Minister promises that Part III is coming

[Brian Morrison]

--Sig_Hy9GMC6J2ZHFFUVVj6Nbtop
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 12 May 2006 23:49:42 +0100
"Caspar Bowden" <casparb@microsoft.com> wrote:

> >admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Morrison
>=20
> >> >I'll grant it may have a bearing in the case of habitual criminals,
> >> >including paedophile and KP crimes, but it is not the be all and end
> >> all.
> >>=20
> >> What does that mean?
>=20
> >That you can't decide on their guilt by making that decision on
> >the basis of equivocal evidence.
>=20
> And where did you get the idea I had proposed that?

Well you didn't appear to be arguing in favour of strong controls on
what may be assumed in the absence of proof.

>=20
> >Those measures are part of a sentence, often in place of half of the
> >prison sentence. Outside of such restrictions, where is the authority
> >to hold the convicted to higher levels of probity than others?=20
>=20
> From the putative new law that is the subject of this discussion

Which is an extension of an existing measure that is already tipping
the scales considerably.

>=20
> >Even if,
> >in the case of KP convictions, an entry is made in the sex offenders'
> >register that in itself is nothing more than a flag to be used in
> >specific circumstances (jobs in sensitive places, such as schools).
>=20
> (2nd reminder I'm not talking about KP convictions for reasons
> previously discussed)

You stated "child molester", or at least responded to a statement
involving that phrase. If I took it to include KP too, then I did so
with some justification I thought.

>=20
> So you don't think it would be a reasonable parole condition for
> convicted child molesters to make arrangements to ensure they are able
> to decrypt data in their control if legally required?

No I don't, in much the same way I wouldn't expect them to have to dig
up their patios.

>=20
> >It isn't the equivalent of the star of David sewn on a lapel.
>=20
> That's a really tasteless and irrational comparison which I won't touch
> with a bargepole, but which I don't suppose you would want to maintain
> with a little more reflection.

Well actually I would, the labelling of people as paedophiles when
there is little more than hearsay (yes I'm not talking about
convicted criminals here, but sometimes I think that some convictions
are very questionable and smack of "get 'em at any cost") leads to a
similar imposition of lifestyle. It's a slippery slope, and with only a
litle grease we're all accelerating down it without brakes.

>=20
> What are you saying..."First they came for the convicted child molesters
> (reversing the burden of proof on key possession), and I did not speak
> out..."?!

That's the way I feel. It seems to me that increasingly we legislate by
trying to nick people on some premise and failing, and then changing
the rules so that we can get them another way. It's wrong, especially
so if the "crime" is flavour of the week/month/decade that
those in authority seem to feel requires action of the "any" variety. I
don't say that the perpetrators should get off scot free, but whereas
in years past I heard reports about court cases and didn't give them a
second thought, today I hear the reports and wonder whether the guilt
is real. If I'm in a tiny minority then fine, but if I am actually one
of a larger proportion of people who are no longer sure if the courts
are there to dispense justice and instead simply pander to
political/public opinion then there is a more serious problem at hand.

Look at the reaction of government ministers every time they are
rebuffed by a court, instead of accepting that they were wrong they
luster and threaten and before we know it they're off changing the law
in question.

--=20

Brian Morrison

bdm at fenrir dot org dot uk

GnuPG key ID DE32E5C5 - http://wwwkeys.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/wwwkeys.html

--Sig_Hy9GMC6J2ZHFFUVVj6Nbtop
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEZSGO9BNjUd4y5cURAk7qAKDBdQau6rufymnGAnNZIpkUbDE/1ACgy5d2
byYHSmmMGT4cVMCePyalflQ=
=wUD7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_Hy9GMC6J2ZHFFUVVj6Nbtop--