RIPA Part III

[Richard Clayton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <KEEKKLEMLLFFMKAGENEBCEKKCGAA.oml@sysrx.uk.com>, Owen Lewis
<oml@sysrx.uk.com> writes

>       -       There has, in this country, never been a battle over the use of 
>crypto at
>all. All have ever been free to design, make and use their own systems with
>very few restrictions. The only restrictions that spring to mind are the
>restrictive condition in the Amateur Radio Operator's licence.

The other restriction is the right to make Patents secret... (a little
problem that Shamir et al ran into in 1987 with their zero-knowledge
proofs of identity)

I recall a fuss about 1984/5 of a software game protection system where
an applied for patent was made an Official Secret...   the details of
the case escape me (I can look up the beginning of the controversy, but
never did see the end -- I expect the people involved are on this list
though!).

I've no real doubt that this involved encryption of some kind.

>       -       There is absolutely no evidence to support the oft-made claim 
>that UKG
>'wants to see citizens' secrets', with the implication of 'all secrets' and
>'all the time'. What is true that the maintenance of good law and order
>requires from time to time selective searches of personally held information
>(as well as goods etc.), such searches being conducted in strict accordance
>with the legal safeguards that hedge them in.

not that, prior to 1985 there were many legal safeguards !

>       It follows that the present consultation re. RIPA Pt III is best 
>construed
>as an invitation to consider and develop  such hedging of the powers. I
>think that any who chose to treat the consultation as an invitation to the
>removal of the powers  are doomed to an absolute failure of an absolutist
>position.

I disagree in that there are THREE aspects to the consultation and the
strength of the argument for each aspect differs markedly:

1. There's "shall we give longer sentences to paedophiles who refuse to
decrypt" -- where the argument for is that it keeps the tabloids quiet
and the arguments against are based on principle and running a fair and
equitable society  [we don't give longer sentences for paedophiles who
speed or who give alcohol to the under-18s]

2. There's the "shall we have a power to decrypt" where the argument for
is that otherwise people will "get away with it" and the argument
against is that this is forcing people to incriminate themselves and
besides, everyone will claim to have forgotten their keys and so the
juries will just convict by judging all the other evidence and what they
think of the defendant's taste in suits.

3. Finally, there's the "shall we have GAK" where the argument for is
that it's much simpler for the police that way and the argument against
is that it will seriously damage the economy...

There's other for/against arguments for all of these three aspects of
course, but as you can see, the weight of these arguments in each
direction -- and whether the arguments are practical, principled, or
economic -- varies considerably.

So I do think it's worth responding that, in particular, (2) and (3) are
NOT inextricably linked, but should be split apart.

- -- 
richard                                                   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBRJK6AZoAxkTY1oPiEQIWnQCfQNNVNDF7BF/9L4lFzPiCmCCyOocAn0KP
9Nk0du0FgmcEdOl7RQYv0ArM
=GCfZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----