RIPA Part III

[Owen Lewis]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Caspar Bowden
> Sent: 14 June 2006 12:25
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: RE: RIPA Part III
>
>
> >I may want to keep that secret but should the law which seeks
> >to punish me for the abuse protect my secret.
>
> The point is that encryption and its relationship to other technology
> aren't the same as it ever was.

Que?

> The government appears to be afraid that
> people will become accustomed to encryption technology, so very early
> made policy as if this was a bad, dangerous, tricky, exotic,
> unreasonable and suspect thing.

Did you write than c. 1992? You should update your texts :-) The 'crypto
war' was won by about '96 and everyone else has gone home for their tea and
crumpets, leaving you lonely, wet and dripping, still standing watch on the
ramparts. A bit like constantly clicking your fingers to keep the elephants
out of your living room

> How will use of encryption evolve over next 10 years? The basic
> assumptions must be that:
>
> - more people will understand how to do it; it will be more widely used
> - it will become more necessary and important for the individual's
> self-protection and information self-determination (i.e. controlling
> what others' know about you so you can take partial responsibility for,
> and limit economic and criminal risks arising from, personal data)


BS. Most people will benefit from unwittingly using cryptosystems provided
and maintained invisibly by others. >97% of the population don't worry about
self-protection unless confronted with a clear and present danger - even
then many will do nothing usefully protective.  I think >99.9% are
unfamiliar with the phase 'information self-determination' and that the
thinking part of those will be quite unable to associate those words with
the meaning you attribute to them.
>
> Encryption isn't quite like anything else, so let's stop pretending it
> is.

Oh yes it is. It is like in purpose to any other means of controlling the
dissemination of information. There is nothing inherently unique in its
purpose though a specific method may be unique. Come *on* Caspar!


Owen