RIPA Part III

[Ian G Batten]

On 16 Jun 2006, at 14:29, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>
> 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.

Scenario 1: Peter Fairbrother says that those with nothing to hide  
have nothing to fear.


> 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?
>

Scenario 2: Peter Fairbrother says that those with nothing to hide  
have much to fear.

It's your particular claim that you regard being breathalysed as less  
invasive than having people look at the innocent material on your  
computer.  I'd be prepared to bet that if you put this one to a vote  
of non-geeks, you wouldn't have unanimous, or anything like it,  
agreement.

> 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?

Yes, in the sense that with a warrant, the police could seize all the  
materials in a darkroom.  RIPA is saying that with a warrant, the  
police can demand decrypted forms of information on your computer.   
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be astounded if the police wouldn't be  
permitted to develop unprocessed film found whilst executing a search.

ian