge the decryption keys
> that allowed the deciphering of encoded internet material at a central
> government-run repository.
>

It is of course well known that if key escrow were implemented, all terrorist 
groups and organised criminals operating in this country would immediately 
surrender their keys. Followed by their unlicensed firearms and unpaid taxes.

> This would have given the security services access to the keys but
> internet companies said it would discourage business from basing itself
> in Britain.
>
> Ministers also agreed, under pressure of defeats in the House of Lords,
> to boost the safeguards for confidential e-mails. The Home Office agreed
> that demands for encryption and decryption keys would have to be
> authorised by a more senior officer than originally planned.
>
> The Confederation of British Industry urged caution on any changes,
> saying: "We are very keen to have a balance between fighting terrorism
> and the right to privacy."
>
> It added that the CBI would consult its members on the issue and would
> be seeking more information from ministers on the government's plans.

- -- 
Rob Skedgell
Tel: +44 (0)7929 906988
Fax: +44 (0)8700 521928
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Fingerprint: 039D 718C AA22 33F6 02FA D199 4A13 96DC 44C3 ABB8

iEYEARECAAYFAju4HE4ACgkQShOW3ETDq7jBYwCg7Q3T9FAWjd+e5NhFXLltqTXQ
3tcAni6xAiaaugqBJEOMLqsgdSIUOBxu
=359B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----