RIPA Part III

[Peter Fairbrother]

Ian G Batten wrote:

> 
> On 16 Jun 2006, at 11:08, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>> 
>> It is inherently dangerous to other people to drive, especially
>> while drunk.
>> That's why we have driver licensing, and do not permit people to
>> drive at
>> all when they are drunk. We have decided that it is a crime to
>> drive when
>> drunk - and I think most people, including drivers, would agree.
> 
> 
> So your argument is that because a risk society is comfortable with
> (people using cars)

First, it's about people driving cars, not people using them.

Second, society is not comfortable with it - it demands proof of competence
before letting people do it.

Driving cars is dangerous. Thousands of people get killed by them in the UK
every year.

> is rendered unacceptable by drivers drinking,
> it's OK to check drivers are not drunk as a condition of their using
> cars?

That's not quite what we do.
> 
> 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?

The effect on the innocent.

I don't much care what you do to paedophiles, castrate them or lock them in
a cell with society's worst, I don't really care. Do the same with drunken
drivers if you like. What I do care about it the effect on the innocent.

m-o-o-t is not fundamentally about protecting against demands for keys, or
rotecting the guilty, although that's a necessary part of how it functions.
It's about letting the innocent user have the freedom to use crytography as
he pleases.

An imposed breath test has almost no effect on the innocent. An imposed
demand has a huge effect on the innocent, and even the possibility that such
a demand could be made has a huge effect on the innocent.

That a sober, innocent driver might have to give a breath test is no great
imposition, it's not something he would worry about or that would greatly
concern him. That an innocent computer user might have to show everything on
his computer has a big effect on what he can do with encryption. Do you have
curtains?



I know this is not the way the law is worded, but in effect we are saying
"You want to do something inherently dangerous to the rest of us. The rest
of us will let you, under certain conditions. We reserve the right to
prevent you doing it if you break the conditions.".

Computing is not inherently dangerous. It can be misused, like most things
can, but it is not inherently dangerous. Mashed potatoes can kill - but we
don't make impositions upon people using potatoes because of that.

In the days of analog photography, did we inspect and licence darkrooms in
order to prevent them from being used to make KP pictures? Did we require
that every darkroom be open to inspection by the Police?


The other aspect of this is enforced cooperation, and I don't like that in
the drunk driver case.


I like it even less in the RIPA case.

I just phoned my Mum, it's her 81st birthday. She asked what I was doing,
and I explained I was writing an email and explained what RIPA does, and she
said "that's ridiculous, if I bury something in the garden I don't have to
point out where it is to the Police."

There is hope.


-- 
Peter Fairbrother