Striking the Balance

[David_Biggins@usermgmt.com]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Watkin Simon [mailto:Simon.Watkin@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk]
> Sent: 30 October 2002 14:01
> To: 'ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk'
> Subject: RE: Striking the Balance
> 
> The fact that a mechanism exists does not mean that mechanism is used
> arbitrarily or unfairly or to facilitate "mass surveillance". 

No,  but without clearly visible adequate oversight and sanction for
abuse, neither does it satisfy the reasonably public expectation that it
provides adequate and safe protection against arbitrary and unfair use,
or mass surveillance.

> The fact that
> lawful interception of communications takes place doesn't 
> stopping all of us
> (bar a few paranoiacs) using communications services.  

Indeed.  But not, I suggest for the reasons you suggest.

> That's 
> because all of
> us (bar a few paranoiacs) don't think we're being listened to 
> or read.  

No.  I think many here will have known times when they have had more
than sufficient reason to suspect they are being listened to or read.  

I'm (almost) paranoid enough to suspect that taking part in this
discussion, in the terms we have, may well have resulted in your
"colleagues" performing the odd additional check or two.

The fact that for most of us (I hope) those times have coincided with
relatively benign justifications, does not prevent the unpleasant
feeling it causes, nor the determination not to go through it except
when absolutely necessary.

> The
> fact that all communications could be listened to or read, if 
> there were
> enough people to do it or processors to process it, doesn't 
> mean they are. 

No.  But it also provides no protection against abuse.

> Isn't the issue here not one of mass surveillance but, as we've been
> discussing, more openness about what does go on, the 
> accountability of who
> does it and transparency of punishment for those who act 
> outside the law?

Oh yes.  But it's also about the attitude of the authorities, and the
recognition that privacy must be genuinely regarded as a right, rather
than as an administrative inconvenience whose breaching merely requires
proper publicity management.

## dave ##