Using The Web to Fight Bad Legislation 174
Over in the UK, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill is in severe danger of becoming law. In a nutshell, ISPs will be classed as telecoms operators, the Home Secretary can demand taps on ISP traffic with little deliberation -- and without publicity -- and you can be jailed for not handing over decryption keys, even if the police can't prove that you ever had those keys in the first place. There's more on this at the URL above; it's difficult to do it justice in this space. Anyway, the good folks over at STAND are a bit concerned about this. After their earlier @dopt an MP campaign, and their Operation Dear Jack photostory, they've unveiled their latest attempt to involve people. They've set up a web/fax MP gateway. Tap in a few details, including your postcode, and then compose your message. The backend determines who your local MP is, and then faxes your carefully crafted comments off to them. What could be easier? Just remember that it's only for British constituents, and naturally, you should only use your own postcode.
post office (Score:1)
Re:post office (Score:1)
Re:post office (Score:1)
Burden of proof (Score:3)
If I have understood it correctly (and unfortunately I think I have) then it will mean suspects are NOT innocent until proven guilty. If a suspect has encrypted data and has lost the key, it is up to him/her to prove they have lost the key. It is NOT up to the prosecution to prove that they haven't. If they can't prove it they face jail.
The important point here is where the burden of proof lies. It should NOT lie with the defendant in this case IHMO.
Re:post office (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the same rules would cover this - if they can get an order to tap your phone, they can get one to open your mail.
--
Re:Maybe I am stupid but... (Score:1)
Re:Burden of proof (Score:1)
how am i supposed to prove i have forgotten what the name of the president of the united states was in 1940 which i have learned 4 years ago?
i think the only way to actually prove it, is using a lie-detector...
Re:Burden of proof (Score:3)
> Whether ISPs are seen as telecoms operators is IMO not the important issue in this bill.
No indeed, but whether we like the idea of every ISP having a black-box on their network for the convenience of government spooks certainly is the issue. How much surveillance do they have in mind? We don't know. But we do know that the Home Secretary is hereby empowered to force ISPs to do anything he thinks appropriate to protect surveillance capabilities. While ISPs might have to foot the bill, there is a provision to pay government money in case he comes up with some really steep requirements (like dark fibre to GCHQ Cheltenham).
I really recommend reading what STAND have written on the subject. But for starters:
Re:post office (Score:2)
When you enter a society you give up your rights, to gain protection. This is what is happening. If you don't like it, leave the country.
Now, the idea of forcing you to give them your key, with a two year jail term if you don't give them it, even if you just lost it is a bit excessive. However, if the government knows you have kiddie porn on your computer, but as they are walking in you encrypt it, should they be able to force you to give them the key? If they can't then you will go free and a child molester is on the streets. Is that safety?
Nate Custer
That would be interesting (Score:1)
Have any changes been made to the bill that prevent the scenario in "Operation Dear Jack"? I don't see any information to that effect on www.stand.org.uk.
I'm really interested in seeing what happens when the bill becomes law and STAND repeats operation Dear Jack. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that Home Secretary Jack Straw is not going to jail for failing to hand over the decryption keys.
--
Re:Burden of proof (Score:1)
Do you trust the Prime Minister or not? Mr. Blair can send troops to war, yes? If he you trust him with life, you can't trust him with your privacy?
When you enter a society you give up your rights, to gain protection. This is what is happening. If you don't like it, leave the country.
Do you want protection or not?
Nate Custer
Intercepts not the problem (Score:5)
- Unfortunately, this posting has missed the two main thrusts of the bill. ISPs have been "cooperating" for years with the LEAs provided they produce the correct paperwork (most insist on a court order; some don't) but this is pretty normal - I don't think anyone can really object to the police having a right to tap any communication device given a suitable bench warrant. The *real* problems are these:-
- The RIP "orders" don't require a judge's signature - they can be issued based on several different people's authorisation, don't have any time or size limits, and don't need to justify their existance to anyone
- Give the authorised authorities, without judicial review, the right to write out an order as follows:
- Demand from an *innocent* person, not suspected of any crime, their secret decryption keys - on the basis that the demanding officer thinks that it appears *to him* that some data he has seen was encrypted
- Emprisonment if you don't produce a key - not HAVING a key is not a defence unless you can prove you never had it; this is impossible anyhow, and could make the common procedure of expiring keys and generating new ones at regular intervals a criminal offence
- Emprisonment if you tell anyone you have been required to hand over a key - even by changing your key if the LEA thinks that will tip people off (and yes, this does let them continue to read your mail indefinitely)
- No requirement to safeguard the key once they have it - so if you are a bank, and are forced to hand over your electronic funds transfer key, you may find the local plod's cleaners can pick it up.
- No legal right to appeal (apart from to a closed board not required to publish or justify their decisions) or compensation (there *is* a discressionary compensation scheme, but I suspect if your business loses four or five billion after a competing firm gets details of every bid you put in (and undercuts you by one dollar
:+) you may find they don't think you are entitled to it.
There are just SO MANY reasons why this is wrong and open to abuse - none of which seem to have been considered while drafting it.--
Re:post office (Score:4)
Yes, I am
I am not talking criminal activity here - When I am away from home, I send my wife intimate letters, I make phone calls to her I would be embarrassed to have eavesdropped. I don't want *any* of this to be available to any government official who is interested - It should be only be available to a police officer who has convinced a Judge it is needful to solve a criminal investigation. If I *didn't* believe this, I would use postcards and talk to people by broadcast radio.
When you enter a society you give up your rights, to gain protection. This is what is happening. If you don't like it, leave the country.
As a member of society, I am willing to give up those rights needful to for that society as a whole to function; I expect in return safeguards and public accountability for those that have access to those powers, and for abuse of those powers to carry a jail term. This isn't happening here.
Now, the idea of forcing you to give them your key, with a two year jail term if you don't give them it, even if you just lost it is a bit excessive. However, if the government knows you have kiddie porn on your computer, but as they are walking in you encrypt it, should they be able to force you to give them the key?
Ah, enter the Four Horsemen of the Internet. Can we please have a bit of originality here? NO-ONE is going to hand over their keys if it only costs them two years inside to refuse - Serving five years for child abuse (with what tends to happen to convicted child porn suppliers inside) isn't going to be a viable option. This is ONLY going to be served on innocent correspondents of suspected criminals, who are going to be frightened enough to abandon the master key to every "secure" message they have ever received rather than serve time. The keyword is INNOCENT here - not KiddiePorn supplier, not KiddiePorn perverted watcher, but bankers and travel agents.
If they can't then you will go free and a child molester is on the streets. Is that safety?
Works for me. Any criminal dumb enough to drop themselves into ANY jail term worse than the two years for non-production of a key, is going to be too dumb to encrypt their data in the first place. Any criminal smart enough to encrypt, will use a different and probably Stenoed storage method; This law will be about as affective against KiddiePorn as a law that requires all KiddiePorn suppliers to register themselves at the local police station so they can be picked up more conveniently...
--
Re:Burden of proof (Score:1)
No I don't, not because he is foreign to me, because of Echelon, JFK, black-ops etc.
"Do you trust your government?" : Blair is not your government, Rupert Murdock and Bill Gates are your government (well, just some examples then).
The cattle just follow orders - the police, army and the SAS.
you planning to do anything that you really don't want the government knowing about?
This thing threatens the right of freedom of speech, any sadism, or witch-hunts can harm the innocent, like the commies in the States were flamed during the cold war (i.e. Harvy lee Oswald was a marxist, not a communist).
Any ignorance, witch-hunts, stubberness causes a lot of pain. Reading a communist leaflet could result in a phone call from your local-secret-service-agent in the old days here in Holland.
When you enter a society you give up your rights, to gain protection
And then came a powerful man - someone more equal than others, who claims that open source is threatening (econonomic) society, starts a witch-hunt, and then they will kill our employment-contracts, and then at the death of this man, the medics discouver he'd been senile all the time.
Re:post office (Score:1)
Geeze How naive can you be. Have you been exposed to any American history? We have a long history in this country of distrust of the governments, and for good reason. While I am a supporter of the law enforcement in this country I also know, that they are well known for their abuses. There should always be a balance and something like this is like putting your thumb on the scales. That's a good metaphor as well seeing that buy doing this law enforcement is FISHING for all kinds of stuff. Do you see any problem with the idea of tapping ALL the traffic on an ISP. What about the other poor slobs on that line, don't they deserve some protection from some over-zealous law enforcement?
I guess this is an old favorite here on slashdot, so I guess I post it again.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Ben Franklin
Re:Burden of proof (Score:1)
Worse than all the above is that if ISPs or their employees ever reveal that they were forced by the Government to tap your communications, they're liable to prosecution.
Not long ago, our beloved Home Secretary Jack Straw (who's responsible for this piece of crap) was up in arms about the fact that our Secret Services kept a file on him when he was younger, because he was a dangerous, subversive Leftie.
Under the new bill, a future Jack Straw figure will not be able to call for an investigation into a previous government's unnecessary surveilance of him, because no-one will ever be allowed to admit that it ever happened.
Can you say "potential abuse of powers"?
Futhermore, this bill is being fast-tracked, which means it was first put forward in February, and unless we can stop it, will be law by October.
To quote a mail by Danny O'Brien over at NTK [ntk.net], "The government insists that the Bill must be completed as speedily as possible, so that it may come into force before the enactment of the European Convention on Human Rights. To which they assure us it complies."
Anyone over in the US got a spare room I can move into?
Re:Only criminals need to be worried by this. (Score:1)
The point is, that by criticising this law, you are demonstrating your ignorance of other cultures.
STAND is a group of British net activists. Even in Britain we're allowed some dissent.
Timesaver! A Pro Forma letter for you (Score:1)
In the interests of saving SlashDot readers time, Here is a brief pro-forma letter for you to cut and paste into the Fax a MP [stand.org.uk] box. Fill in the relevant fields and off you go.
Dear [MPname],
As a [Constituant] constituant I am writing to you to object to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill.
I feel you should be made aware of the ramifications of this bill, and its implications for [Constituant] citizens.
In a nutshell:-
Internet Service Providers will be classed as telecoms operators and as such the Home Secretary can demand taps on ISP traffic with little deliberation -- and without publicity.
You can be jailed for not handing over decryption keys, even if the police can't prove that you ever had those keys in the first place. There is no jury for this procedure and the appeal can only be made to a closed committee to which the plaintif would have no access. You are effectivly guilty until proven innocent, with the burden of proof lying upon you!
As I am sure you can see, this bill poses a serious threat to personal privacy and rights.
I would be pleased to discuss this further with you. You can contact me in any of the ways detailed below.
I look forward to hearing from you soon,
[Yourname]
[Your contact details]
Re:post office (Score:1)
Say you are a child molester. You just go, "Oh! whoops! I lost my key!" and the worst that happens is you go to jail for 2 years for a "soft" crime, and maybe even only 6 months. A lot better option than going down for 10 years for molesting a kid (which is going to be pretty hard time).
On the other hand, under this proposed law, the police can request your key even if you are not under suspicion of any criminal act. Maybe someone you know is. Or maybe it is just (and I am quoting from the Bill here) "likely to be of value for purposes connected with the exercise or performance by any public authority of any statutory power or statutory duty."
That's pretty damn overbroad. And then you could go to prison for 2 years simply for having lost your key. The law would also forbid you from telling someone else the police asked for it (for instance, to get help trying to recover the key from a crashed hard drive).
These are just a couple of the flaws. Go read the site, there are many, many more.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to please, please request that people using the fax gateway are polite and thoughtful in their messages. "Hahayousuck!" messages are NOT HELPFUL. This is a SERIOUS issue which genuinely threatens civil liberties in the UK in a chilling manner; please be constructive. We are not trying to piss off the Members of Parliament, we need their help to head off this law. I'm sure they don't want to be the victims of this law any more than we do; we just need to explain this to them (especially the finer technical points), politely.
Thankyou.
Re:Only criminals need to be worried by this. (Score:1)
using encryption is treated as going to commit a crime.
Therefore its seem as bad idea. The current 'going equipped' law means you can be arrested for carrying 'tools' in the wrong place at the wrong time (ie lurking on a street corner at 3am looking for a house). Now doing this at 3pm in a van marked "General builder" is OK as its suspicious behaviour.
So if you are using encryption you must be able to prove
1) you can decrypt it and
2) do so on less controls than currently exist for phone tapping (Home secretoary must sign the order) or even search warrants (judge),
ie using encryption is suspicious behaviour and is likely to get you arrested!
Few thoughts. (Score:2)
--
Re:Only criminals need to be worried by this. (Score:1)
Bullshit.
Or those subversives who would threaten the national security interests of the United Kingdom.
Bullshit.
Freedom of expression is all very well, in a culture (like the US) which has had over 200 years to adapt to it, but for ancient cultures like the British, and Europeans, such ideas are not fundamental.
Your arrogance is compounded by your ignorance. Where do you think we Americans got our ideas and culture from? Sure, we have carried some ideas further forward than Europe has, but in England at least it used to be true that most of the same rights we Americans take for granted were also the Rights of Englishmen, and it was the perceived violation of such rights which led to the Revolution. Sadly, totalitarian apologists like yourself have been justifying every retreat from that tradition in England for the past 100 years.
More important is the idea of a consensus, and even more important, of equality
Sure, there are these differences, but "equality" is a rather recent idea, as currently understood. I thought everyone was always going on about how we could not allow the USA to become isolationist, that the history of the 20th century "proved" that we could not ignore what happens overseas. Or is this another case of liberal, leftist selective moral indignation?
This is not a "troll" (whatever that is), I am simply pointing out that other countries have different standards of privacy & freedom.
So did the USSR and National Socialist Germany, but you don't hear anyone openly advocating we readopt their legal systems. Sure, everyone has differing standards of privacy and freedom. But it is disturbing to some of us Americans to see the mother country, the source of our ideas of rights and liberties, slowly destroy and forget everything it once believed in. Yes, other countries can do what they want, but we can criticize them for it, too.
The USA could use a politician with true conviction of his beliefs, like the Presdent of the UK, Tony Blear.
Are you insane? And why can't you even spell your hero's name right?
It would make a change from the current circus parade of criminals, adulterors ex-movie stars and nonentities we currently have to endure, and which make us the laughing stock of the very countries and cultures we are criticizing.
Fuck you. Tony Blair is every bit as big a political whore as the rest of them. Pushing these kinds of laws proves it. Sorry, but what happens overseas does effect us here in the USA, precisely because the net is international, and because we have similar police-state types working within our own government to bring about similar laws, chipping away at our constitution bit by bit, to make us more like "the rest of the civilized world". No thanks. These kinds of totalitarian measures in the country which gave birth to our American ideas of rights and liberties should disturb all Americans. Sure, it is "their" country and "they" can do what they like, but so too can we call them damn fools if they let it happen.
thank you.
Fuck you. Arrogant asshole.
Re:Timesaver! A Pro Forma letter for you (Score:1)
"effectivly"...?
"plaintif"...?
You're English, for God's sake! What would the Queen say? (Not much, actually; she's too busy trying to avoid tripping on those sagging tits.)
And don't tell me those are the fruity Brit spellings, either. You think you wankers can get away with spelling things wrong just because you're pale and have bad teeth? Really, man!
Re:open-source, "automatic" sex (Score:1)
> for (speed=1; speed 10; speed+=.75) {
Infinite loop(*). I feel very sorry for you.
Cheers,
--fred
(*)
for (speed=1; speed 10; speed+=0)
Re:Burden of proof (Score:1)
A law so stupid that it is unworkable... (Score:1)
This is basically how things like Section 28 work (a daft law brought in by the Tories a few years ago to stop Local Authorities 'promoting homosexuality') -- frighten people into following the spirit of the law even though the fine print is daft.
However these are not reasons to opt for apathy -- I think that the work being done by stand.org.uk is very good and I will be urging lots of people to do stuff around this issue.
Chris
--
But not too much ... (Score:1)
But don't dissent too much, as this law now means that they seize your computer, find some random data, say it is encrypted, demand the key, and then give you five years for not yielding it!
Re:Timesaver! A Pro Forma letter for you (Score:2)
If you can't be bothered to spend a little while thinking about the issues, what makes you think that they will take much attention? If I was FAX-bombed with dozens of identical letters, I would be more annoyed than anything else.
Re:Only criminals need to be worried by this. (Score:3)
Do you have any idea how PK cryptography works? the majority of these warrants are not going to be served on the suspected criminals - otherwise why are there such draconian punishments for the "Tipping Off" offence? They are going to be served on innocents who have more to lose by serving the two years than from any "criminal" information they reveal by doing so. It's a part of technology swinging back - Improvements in digital exchanges and computer analysis have made interception and monitoring possible to a degree that would have been unthinkable a mere twenty years ago, back in the days of mechanical switches. Now, encryption is threatening to take the new-found powers away from them, and then some - in the old mechanical days, you could at least rely on that, when a given pair was croc-clipped to a recorder, that you would be able to understand what you heard (they may use a codebook approach, and talk about candy rather than cocane, but you could probably figure it out in time). They would have to go back to physically sneaking into places and planting bugs! Gosh, how terrible.
This is not a "troll" (whatever that is) /. sense (you havent' mentioned stone females or hot grits) but in Usenet, someone that makes patently wrong and uninformed statements that get a "flamebait" rating here on /. are trolls..
It isn't in the usual
, I am simply pointing out that other countries have different standards of privacy & freedom.
Hmm. I *am* english, and I am disgusted at this - it violates MY standards of privacy and freedom, and I suspect no polititian would consider signing it for a minute if he thought it applied to him.
--
Worried! (Score:1)
Copy of message to MP (Score:1)
Re:Copy of message to MP (Score:1)
Re:2years v 10 (Score:1)
In addition to "doing porridge" (time), you get your name on the sex-offenders register if you are caught with "objectionable" material. You have next to no chance of ever getting a real job for the rest of your life.
Re:Burden of proof (Score:1)
(*) Things are a bit different in Scotland, although there is still the presumption of innocence. There are three verdicts: "Guilty", "Not Guilty", and "Not Proven". The last is usually taken to mean "We think you you did it, but they haven't proved it".
Re:Burden of proof (Score:1)
Also, studies have found the adversarial form of justice, like most of Europe uses, results in far fewer wrongful or dubious convictions.
Re:Burden of proof (Score:2)
Not to contradict you, but, I think in Britain you are guilty until proven innocent in all crimes, so the burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the defendant.
That's not true, in Britain you're innocent until proven guilty just like in the US. What might be causing the confusion is one of the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act in which anything you use in court which you didn' say when you were arrested can be used against you. Or at least that's my interpretation of it, but IANAL.
Re:Only criminals need to be worried by this. (Score:2)
Please think before going into a standard rant about how our freedoms are being eroded.
Mine are. I'm a UK citizen.
It is obvious to anyone even from a cursory glance at the proposed legislation, that this will affect only those who are attempting to hide some nefarious activities. Or those subversives who would threaten the national security interests of the United Kingdom.
Nonsense, and it looks like you didn't even take a 'cursory glance'. It threatens anyone who might be suspected of having anyencrypted material on their computer, whether or not they are aware of it.
This is not a "troll" (whatever that is), I am simply pointing out that other countries have different standards of privacy & freedom.
As a UK citizen, I can tell you that, although you may not be trolling, your point of view is severely naive.
Also let us not forget that although freedom of expression and democracy are enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, the British subject enjoys no such rights, and it was for this reason, that our ancestors decided to leave that little island off the coast of Europe, in order to enjoy "true freedom" in the USA.
So nobody in the UK reads Slashdot? Dont be so damned US-centric, sunshine.
The point is, that by criticising this law, you are demonstrating your ignorance of other cultures. (After all the USA is not the center of the universe, even though we sometimes act like it is) :-)
No YOU demonstrate your ignorance. This encroaches my freedom. Stop behaving like the only audience for Slashdot is American.
Freedom of speech and democracy are not the "accepted norm" in every country in the world. The more advanced Socialist societies like Europe, and the United Kingdom, recognise that some freedoms are not absolute, and must be curbed for the greater good of the majority, or to protect the weaker members of society.
Sorry to correct you, but the UK is not Socialist, since New Labour avoids Socialism as much as it possible can. And I disagree that 'curbing freedoms' is necessarily a good ideal; freedom is the only political absolute.
For example, recently the subjects of Her Majesty democratically decided to give up their rights to own handguns, since they recognised that that freedom was not worth having, since it would inevitably lead to crazed gunmen running amok.
Deranged drivel. We have never had the right to own hadguns, nor has their been any vote on the subject. Where do you get this bizarre idea from?
Her Majesty's subjects have also agreed to being monitored by thousands of public video cameras whenever they are in a public space. Again the aim is not to erode their freedoms, but rather to protect them from antisocial elements.
More drivel. There was no agreement at all. This has happened without any public consent. Stop talking crap.
Freedom of expression is all very well, in a culture (like the US) which has had over 200 years to adapt to it, but for ancient cultures like the British, and Europeans, such ideas are not fundamental. More important is the idea of a consensus, and even more important, of equality
Your First Amendment is under attack daily, so dont make me laugh. And just for the record, the ideas of 'consensus' and 'equality' are probably no more important over here than they are in the USA. Stop talking naive nonsense, please.
For this reason, we Americans should not jump up and down and shriek like stuck pigs with self-righteous indignation every time a foriegn culture comes up with an idea that we do not like. Instead we should take time out and consider, if these ideas have any relavence closer to home ?
Oh we're back to Slashdot as a USA-only forum are we? Sorry, sunshine, but if there's anyone Stateside or int he rest of the world interested in helping us out with this one, then they are welcome to comment.
Given that this new law seems to give the authorities the power they need to better hunt down and prosecute net criminals, I suspect this legislation could be put to good use by our own crimebusters in the FBI and CIA, to increase their effectiveness. Just think, if you have nothing to hide, why would this legislation worry you ?
Oh yeah, the FBI and CIA dont have agendas, and neither do the UK security services. No-one innocent ever goes to jail. Policemen don't do bad things, and just because a law says they can lock you up, without trial, and there is an impossible burden of proof of innocence on the individual, then that OK. Sunshine, fuck right off. You have a lot of learning to do.
The USA could use a politician with true conviction of his beliefs, like the Presdent of the UK, Tony Blear. It would make a change from the current circus parade of criminals, adulterors ex-movie stars and nonentities we currently have to endure, and which make us the laughing stock of the very countries and cultures we are criticizing.
Erm, get some facts will you? His name is Tony Blair, and he's our Prime Minister. We don't have a President. And Margaret Thatcher, Mussolini and Hitler all had conviction in their beliefs. That aint an automatic win.
Personally, I trust Blair about as far as I could spit a camel. And I live in the UK so I reckon Im a bit better a judge than you, who knows so bloody much about our country.
Fact is this is a serious issue. It puts innocent people at risk of arrest, and incarceration, and the onus on them to prove innocence. For the benefit of the intelligence-impaired, like dmg above, thats a VERY BAD thing.
"Who is my MP?" I hear you ask... (Score:1)
Links -- URL of RMS article? (Score:1)
Chris
--
Ponder this... (Score:1)
Re:you moron (Score:1)
Whether or not dmg's post wasa troll, it raised important issues. John Q Public does tend to turn around and say "If its only the bad guys at risk, then this is a good thing".
If you want to fight legislation like this, you have to be able to respond to this kind of naive, ill-educated response. The fact that dmg's post was sonaive, so ill-educated and so stupid is actually irrelevant in this case.
If somone doesn't understand why this legislation is dangerous, thinks Clause 28 is a good idea because it 'protects kids from dangerous paedophile teachers', then that someone needs just a bit more information than they have.
So in a way, dmg's dumb post is a 'good thing' (tm) because it lets us address the 'dumb' point of view.
Re:Burden of proof (Score:1)
TB "We are one nation, one people, one leader
AH "Ein reich, ein volk, ein fuhrer
Besides which, Franklin(?) had it right - "those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither
Don't use the pro-forma letter! (Score:1)
This pro-forma letter's a good example of what yours should look like - take notes, perhaps even cut and paste bits, rearrange etc., but DON'T make it look identical.
(Sorry, shockwaverider... thanks for the effort!)
-- Yoz
Re:Intercepts not the problem (Score:2)
Re:Few thoughts. (Score:2)
We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin (ISBN 0380633132) is only $4.79 from both Amazon and B&N. Get it now.
If you read it and understood it you would not have been asking the question. Unless you had the intention to put <sarcasm> question </sarcasm>
Re:Burden of proof (Score:2)
In cases where you have a DNA match to a criminal, there is (say) a 1 in a million chance of this happening at random. Barristers come out with this figure and it impresses the hell out of a jury. However, if we assume that you are innocent, as we are supposed to, then with 55 million people in the UK the chances of you being the guilty party on this evidence alone is actually 1 in 55.
The massive swing in the odds is what we mean by assuming you're innocent until proven guilty, but its only in cases where the odds are measurable, such as DNA testing, that the figures are actually used in court. And they are persistenly used in the 'guilty until proved innocent' way.
Just thought I'd get that off my chest. Anyway, getting back on topic - support STAND and write to your MP. If you follow the links to the bits about the public and industry consultancy on this bill, you'll find that the questionnaire was actually written for another bill that this one has sprung off; and this entire measure (snooping email, PKI etc) was not discussed. Remember this when you hear Brother Jack on Question Time droning on about how widely they consulted technical experts before writing this bill...
- Baz
The real targets (Score:3)
Before I get accused of paranoia, cast your minds back to the '80's and how much of a role MI5 and other Government agencies such as Special Branch played as key agents in breaking the Great Miners Strike.
"But" I hear you say "this is a Labour government, and aren't they sympathetic to the Trade Union movement?"
Dream on. "New" Labour has repeatedly demonstrated their hostility to the TU movement. They have categoricaly refused to repeal any of the disgraceful anti trade union laws passed in by the Conservative governments of the 80's and 90's, which infringed on the Civil liberties of all UK citizens (although many still don't realise quite the extent of those laws), and which were opposed by the Labour Party at the time. New Labour have also been actively distancing themselves from the historic link with the Unions for a long time now. Many of them are ex -Thatcherites, and some (like Tony Blair for instance) have publicly expressed their admiration of Margaret Thatcher.
The Trade Union movement is still an International movement, and technically Labour is still affiliated to that. If you want to get active over this disgraceful piece of legislation, you can do so if you are a Trade Union member in any part of the World. I strongly urge all trade unionists who object to this Bill to email, write or fax Jack Straw in your official capacity. Also talk about this to your local branch meetings and bring it up on regional committees etc.
www.labournet.org is as always very informative about this bill and the strubble against it.
"The great are only great because we are on our knees"
-James Connolly, Irish Freedom Fighter and socialist
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/12846.ht (Score:2)
Chris
--
Re:post office (Score:2)
On the contrary -- the purpose of social organizations in civilized society (as opposed to your IngSoc version) is the protection of rights from aggressors. Since the government is the most dangerous aggressor, it must be constrained the most severely.
/.
strubble (Score:1)
Re:Only criminals need to be worried by this. (Score:1)
Point 1 - europe's not a country (yet)
point 2 - I'd hardly describe Nanny Blair's UK as Socialist. Even people who were on the right wing of the Labour Party 5 years ago seem to think it's pretty Tory now
recently the subjects of Her Majesty democratically decided to give up their rights to own handguns
Never had a right to own handguns. There was a privilege, with associated licensing. Not a right. Mind you, technically we are still obliged to own a longbow and do 2 hours of compulsory Archery practice per week.
Her Majesty's subjects have also agreed to being monitored by thousands of public video cameras
Her Majesty's
Who? Oh, that Mrs Windsor at #1, the Mall. Less of the reverent capitals, please. She can have the capitals back if (a) she pays her taxes (No Capitalisation without Taxation) and (b) gets out of our state structures along with anyone else whose great-great^n-grandparent was the biggest bully of his time
er, no. Nobody asked me. This was brought in using Statutory Instruments to legalise the practice, and has generally been implemented in piecemeal fashion by the commercial owners of shopping centres, railway stations etc. Not many Councils are implementing cameras yet, largely because of worries about the consequences once we incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights
The USA could use a politician with true conviction of his beliefs, like the Presdent of the UK, Tony Blear
Where to start? firstly we don't have a President (official elected by the population as a whole) - we have a Prime Minister who is, effectively, in the post ex-officio as leader of the party with an unearned first-past-the-post majority in the House Of Commons. Furthermore, it's been a few years since anyone last seriously suggested that Tony Blair still has any beliefs; certainly anything that might affect the opinion of the 11,000 or so voters in the 50 most marginal constituencies has to go through the whole Alistair Campbell spinfactory before it's allowed to see the light of day. And we must never upset all those multinationals in the City of London, or we'll lose that hard economic competence image we had to gain at the cost of everything the Labour Party (created by the Unions for the benefit of the Unions) ever stood for.
Not that conviction politicians are a good thing. Look at Maggie. And flinch.
TomV
Re:Links -- URL of RMS article? (Score:1)
Re:Burden of proof (Score:2)
It varies (the english like to think they invented the "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but I doubt they could prove that). In some cases such as the requirement to have insurance documents for motor vehicles, and certain statutory books such as the income tax ledgers, it is a requirement for the defendant to produce them; however, this is usually reserved for cases where it is an offence for the defendent not to have them, and where if the defendant has complied with this law, producing the required proof (either the documents, or the name of the agency/accountants they are lodged with) is relatively easy.
Where *this* bill falls down is that the reversal of proof is usually only done where the task is difficult for the prosecution, easy for the defense, and there exists a statutory duty to possess the item (i.e. a positive proof). This bill imposes a negative proof on the defence - they must prove, not that the defendent doesn't have a key (a pretty impossible task) but that the defendent has NEVER HAD the key..... So, this would not exactly be a big step, just applying the same law standards they've used before on the internet. Of course, that doesn't make it right, but, from a legal perspective, this isn't anything too radical on the part of Britain. I'm not sure of this, however, could anyone from Britain verify this or deny it?
--
Re:OT question for you Brits out there (Score:1)
You don't need to go to Britain for that.   There are cities here in the good 'ole US of A like NY that are putting up surveillance cameras at intersections to catch moving violations (and other assorted and sundry activity).   And please don't forget the numerous "traffic cams" aimed at the highways and byways.   I guess George Orwell knew his stuff but maybe not exactly how it would eventually come about...  
Re:Few thoughts. (Score:1)
I didn't ask the question, I quoted it, and suggested that whoever asked the question should read the book. Yeah, I've should put <i></i> around the quote, as well as <blockquote></blockquote>.
--
Re:post office (Score:1)
Re:Intercepts not the problem (Score:1)
Re:post office (Score:1)
Re:Only criminals need to be worried by this. (Score:2)
To understand the phrase "the national security interests of the United Kingdom", I consult Robert Ringer's Newspeak-to-English translation of JFK's famous line: "Ask not what the people in power can do for you; ask what you can do for the people in power".
Obviously, the real objective of the power sought in this legislation is to gather up another club for use against opponents of the people in power.
This is not a "troll" (whatever that is)
TROLL: 1)obnoxious cyber-graffiti, 2)a post profoundly devoid of logical thought and steeped in knee-jerk button-pushing. Your post fits the latter definition.
Also let us not forget that although freedom of expression and democracy are enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, the British subject enjoys no such rights
Political freedom is largely an outgrowth of the British tradition. The fact that the British failed to live up to this standard did force us to kick them out, but that doesn't negate the underlying historical reality.
The point is, that by criticising this law, you are demonstrating your ignorance of other cultures.
No, it demonstrates that we recognize that some cultures (e.g. a culture of power-hungry politicians) are inferior to others (e.g. a culture of free people).
Freedom of speech and democracy are not the "accepted norm" in every country in the world.
See previous comment. Some countries have better norms than others.
For example, recently the subjects of Her Majesty democratically decided to give up their rights to own handguns, since they recognised that that freedom was not worth having, since it would inevitably lead to crazed gunmen running amok.
Her Majesty's subjects have also agreed to being monitored by thousands of public video cameras whenever they are in a public space. Again the aim is not to erode their freedoms, but rather to protect them from antisocial elements.
Both imposed by scams of the people in power, not by general consent as you imply. Even if there had beem majority consent, it would be irrelevant; both British and American political traditions recognize the need for a rule of law that supersedes the decision of three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
Freedom of expression is all very well, in a culture (like the US) which has had over 200 years to adapt to it, but for ancient cultures like the British, and Europeans, such ideas are not fundamental.
I've already addressed your error concerning the British political tradition. In any case, an ancient error is no more deserving of respect than a recent one.
More important is the idea of a consensus, and even more important, of equality
Been there, done that, run the body count into eight figures. Can we give it up as a bad idea now?
Given that this new law seems to give the authorities the power they need to better hunt down and prosecute net criminals
I'd rather see them hunt down and prosecute the criminals in power who violate the supreme law they have sworn to uphold.
Just think, if you have nothing to hide, why would this legislation worry you?
On the contrary, I have plenty to hide. Not that I've done anything wrong, mind you, but given the government's habit of abusing police powers to harass opponents it is only prudent not to give them anything that could be distorted into grounds for bringing frivolous legal actions.
/.
Neat Idea (Score:1)
Re:post office (Score:2)
You could say that Europe has a long history of distrusting corporations, which the US does not. I'd rather have the government reading my email than NewsCorp or WalMart. Any day. See also the strict data protection and privacy laws in Europe that do not exist at all in the US. It's a cultural difference
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Well, Franklin was a genius, but this overused quote is nonetheless trite. My definition of essential liberty is not the same as yours (or, indeed, Franklins), which is very much to the point here.
Re:Burden of proof (Score:1)
I don't know the guy at ALL. Maybe he would and maybe he wouldn't. I hope he is the kind of guy who would, I really do. Nevertheless, I don't know a thing about him personally, and like all strangers, I do NOT trust him with my life.
Re:post office (Score:2)
You can fill it in with anything you want, as long as the people who you wish to use your key know that it's your key.
Original motives? (Score:1)
If a few IANAL types can spot the holes in the laws, surely the draftees could too. Much as we like to believe otherwise, the government (Civil Service) does employ some smart people.
So:
a) the problems are intentional, the intended effect is to gain control over the innocent populous at large, by scaring them into handing over keys etc.
- Most paranoid scenario, hope it's not the case.
b) the original draft gets totally fucked up by everyone involved adding their own agenda to it, without thought to the effect on the whole bill.
- Most likely in my opinion.
c) they're all stupid.
- Nah. Note, I'm not talking about MPs here, they are mostly quite thick. I'm talking about the people who dream up these proposals in the first place. Civil Servants and heads of Security Organisations etc.
Let's hope it's b, incompetence I can deal with , major stupidity or hidden agendas are far scarier.
--
"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
Pre-emptive conspiracy theory (Score:1)
Public outcry prevents the law from getting through.
The Bill fails a second time.
A horrible crime is commited that disgusts the entire country.
By luck alone, someone manages to decrypt message that allows us to catch the perpetrator.
This is used to demonstrate that this law is a good idea.
The law is forced through the commons again because of public pressure
Re:Burden of proof (Score:1)
Yes. This would push his approval rating up
Would Mr. Blair jump into a knifefight to save me if I was losing?
Depends on whether the increase in approval rating was worth having to admit that we need to spend more on the police
Would Mr. Blair give me his kidney if I needed it?
Of course not! That would mean having to find a doctor, and a hospital bed thus increasing NHS waiting lists.
Now what if nobody was around to boost his approval rating?
Then "no" to parts 1 and 2
Re:Burden of proof (Score:2)
Are you nuts? The US is even worse ... I think I'll stay here in Sweden for a few more years, and then hopefully things are sorted out in Australia. Else it'll have to bee New Zeeland I guess.
Anyone with more suggestions?
Re:Only criminals need to be worried by this. (Score:2)
Sorry to strike down on this sentence since your post was so good otherwise
There *are* no political absolutes. There are far too many cases where one freedom or other "absolute" right collides with another.
Right to life? Yes! an absolute right, you say.
But at what cost. Do I have the right to demand 24/7 free instant access to a medical team? If not, there goes a piece of that "absolute right"
Freedom of speech? Including that standard example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.
Freedom of thought? yes perhaps that. But only as long as I keep my thoughts to myself. If I start expressing my thoughts (other than "nice" thoughts) I might be stepping on someone else's "absolute" freedom.
Politics is the art of weighing one freedom or right against another. If there was such a thing as an absolute right, there would be no need for politics.
Re: Intercepts not the problem - and taxation (Score:1)
One big concern which governments about the globe must be facing is how to levy tax on e-commerce, particularly if it is encrypted. It works fine in the UK, where your every wage-slip is shared with the Inland Revenue, and your every purchase open to scrutiny by the VATman. I believe that this legislation is targetted not at criminals and child molesters. This is emotive language used by the government to justify this bill. I believe that this legislation, if it goes through, will be used for one by the Inland Revenue to pursue alleged tax evaders. This misses the real issue, which is that taxation is coercive in nature, and the citizen is forced to pay what the government demand, instead of the government treating its citizens like consumers of their services, with rights.
Re:Only criminals need to be worried by this. (Score:1)
Its a (probably) odd, but very personal viewpoint, and probably, my reference to it was misleading in the context of my original post.
** Attempt to clear up confusion ** (Score:1)
That law dealt with regulating "e-commerce" and was, I gather, abandoned due to the complete negative response to it from both industry and pressure groups.
This law was originally (and still is, to an extent) about regulating Police Informants and how they should be treated. However, the Government took 90% of the rejected "e-commerce" bill and just pasted it into the Regulation of Investigatory Powers bill, the one we are fighting today.
This "new" bill was only first revealed about a month ago, so any articles prior to the beginning of February are probably discussing the previous bill (in fact, one of several previous, abandoned bills).
It is, most likely, precisely because those previous bills were rejected, that they have "integrated" it (yes, in the Microsoft sense) with the regulations on Police Informants, and, placed it on a "fast-track" which means they are rushing it through parliament as quickly as possible with no period of consultation, and (from today) less than ten days for Members of Parliament to propose amendments. That is why this is so urgent.
She doesn't have a decryption key? She's a witch! (Score:5)
a) Instant arrest.
b) Torture until confession.
c) Death upon confession.
d) Death upon claim of innocence.
In fact, it was common practice for the accusers and torturers and especially the church to split up the accused's estate.
Back a few short decades ago, in the USA, if you didn't like someone you could accuse them of being a communist. This would, among other abuses, often result in,
a) Swift arrest.
b) Interrogation and humiliation.
c) Blacklisting upon confession.
d) Blacklisting upon insistance of innocence.
Often, the only way to clear your own name was to finger other friends and associates as being communists.
Now we have this new legistlation being considered in the UK. It has much in common with the travesties above. With this proposed law, one of the dangers is that if someone doesn't like you, they will simply have to send you encrypted email, then cry encrypter! This will result in, among other things,
1) Sudden search, seizure, and probable arrest.
2) Interrogation and humiliation.
3) Jail sentence upon confession.
4) Jail sentence upon claim of innocence.
This will happen regularly by jilted lovers, angry employees, school children, and the police. It is no trouble at all to put files on someone's computer. It will be especially easy for the police, who if they decide not to take the encrypted email route, will instead be able to waltz in your home, shove you out of the way, and directly plant any files they want anywhere on your system. When you are asked for your decryption key, well, gosh, officer, I don't have one.
The burden of proof should NEVER have to reside with the accused.
Just like that, because you pissed off the wrong guy, you get two years.
You will if this insane law gets passed, that is.
She's an encrypter! Burn her!
Re:SUBJECTS, not CITIZENS (Score:1)
Yawn. Learn a little more about the UK's governmental system, dolt. The Queen's token position in British legislation is to automatically rubber-stamp whatever Acts are passed by Parliament.
Maybe you could support your position on how free you are by quoting Nixon, or Hoover, or one of those other good ol' boys mandate your position in the 'free world'.
If its so goddamn free, why do you need a Fifth Amendment? Or a right to bear arms? Oh yeah, you're so sure you live in a free society, you have to bitch about keeping guns to protect you from your wonderful government. Aye right, my arse, as we say in Glasgow.
My fax...(2nd try) (Score:2)
Dear Mr Truswell,
I am writing to you to express my deep concerns regarding the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, 2000 and to urge you to vote against it at its second reading on 6th March.
As I am sure you are aware, the bill makes provisions relating to the interception of communications and the carrying out of electronic surveillance. It also provides for the establishment of a tribunal for which it is to be commended.
The bill is deeply flawed, however, in several respects and may result in the criminalisation of large portions of the internet-using public. I list my principal objections below:-
1) Section 11.(4) obliges employees at internet service providers (ISPs) to observe wiretap warrants or face two years imprisonment. Revealing the existence of a wiretap is punishable by five years imprisonment and there is no whistleblower clause (Section 18.(2)). In fact, the requirement to install a wiretap on request by warrant is extended to " a person (...) who has control of the whole or any part of a telecommunication system located wholly or partly in the United Kingdom." (11.(4)(c)), which can be easily interpreted to mean any person who own a land-line telephone, fax or mobile phone.
This widens the number of people capable of being prosecuted for refusing to serve a warrant considerably. One of the features of the internet is that potentially, anyone can operate a "public telecommunications service" online. By widening the definition, the bill is placing a huge liability on British companies to provide interception capabilities, which foreign companies do not have to comply with.
2) Section 8.(3) allows for the mass monitoring of communications sent from or received outside the UK with the permission of the Home Secretary. Note that this allows for the serving of unnamed warrants which grant blanket permission to the security services to monitor any particular type of communication. The section, in limiting itself to communications external to the UK, is clearly aimed at national security concerns but is easily open to abuse. This is because data on the Internet is not confined to national boundaries. Domestic internet traffic will frequently travel via a route that takes it overseas. The e-mail that a constituent in Yorkshire sends his MP in London might very well get there via Amsterdam and New York, such is the nature of the internet. Clearly, then domestic traffic will fall under the remit of Section 8.(3).
3) Section 12.(1) allows the Home Secretary to oblige ISPs to monitor their own users. Currently, ISPs do not do this (for obvious reasons of privacy) and in fact the technology to do so does not exist - it would be incredibly complex and cumbersome to implement due to the vast amount of traffic that flows through an ISP. Any monitoring system attached to an ISP will, by necessity, be accessible from the rest of the internet and it will come under electronic attack from crackers (or 'hackers' as the popular press incorrectly calls them.) The monitoring equipment will be an easy target for hackers, many of them beyond the jurisdiction of UK courts, who will make their own uses for the names, addresses and credit card numbers collected by the monitoring equipment.
4) Section 16.(1) prohibits revealing the existence of a wiretap warrant in a court of law. Thus, there is no legal recourse for those who believe they are the illegitimate target of a wiretap.
5) Section 46.(2) governs the treatment of keys to encrypted data. Anyone under suspicion of any crime or in conflict with any public authority is required to hand over their private keys or face two years imprisonment. Handing over a key should not be a trivial exercise. The potential liability to companies and individuals of losing control of their private keys is incalculable. Allowing any statutory body to demand these keys trivialises the importance of encryption in the future of the internet. It is comparable to allowing any government body access to the most private areas of citizens' life.
The government is in the habit of indicating that this bill is necessary to defend against monstrous criminal acts. They claim that without it, drug barons, child pornographers and terrorists will use encryption to evade paying for their crimes. Usefully, this bill guarantees that they will. If you encrypt all your data, and refuse to hand over the key, you can be punished to a maximum of two years . This makes it worthwhile for criminals to pursue this aim, while actively dissuading regular citizens from taking the risk that they will be imprisoned for being unable to decrypt their own data. As the old Net proverb has it: if you outlaw encryption, only outlaws will use encryption. Additionally, the defence of "forgetting your passphrase" will quickly become discredited: making it even more difficult for innocent citizens to use this as a legitimate defence. This section also reverses the burden of proof - rather than the burden being on the authorities to prove that the defendant has a key, the burden is on the defendant to prove that he or she does not have a key.
To summarise, the bill is poorly drafted and provides powers to the authorities at the expense of public privacy, and even goes against the basic assumption of innocence which is a cornerstone of English criminal law. I urge you to vote against the government on this bill.
Nick
Lost keys / garbage files (Score:2)
Suppose I lived in the UK? Does this mean I would be legally required to destroy the encrypted data since I'm no longer certain I possess the key. In my case I'd probably delete it since it doesn't seem likely that I'll ever find the key to this data.
What about unidentifiable files on my hard drive? What if there's a temp file that contains what looks like garbage. How would I prove that it's not encrypted data? The average computer user is never going to able to account for every file on their hard drive. The expert computer user probably won't either. Won't this allow the UK govt to basically prosecute *anyone* with a computer and garbage files on it? It just seems like a shortcut to lock up anyone owning a modern computer without actually having to produce evidence. The user can be required by law to produce something that doesn't even exist. Scary stuff.
numb
Re:Only criminals need to be worried by this. (Score:1)
Can't be. Just not possible. Except in a true anarchy. I'm not moaning about the curbs on my freedom to rob, rape and murder, though.
Do I have the right to demand 24/7 free instant access to a medical team?
If you're American, then the answer is no. As a UK subject, the answer is Yes. Admittedly the NHS is underfunded by comparison with our European neighbours, and a four-hour wait is about the norm for inner city Casualty departments, but we DO have a National Health Service, and of all the things that destroyed the last Tory government (corruption, incompetence, ...) it was probably the perceived threat to the NHS that got the traditional Tories out for Labour
TomV
Re:** Attempt to clear up confusion ** (Score:1)
I totally agree with you regarding the urgency. Forcing a bill through Parliament quickly is usually a sign of bad legislation: either a law that doesn't do what it was intended, or a law that goes to far. Legislate in haste, litigate at leisure.
There is a high probability that the European Court of Human Rights will kill this (or at least some of the proposals) in due course, but that will take maybe 5 years.
Re:Only criminals need to be worried by this. (Score:2)
If you're American, then the answer is no. As a UK subject, the answer is Yes
No I'm not american, I'm Swedish.
The point was *instant* access. ie my own personal team watching over me constantly, just in case.
We can always save/prolong more lives by pouring more money into the health service. However we must draw a line somewhere, or we will be too preoccupied by surviving, to actually live. (and the doctors deserve a life too..)
Re:"European Convention on Human Rights"?! LAUGH!! (Score:1)
My what a rum view of socialism. Socialism with castes now. Tomorrow, cats with six legs, hard carapaces and wings.
the previous political system in Europe, monarchism
What's so previous about monarchism? The UK, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, most of Scandinavia (and anyone else I've been rude enough to omit) are still Monarchies. So now we're looking at Socialist Monarchies, with castes.
the law states that the citizens are the property of the State
The Law, in Europe? We don't have a single government yet. Admittedly we're Subjects (i.e. property) in the UK, but you might want to consider how the French revolution was plagiarised by the colonists in the Americas. Liberte, egalite, fraternite anyone? I've always admired the French for their willingness to burn civic buildings when the powers that be get too nasty. And their authorities for taking a mature approach when they do so.
the governments there can and will detain or kill anybody
Whereas in the States you mostly detain and kill poor black people, particularly near election time, and especially if they're too mentally handicapped to defend themselves.
TomV
Re:Only criminals need to be worried by this. (Score:2)
What do you do when a law reduces your freedom to increase someone else's. In real life, I happily give up the freedom to knock people down, so that I may enjoy the freedom of not *being* knocked down.
How can I make that decision if I want an *absolute* freedom?
The problem is that the word "freedom" is so soaked in various agendas, that it has almost lost all real meaning.
Not that maximizing your personal definition of it is a bad philosophy though.
Re:** Attempt to clear up confusion ** (Score:1)
That's right, but remember, it doesn't necessarily need to go right up to the ECHR - we will be able to challenge it in ordinary British courts with the passing of the Human Rights Act.
But I agree, that's no reason for complacency. I just sent off a fax to my MP. Wish I could do more. I truly believe the Blair government will use these powers to suppress political dissent if this goes through. STAND paints the reversal of the burden of proof as "poorly thought out", but it seems too obvious to be a mistake to me. It must be deliberate. The wider definition of "terrorism" fits right into this. Now people who pull up GM crops are "terrorists"!
Re: Intercepts not the problem - and taxation (Score:1)
I do not see this law lasting long if it does come in.
Re:Privary is an inalianable right. (Score:1)
I'm not saying all the legislation we pass is good news, as this law demonstrates. Do try to keep a sense of proportion though.
Re:Only criminals need to be worried by this. (Score:1)
OK just for the sake of the argument (so, I'm bored to death debugging someone else's C++ source)
...and Ive got IRIX 6.5.7 to install on 40 machines. Not exciting....
What do you do when a law reduces your freedom to increase someone else's. In real life, I happily give up the freedom to knock people down, so that I may enjoy the freedom of not *being* knocked down.
Its a question of trade-offs. Personally, I'm in favour of allowing armaments for speed-limited cars and pedestrians, purely as an enticement to encourage good driving, but its too difficult to prevent abuse of the system. To respond though, I'd say that wanting to knock someone down (other than in a transitory 'I hate my boss' kinda way) is rarer than wanting to not be knocked down. Hence that's a plus sort of situation. Unless you want to knock someone down, and can find a willing 'victim' in which case that specific instance becomes a separate issue...
How can I make that decision if I want an *absolute* freedom? Think of it as absolute freedom in the Crowleyan sense, with the usual Wiccan proviso, to wit, Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the Law, An' It Harm No-one. ie You can -allow- people freedoms that might impinge upon your own freedom, but you cannot demand to impinge upon theirs. Not can they damnd to impinge on yours without consent.
The problem is that the word "freedom" is so soaked in various agendas, that it has almost lost all real meaning. Absolutely.
Not that maximizing your personal definition of it is a bad philosophy though. That's what happens when you let thirteen year-old kids read Robert Anton Wilson :)
Re:Lost keys / garbage files (Score:2)
Re:Lost keys / garbage files (Score:1)
>may be encrypted or not, but if it does not look
>like it's data it is unlikely anyone will every
>ask you to decrypt it.
OK, but what if somebody comes along and says 'give me the key to the data encrypted in that image' You now have to prove that there's nothing there, or that you don't have a key.
Gotcha! (Score:1)
Its a question of trade-offs. Personally, I'm in favour of...
But if we resort to trade-offs, the it is no longer an absolute freedom, but a relative one. It is no longer a matter of having *freedom* but having *more* freedom.
That's what happens when you let thirteen year-old kids read Robert Anton Wilson :)
Or your basic slashdot story ;)
Lets moderate Wilson [subversive -1E100] immediately!
Re:Ponder this... (Score:2)
In theory, yes. In practice, you are not obliged to use any given telephone line to access your account - you can usually access via hotel lines, mobile phones and if a friend also has a modem, you can either ride his connection or borrow his pc to log in. However, there *is* one bottleneck - the ISPs. No matter where you connect from, you have to log into the internet somewhere, and many ISPs still do not allow you to even READ your email from outside their own dialup service. It's a lot easier to trap the traffic at one or more ISPs than to do so at the telephone stage, and the signal is "cleaner".
Granted, they still may need a decryption key. But come on! You mean to tell me that a government doesn't have the resources to crack an encryption key?
I mean to tell you that a government doesn't have the resources to crack an encryption key! Cryptography freely available on the internet, such as PGP and Scramdisk, can take a budget of millions of dollars and an acre or so of computers to break *one* key a century - if you are lucky.
Hey if a "cyber-crime" is so serious, you should be able to afford the technology and intelligence to solve it.
If cyber crime was, then they would. The technology is already there - good policework, informants, tempest, keyloggers... But this is *expensive* - far too expensive to waste on "subversives" or "activists" - you would have to reserve it for those genuinely a danger to society
They just want things to be easy.
Don't we all?
The end result? The internet will be crowded with "cops" that have nothing to do. The day will come when we get "speeding tickets" online for using too much bandwidth. Hey, is donutshop.com still available??
More likely, the door of every ISP will be held permanently open by the stream of unaccountable, unidentifiable but authorised "statutory bodies" coming to check every email you ever sent on the basis that your dog licence is out of date... and it will only be a matter of time before key escrow is re-launched, not as a legal requirement, but as a convenience to stop you being dragged out of bed at 3am each day in order to hand over yet another set of session keys...
--
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
It's a point of discussion, I suppose. I base my opinion that mods on
Also, one correction -- a troll does not just make patently wrong and uninformed statements. So do genuine idiots / morons / etc. A troll makes them for the express purpose of getting a rise out of people.
This is also true - it's implicit that a troll KNOWS he is Trolling; this was sufficiently borderline it could just have been the more common September-style idiot.
What puzzles me is how you knew all this and _still_ managed to get trolled. /. have one advantage that trolls on usenet tend not to have - the bulk of the readership may not know enough about the subject to tell the difference. *I* read stories I don't have any real knowledge of, in the hope I can somehow acquire $CLUE from the nature of the discussion; Unless Flamebait is marked as such, or is answered, how am I to tell good from bad?
This is because plausable-sounding trolls on
--
Re: Intercepts not the problem - and taxation (Score:2)
The problem, though, as another poster pointed out, is that that takes a VERY long time and isn't automatic. In the mean time, we have some extremely illiberal legislation on the books, granting the government powers that most of us seem to find repugnant.
Greg
Re:** Attempt to clear up confusion ** (Score:1)
You'll have to excuse my scepticism - the incorporation of the ECHR is due to take place in October. Until it happens I'll assume it isn't going to. After all, what happened to the promised "Freedom of Information Act" (promised within one year of election, wasn't it)? Strange how legislation that would dilute the power of the executive (e.g. the FOIA) get held up intermiably, whereas those which concentrate it (the abolition of the House of Lords, and the current example), manage to get enacted with almost indecent haste.
I think Blair is well-meaning - this makes him dangerous:
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding .
Louis D. Brandeis, Supreme Counrt Justice
Illegal Lack of Recall (Score:1)
Not british, but... (Score:1)
In this case, however, we are talking about personal corespondence - a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's the difference between a camera in the casino or at an intersection and a camera in my house.
So some brits may not like the public cameras or the private invasion. Most I would guess are used to the idea that you don't expect privacy in public but still have an expectation of privacy in private communications. But I doubt they are the same issue for most people.
-Kahuna Burger
Re:A law so stupid that it is unworkable... (Score:1)
-David T. C.
Mass FTM as well (Score:2)
If this is the first time this has been used for a tech cause, its pretty ironic. I've noticed that while activists are getting more and more involved with on-line organizing, the on-line crowd actually lags. I think its the herding cats thing - That and it's hard to decide how to fix the roof when half the house is out trying to rent a bulldozer.
-Kahuna Burger
Re:A law so stupid that it is unworkable... (Score:1)
If it wasn't for us, you'd all be speaking German right now!
(Personally, in my mind, speaking German would be one of the least bad parts of living under an evil totalitarian Nazi regime, but maybe other people have different priorities.
-David T. C.
Re:Boycott the U.K. - Send Blair a message (Score:1)
Wow. I'm competely amazed that laws made in one country don't apply in others...that's mindboggling.
Oh, and as someone from a country that has hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, droughts, live-threatening smog, and various other things...can we really complain about harmless fog?
-David T. C.
Re:"European Convention on Human Rights"?! LAUGH!! (Score:1)
???
American Revolution - 1776
French Revolution - 1789
A lot the US political party system rose out of clubs that either supported or opposed the French Revolution however. Wish it hadn't. Before, they tended to duel each other, a la Hamilton vs. Burr. Seems to me that that would end up being a lot more fun for the rest of us
(Gore vs. Bush - Fight!)
Re:Gotcha! (Score:2)
So then:
'the only absolute standard for 'rating' a political stance, attitude, or decision, is the amount of freedom it negates, restricts, adds, or enhances'
So, you would (in theory or in practice) approve of an action that enhances overall freedom, but decreases for example happiness, life expectancy, general well being or some other candidate for the "absolute good"?
I remain sceptical of any philosophy that don't take into account real life issues, like limited resources and every beings natural, primary instinct to survive and propagate.
Abstract qualities, such as freedom, don't mean much before you fulfil basic needs like food, water, sleep, and social contact.
Also it is not too hard to construct an example where a reduction in everyones personal freedom increases the *collective* freedom and thus the overall amount of freedom. The (ideal) justice system is the typical example of this. Here you might even have a larger reduction in the theoretical freedom, than what is de facto gained, since most people would never use most of the freedom that is taken away.
Re:Intercepts not the problem (Score:2)
Hmm. If I am reading this correctly, the prosecution only need prove you HAVE HAD the key, not that you currently still have it - that burden of proof thing. therefore, if you expire the key, you may be in the position of not being able to hand over your key to them and find yourself imprisoned for that.....
--