RIPA Part III

[Roland Perry]

In article <86117716-0184-4B61-BA3C-0D5AF249B84C@uk.fujitsu.com>, Ian G 
Batten <ian.batten@uk.fujitsu.com> writes
>So your argument is that because a risk society is comfortable with 
>(people using cars) is rendered unacceptable by drivers drinking,  it's 
>OK to check drivers are not drunk as a condition of their using  cars?
>
>Computers are a risk society is comfortable with, but it's rendered 
>unacceptable with people storing child pornography.  If you're in 
>favour of random tests of drivers (which are de jure illegal, but de 
>facto conducted), why would you object to random sampling of  computers 
>to see if they contain child pornography?

I think you are closer to the truth than you think.

We accept the testing (for drink driving) of people who have put 
themselves under suspicion by committing some sort of moving traffic 
offence. So is it okay to demand the keys to examine further the PC of 
someone who has put themselves under suspicion by having a small amount 
of unencrypted illegal imagery discovered there?

-- 
Roland Perry