A dead duck? (Was RIP s22 notices SI)

[Owen Lewis]

Hi Bettina,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Bettina Jodda
> (Twister)
> Sent: 18 June 2002 14:04
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: A dead duck? (Was RIP s22 notices SI)
>
> > ....extension of powers interesting. I believe it *may* represent that
step
> > which passes from a defence of abstract rights to that of a popular gut
> > issue.
>
> Well, I must admitt I do not think it is a matter of abstract or
> real rights.
> I merely think it is a matter of
> - rights which can lead to (financial) disadvantage
>
> If this sounds strange, let me explain:
> For example "a digital right" like the copyright is also abstract.
> But it more "real" or important for people as it can lead to
> disadvantages,
> especially financial ones.
> Your copyright means a "real right" as it can help you to get
> "real money" so
> if someone violates this right there is this disadvantage of
> loosing money.
>
> Loosing a bit of your privacy through technology means "nothing"
> as far as it
> does not affect you personally - if you get more Spam for example
> ...so what?
> But people tend to only think about the consequences if they
> start to suffer
> (hence the explaination with the frog in the hot water).
>
> I think until some people will not get any life insurance because
> their data
> shows that they have bought too much vine so far (for example) or
> until they
> will have to answer to the police just because they have visited certain
> websites they will not think about the danger.
>
> It is like those famour words of M. Niemoeller:
> When they took away the Catholics I did not protest...I was no Catholic...
> in the end there was noone left to protest.


I agree with what you say but, perhaps, have a different slant on it.

My background was for 22 years that of an Army communications officer. I
spent about the first half of this time managing and protecting all sorts of
communication systems and the second half teaching and planning to abuse or
break communication systems. Since 1990 I have worked commercially and
internationally in technical surveillance countermeasures for major
institutions. I have followed and participated in various crypto and privacy
debates since 1992 when I first had an internet connection.

This background has not only taught me something about surveillance and its
application by the governments of a number of nations but it has also taught
me something of the way that persons and institutions usually react to it on
those occasions where they can expect that it is occurring.  My general
conclusions in respect of their reactions is much the same as yours. It's
financial interest that matters. Indeed a part of my presentations to large
corporations is that before they can rationally decide on the budget they
will set to provide for their information security, they need to have some
idea of (1) the monetary value of what it is they are protecting and (2) how
much of that value may disappear if others can access that information. All
a very hard-headed business :-)


Now, in personal terms, I have felt for a long time that the goals of most
privacy activists, worthy though they might be, were either unrealistic or
unattainable - basically because of a lack of general knowledge of and
interest in the issues at stake by the general public. Also, unlike some
privacy campaigners, I *know* that the security and well-being of a people
requires that the people's government can, from time to time and when
properly authorised, access communications data and, where possible, the
content of communications. In this country, with only minority opinion
against it, we adopted our Regulation of Investigatory  Practices Act 2000.
Despite the fuss in some quarters, the truth is that this was little more
than tidying up and placing under the law what had been occurring informally
for many years. A few people knew this but many, I think, sensed the truth
of it as a matter of commonsense. We Brits have no written constitution and
have been accustomed to and generally comfortable with many informal
arrangements.

What we now have in the UK with this damned Draft Order is an attempt to
massively increase the dominance of government at all levels - including
some which are not democratically accountable - over the citizens. This, in
my view is dangerous and actually reduces rather than serves the well-being
of the people. Now, that's the intellectual argument and I don't think it
will 'sell' to the man in the street any more than any of the earlier
attempts have.

What I hope the difference here may be is that, when it is drawn to their
attention, people from all walks of life will react with irritation against
this enormous extension of intrusion into their affairs. This is why I think
a simple analogy with one's local council being empowered to decide when,
for how long and for what purpose it will stare in through your
bedroom/bathroom window is a good one. It is, pretty exactly, the sense of
irritation and 'You get the hell out of here!' that one may be able to
conjure up for the many with no interest in the abstracts of electronic
privacy per se.

> > As always, its more important to draw a line in the sand than to quibble
> > about exactly where it should be drawn. The point at which it should be
> > drawn in these matters is the point at which people will
> respond to it as a
> > gut rather than an intellectual issue. Get it on the gut level
> and neither
> > this nor any other govt will touch it again. I say its time to draw the
> > line.
>
> Yep, I agree, I totally agree regarding the line in the sand.
> This is the problem which is often realized when it comes to human rights
> organisations or so on - while discussing whether they should
> become involved
> or not, whether to get heavily involved or just a bit or which
> way they miss
> the moment to get involved at all.

Yep. In the case of my country, I think we may have arrived at the obvious
point where all should commit and help fuel the fire over which any
government will roast if it tries such a thing again.
>
> As I said:
> It is time to fight for our privacy with the same enthusiasm we
> do fight for
> our other rights!

Ah.... as my friends (and some others) would tell you, I'm not a great
believer in any concept of 'rights'. I do however believe in treating others
decently and with a minimum interference into their lives and personal
affairs.

> btw:
> silly question at the end of the letter:
> who has founded ukcrypto?
>
> I want to add some important mailinglists to our homepage (like politech,
> ukcrypto etc) and therefore would like to have some basic
> information before
> writing....

I think it was formed by Brian Gladman, Ross Anderson and Paul Leyland. It
was Brian who first invited me to join the list when it was set up and Paul
who administered it on his site at Oxford University for some years.

> ....totally utterly :-) nonsense (like women tend to do sometimes...)

Now, now.... Please don't flutter your eyelashes at me like that (stop it, I
like it). I'm totally and utterly susceptible to feminine charm and guile:-)

With kind regards,

Owen