[Gllug] Editors

[home at alexhudson.com]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 05:36:13PM +0100, will wrote:
> > I don't think it does. RIP gives _no_ new powers of interception of
> > material. You need a warrant to get material. There has to be evidence to
> > support the warrant.
> 
> OK, now say that you are innocent, yet you are suspected by the police of a
> crime and are asked to hand over the key to a locked box they believe
> contains evidence.  You have lost the key but cannot prove that you have not
> just hidden it.  Now you are guilty of a crime and can go to jail.

I'm not saying I agree with the Bill (I don't), I'm not saying it's good.
What I am saying is this: RIP gives NO powers of interception. 

It adds up to this:

* if police get a warrant to search for material, and they uncover encrypted
material, they get to see it unencrypted (so if you're bona fide, you don't
need to hand over your keys - you just give them the plain text or
whatever).
* if you're not bona fide (e.g. a suspect) you give them your keys. They get
no extra bonus from this (i.e, discovery via decrypting stuff they shouldn't
have access to).
* a third party may have to reveal keys to enable tapping in near-real-time,
unless they support interception themselves (same as bona fide data
holders). 

RIP takes away no rights as regards uncovering information: I don't think
anyone would make an argument against it on those grounds, unless they were
to further argue about other laws already on the statute - i.e., it's not
RIP specific.

Cheers,

Alex.

-- 

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug