Minister promises that Part III is coming

[Caspar Bowden]

>admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Owen Lewis

(mega-snip of dispiritingly pointless argumentation)
...
>> I've said several e-mails previously that the length of the DODO
could
>> vary - it's not necessarily a lifetime - it could be reviewed as
other
>> parole conditions are reviewed. But I had not realized that on Planet
>> Owen there is no parole. There, you are either in chokey or not.

>My point here, that a man who is discharged at completion of his
sentence >is and should be as free as any other, has been made. Let it
go at that.

Oke-doke

>> The architects of RIP Pt.III wanted to create a new duty on
individuals
>> to be able to decrypt any data that ever was under their control, on
>> pain of jail.

>No so, AFAIK. The data must still exist.

But how do you know? Somebody might have:
- snuck in, legally (with a variety executive bits of paper), and copied
a hard drive
- intercepted incoming or outgoing data on the wire
- obtained correspondence from the intended recipient
...and at any later time, a copy of any of this data could be whipped
out with a Decryption Notice and you can be lumbered with producing a
key, or showing that no key exists to be sure of keeping out of jail.

You may say that's unreasonable and therefore unlikely, I say that is my
point - if it crops up it will likely be serious, and it is conceptually
bodged and beset with strange anomalies. It's gamma minus. A rushed job.
Boilerplated lemon. Overelaborated, triple-nested, incomprehensibly
cross-exempted over-ripe pajamas. You can teach law students to write
better legislation than that. The chances of RIP Pt.III being smoothly
vroomed up to running speed without bits of crankshaft flying through
the casing are nil.

>Sorry, I am not familiar with that term and prima facie it seems a
>nonsense.

http://reidenberg.home.sprynet.com/international_rules.pdf

"The term "information self-determination" was first used in a famous
German census decision Census Act of 1983 Partially Unconstitutional,
Judgment of the First Senate (Karlsruhe, Dec.15, 1983), translated in 5
HUM. RTS. L.J. 94 (1984); Simitis, supra note 42, at 734-35 (discussing
the ruling in the German census case). The American formulation,
according the individual control over the disclosure of personal
information, traces its roots to a study project of the Association of
the Bar of the City of New York, later published by Alan Westin."

>It is not new ground. Humanity already has several thousand years
>experience of recording, storing and communicating data in the
knowledge >that:

No quite right, individuals able to process millions of logical
operations a second, and instantly search through a catalogue of world
knowledge in a distributed global network, and encrypt all of this
securely under personal control, no nothing new there how silly of
me....

>... It's just that, these days,
>since most all can read and write in at least one such code, latterly,
>writing is used as a means to broadcast information more than it
remains a
>means to limit access to information.

I see - so although it's totally changed it's purpose, it's really the
same thing?

--
Caspar Bowden