FW: RIPA Part III

[David Hansen]

On 13 Jun 2006 at 22:26, Peter Fairbrother wrote:

> > Not used properly, only necessarily and only proportionately it isn't.
> 
> Considered as a step, it doesn't matter whether it is used in a
> necessary or proportionate manner. It's still a step in the wrong
> direction.

There is a big difficulty with the "consultation(s)". Some people see 
RIP as a wonderful thing, others do not.

Should people in the latter category waste their time and energy taking 
part in a "consultation" that, from their viewpoint, is only re-
arranging the deckchairs but not doing anything about the meeting of 
ship and iceberg? Would they be better spending their time and energy 
trying to defeat this obnoxious pile of steaming manure and ignoring 
the "consultation"? Even if we assume that the Home Office are honest 
about wanting feedback, an assumption that their track-record does not 
show to be a certainty, they are not going to make any changes to RIP, 
for reasons already discussed.

The Home Office chant necessity and proportinality as if it was a 
mantra. According to them the police are able to judge this. Events, 
see below, indicate to me that the police are amongst the last people 
that are able to judge either thing. The best one can say of them is 
that their mindset colours their judgement.

Event one is the pre-meditated murder of a railway passenger at 
Stockwell station in London. The police, in conjunction with the Home 
Office and party politicians, came up with a (largely) secret 
conspiracy to murder, which was then carried out.

Event two is the recent terrorist activities of the police in Forest 
Gate in London. One of the victims of these terrorists is lucky to be 
alive. These are just two well known examples, there are many more.

Subsequent to both events the police said they would do the same thing 
again. That indicates that they consider both events were necessary and 
proportionate. I disagree most strongly with that sort of arrogant 
attitude.

Those with that sort of attitude are certainly not the sort of people 
that can be trusted, especially without any real oversight, to decide 
whether it is necessary and proportionate to steal my keys.

Of particular concern is the foolish notion that keys should only be 
protected to the same level as the information they protect. Either the 
Home Office don't know anything about encryption, or they are being 
deliberately foolish.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents 
me   
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54