RIPA Part III

[Owen Lewis]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Richard
> Clayton
> Sent: 16 June 2006 14:03
> To: UKcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: RIPA Part III
>=20
>=20
> * PGP Signed by an unverified key: 06/16/06 at 14:02:41
>=20
> In article <KEEKKLEMLLFFMKAGENEBCEKKCGAA.oml@sysrx.uk.com>, Owen Lewis
> <oml@sysrx.uk.com> writes
>=20
> >       -       There has, in this country, never been a battle=20
> over the use of=20
> >crypto at
> >all. All have ever been free to design, make and use their own=20
> systems with
> >very few restrictions. The only restrictions that spring to mind are =
the
> >restrictive condition in the Amateur Radio Operator's licence.
>=20
> 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 see your point but don't think it applies in the context. In applying =
to the state for a patent, one applies for a monopoly right to the =
knowledge. No one require that you or I make such an application, we may =
just go quietly about our business. In truth I believe the position in =
respect to patenting to be even more severe that you say. The state can =
on only classify the invention but - in this country at least - may =
claim it for itself and without due compensation being agreed :-)

> >       -       There is absolutely no evidence to support the=20
> oft-made claim=20
> >that UKG
> >'wants to see citizens' secrets', with the implication of 'all=20
> 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=20
> information
> >(as well as goods etc.), such searches being conducted in strict=20
> accordance
> >with the legal safeguards that hedge them in.
>=20
> not that, prior to 1985 there were many legal safeguards !

Not so. What is true is that the regulations were not set out plainly in =
statute law, nor was their application debated openly but (so I do =
believe) regulations did exist.=20

A short tale from real life. Back in the Dark Ages, from time to time =
there would be routine interception of the office lines of some officers =
in NATO appointments. This was not designed as a stick to beat said =
officers with but as a counter-intelligence QA testing, to determine =
what information of hostile interest could be derived from routine =
conversations over unclassified circuits. This always seemed to me to be =
a quite reasonable procedure to apply to the conversations of persons =
who knowingly and willingly surrendered some of their personal privacy =
in order to fill certain posts. The joke was that only the lines of US =
or UK officers could be intercepted covertly in this way, as (e.g.) a =
German or a Belgian would be able to mount and win a civil suit for =
damages for the infringement of his civil right:-)     =20
>=20
> >       It follows that the present consultation re. RIPA Pt III is =
best=20
> >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=20
> invitation to the
> >removal of the powers  are doomed to an absolute failure of an =
absolutist
> >position.
>=20
> I disagree in that there are THREE aspects to the consultation and the
> strength of the argument for each aspect differs markedly:
>=20
> 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]

I agree. The logic is unsound and the HO should be employing people to =
write such stuff who know and can do better. As a part of this =
consultation the unsoundness should be pointed out.=20
>=20
> 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.

This is the nub of the matter and cannot be reasonably dealt with in =
sound bites by the HO, thee, me or anyone else. It invites careful and =
cogent reasoning in submissions as a part of the consultation.

>=20
> 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...
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> So I do think it's worth responding that, in particular, (2) and (3) =
are
> NOT inextricably linked, but should be split apart.

Fair enough, but IMO the principle of proportionality is important and =
applies to both.

Owen=20