Striking the Balance

[Ian G Batten]

On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Watkin Simon wrote:
> > but it is equally
> > possible that I wish to hide something like a particular legal sexual
> > proclivity because a significant proportion of people are 
> > bigoted about
> > such things and will ridicule me for activities they have no right to
> > comment upon.
> 
> Fine.  Encrypt it.  Share it with friends whom you trust to decrypt it and
> protect it and its source.  But what's that got to do with the prevention
> and detection of crime?

You shouldn't have to encrypt things which are merely personally
private, and to expect the general public to do so is moving the burden
of privacy unacceptibly.  Especially as ``Fine.  Encrypt it.'' sits ill
with the Home Office's repeated postures on encryption.

Anyway, let's take a scenario.  Consider someone who is innocent of all
crime, but has sexual proclivities which are in no way illegal but are
not mainstream (fill in your examples to taste).  They take your advice,
and encrypt the information on their computer which relates to their
sexual tastes.  They now fall under, wrongful, suspicion of terrorism.
It is highly likely that RIPA powers would be used to demand decryption
of that material, and also to invoke a range of other powers which would
make life _more_ complex than had they held it unencrypted.

> But the investigation doesn't start with the existence of protected
> information.

Doesn't it?  Isn't it highly likely, given the Home Office's attitude to
encryption over the past years, that anyone who transmitted all their
mail in encrypted forms would be laying themselves open to suspicion?
For a start off, they will be defeating the data retention requirements
that you claim are necessary.

> And if the protected information comes to light during an
> investigation then, as with everything else we're discussing, the
> circumstances of the case and need and proportionality of response
> come in to it.

Yeah, right, Simon.  Let's consider the case of someone with legal S&M
material on their computer in an investigation run by James Anderton
with Anne Widdecombe in the home office.  Are you really that naive?

> Just because someone has a secret doesn't mean TPTB want to know what it is.
> Secrets about crime and terrorism are one thing.  Secrets about sexual
> preferences and lovers are another.
>
> Aren't they?

Blackmail avoidance alone would provide a reason to ensure private
material was not revealed for no purpose.  I believe the Home Office
report in question is entitled ``Police Corruption in England and Wales:
An Assessment of Current Evidence'' by Joel Miller, quoted in the
Telegraph on the 17th of June this year.

ian