Minister promises that Part III is coming

[Peter Fairbrother]

BTW, nice to see you back Caspar. We haven't seem much of you here for a
while - since you gat the job with MS.

Caspar Bowden wrote:

>> admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Morrison
[...] 
> 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?

I do think that is reasonable, sort-of* - parole is an alternative to
imprisonment, a parolee would be in jail of he wasn't on parole - and
privacy goes out of the window when someone is imprisoned or otherwise
punished for a crime.

A parolee is being punished for a crime when he is on parole. The loss of
privacy is part of the punishment.

But I do _not- think that it is reasonable to require it when they are not
on parole, and not being punished for a crime.


[re being on the sex offenders list]

>> It isn't the equivalent of the star of David sewn on a lapel.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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..."?!

Kind of - if anyone can be forced to give up privacy when he isn't being
punished for a relevant offence, then we all lose out.



The criminal burden of proof requirement ("beyond reasonable doubt") is
there to protect the innocent from wrongful conviction - and it has a cost,
which is that some guilty people will not get convicted. They may even go on
to commit further offences.

Are we willing to pay that cost? We should be. If we don't pay it then
everyone can be wrongfully imprisoned more easily, and overall that is a
worse disbenefit to society than letting a few guilty people go free.


Mind, we have already lost so much in the way of safeguards to liberty under
this Government, and the tories don't seem to be any better ... sometimes I
despair.



* though as written it doesn't actually work, for technical reasons - eg, we
ask is this flat data actually encrypted data? - but as a parolee can be
sent to prison to serve the rsst of his sentence anyway, for no real reason,
that is already the case anyway - "refuse and we send you back to jail". In
fact, "refuse to do anything we ask, and we can send you back to jail".

There is no need to make it a seperate offence - it should not be an offence
as such at all.



A suspended sentence or probation is sort-of-similar, except that sometimes
a Court decides, rather than a parole/probation officer. I'm not familiar
with the exact details though.


-- 
Peter Fairbrother