Minister promises that Part III is coming

[Caspar Bowden]

>admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Owen Lewis
..
>> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Caspar
Bowden
..

>Won't fly for me. But then you address a person who does not believe at
all
>in the conceit of 'human rights'.=20

What do you mean by that? A fortiori, do you believe there are some
circumstances when it is acceptable for a state to impose inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment?

>It seems probable that your view rests on some especial moral
>repugnance for the offence of 'child molestation'.=20

No. I chose that horseman because it arguably has the most tabloid
potency, and therefore is some kind or viability test for a new
proposal.

>what is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander.

What do you mean by that? Is it a human right (which you don't believe
in) for a convict to be treated equally with a non-convicted citizen, in
all respects, even during the term of a sentence?

>> ..." The problem is the imposition of "decryption jeopardy" on
everybody
>> indiscriminately."

>And that lack of discrimination to which you refer is, pretty exactly,
>application of the same sauce to both goose and gander, is it not?

Still don't know what you mean by that

>And should not the law apply equally to all?=20

This (putative) law says that if a person is convicted of X, then as
part of their sentence, they will be told to ensure that they can
decrypt data in their possession (for X years after their release).=20

The interesting point to debate in ECHR I think is whether telling a
convicted felon that they must take care to be able to decrypt is
inhuman or degrading (and thus a no-no under Article 3).=20

I claim this is no problem because:

a) if you believe in such things, it's no worse imposition than an ASBO
or a control order (which were not invented in 2000)
b) if you don't like ASBOs or control orders, it must be still be
admitted that vicious felons have always been guarded more closely than
the non-vicious, and the DODO (Decrypt On Demand Order) would be a
proportionate species of public safety measure, according to a risk of
harm evaluation.

However, I also claim that a DODO is psychologically quite cruel (but
lots of things are cruel but not inhuman or degrading), so it should not
be as widely used as an ASBO.

This also goes to the "necessity" part of Art.8. It seems to me very
difficult to argue that you it is necessary to put the entire population
of a democracy in "decryption jeopardy", if the lesser measure of
putting only certain convicted criminals in such jeopardy hasn't been
tried first.

>Rather, this seems one of those matters in which reasonable all but
>irreconcilably conflicting demands require that law be developed and
>implemented in a way that provides for the least harm to be done to the
>common weal rather than to attain any great good.

Well of course that status quo presumably suits those who advocated that
the structure of RIPA Pt.III is good and/or there is no alternative.

I'm claiming that RIPA Pt.III in its current unnecessary generality
ought-to-be/will-be struck down, and that a DODO is an HRA compliant
alternative.

I hope you agree my choice of a sexy name shows the marketroid in me is
really flourishing in my new employment.
--
Caspar Bowden