RIPA Part III

[Peter Fairbrother]

Ian G Batten wrote:

> 
> 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.

Yes, pretty much so. Is that so strange?

 
> 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.

I didn't claim that at all.

I claimed that the possibility of being breathalysed was less onerous on the
sober driver than the possibility of having to give up keys on the innocent
computer user. 

The not-so-innocent, those who have ever driven while over the limit, might
well disagree as far as it applies to them.



BTW I can drive, and occasionally do - I sometimes hire a car, and people
occasionally ask me to drive their cars. I even own a van, though I haven't
driven it in a good long while.

Just I live partly on the edge of a medium town, where a car is not needed,
and partly in London, where a car is too much hassle (and too expensive).



Please remember that, as I said, I was unhappy about this argument, and am
only following it to see where it goes.


-- 
Peter Fairbrother