Minister promises that Part III is coming

[Caspar Bowden]

>admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Ian G Batten

>>On 15 May 2006, at 12:48, Owen Lewis wrote:
>>  Because the exploitations that caused the
>> said child molester to be banged up may be the same or similar to =20
>> those
>> applied against some terrorist group or even against some nuclear-=20
>> armed and
>> failed or rogue state.

>I've always taken comfort from that.  There's always a know-it-all =20
>who says, unanswerably, ``of course, GCHQ can brute force 3DES|AES256|=20
>OTP in a day''.  My logic has been that even if we accept for a =20
>moment that they can --- which I don't --- they're hardly going to =20
>reveal their hand for anything I'm likely to be involved in.   So =20
>even if it turned out that AES256 had a flaw that rendered it =20
>tractable, the purposes to which that's going to be put don't include =20
>decrypting my ssh sessions.

Owen said exploit(ations). That may not mean the ability to break a
cipher (but a break may have small zero work factor). It may mean doing
something active and in theory detectable. Speculating, this would lead
to a utilitarian calculus about when to deploy which exploits with what
benefit & risk of compromise, and issues of how to reconcile with
individual rights.

Speaking of which, anyone got a transcript of this?
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/index.php?id=3D213&cid=3D370&type=3Dmeetin=
g=20
(The ethics of using secret intelligence for public security,
2006-03-28,=20
Sir David Omand GCB)

Or (at the other end of some spectrum) Prezza on this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4771403.stm=20
"He also revealed that last week's Cabinet had discussed civil liberties
and the dangers of saying the collective rights of the public overrode
the rights of individual people."

--
Caspar Bowden