RIPA Part III

[Owen Lewis]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of David Hansen
> Sent: 14 June 2006 15:11
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: RE: RIPA Part III
>
>
> On 14 Jun 2006 at 11:46, Owen Lewis wrote:
>
> > If I may say so, that's a neat summation of the case. The key concern is
> > one of proportionality and not of principle.
>
> Yes and no.
>
> Having Toms, Dicks and Harriets decide to demand keys on a whim with no
> real oversight is a matter of principle.

I'm dubious but let's not dispute the point.

> Having some form of access to encrypted data is somewhat more a matter
> of proportionality. This could easily have been arranged. One obvious
> example is to use the, far from perfect, system currently employed for
> dealing with the far less intrusive police attacks on houses. It is
> notable that even magistrates balked at imprisoning the vicitms of the
> attack in Forest Gate further. The police were in favour of "detaining"
> them even further as I understand it. Thus a very flaky system of
> oversight has been shown to have some merit.

Within the GAK topic, I'm not sure that 'oversight' should be the key
concern. I would sooner it was the setting of specific limits on the type of
case in the investigation of which decryption/keys can be demanded. Once
set, it would be impossible to override then, even in the name of 'national
security', since any *real* concern with activity threatening national
security is automatically a serious offence and would fall within the
category of cases where a decryption demand is allowed.

The two key issues seem to me to be:

	-	Proportionality.

	-	The necessity for a prima facie case to be made that the intended subject
of an order has a demonstrable and clear link to serious criminal activity.
It should not be a requisite part of such a prima facie case that the link
to criminal activity is culpable or even witting.
>
> This system was advocated to the Home Office, but they decided to
> ignore it (presumably at the behest of those pulling their strings).
>
> The Home Office had the opportunity to come up with something sensible,
> but they botched it. They only have themselves to blame and I see no
> reason to help them.

Well, now seems to be the time to re-lay this cornerstone. 'Helping the HO'
is an irrelevance. What we surely should all want is law - and the
administration of law - that gives a tolerable balance between valid but
conflicting concerns.

> > Can the use of the powers
> > be fixed to investigation of offences of an established grade of
> > seriousness? E.g. offences punishable by a maximum sentence of (say) not
> > less than five year's imprisonment?
>
> There was talk of "serious" offences in the early stages of RIP, but
> this seems to have been lost. Another cockup by the Home Office, but
> they have a long series of offence to be taken into consideration in
> this regard.

You may know better than I but I still think that:

	-	Now is the time for this particular to be addressed once more.

	-	That it may be timely for such re-addressal to receive an attentive and
not unsympathetic hearing.

 Owen