<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hadn't noticed any commentary on this... ?<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
(Feb 28 2013) <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/135998/pki-strategy-1.0.pdf">PKI
Strategy</a> and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/135992/PKI-Implementation-Strategy-1-0.pdf">Implementation
Strategy</a> (occurs in both)<br>
<ul>
<li>"For example key escrow <b>may be required</b> for private
encryption keys in some services (<b>to comply with</b>
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act Section 3)"</li>
</ul>
<p>but <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.fipr.org/rip/PR3RHC.htm">FIPR 9/5/2000</a><br>
</p>
<ul>
<li><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo000508/debtext/00508-17.htm#00508-17_spnew2">Surprisingly
Mr.Clarke amended S.69</a> [Hansard link - at bottom] to
exempt company directors from liability under Part.III - that
is, they are no longer personally liable for failure of their
company to comply with a decryption notice. This was the chief
cause of FIPR's diagnosis of government strategy as being that
of "key escrow by intimidation" - however it still leaves
individuals and company employees in the firing line.</li>
</ul>
<p>?<br>
</p>
<p>Caspar Bowden<br>
</p>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>