[Gllug] Editors

[Tom Gilbert]

* Bruce Richardson (brichardson at lineone.net) wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 06:17:49PM +0100, Tom Gilbert wrote:
> > Fine. It's just that I can see the need to protect data from your mate
> > down the pub borrowing your laptop, but I cannot see the need to "deny
> > the higher levels on a StegFS" from the authorities unless you are doing
> > something illegal.
> 
> That's your problem.  Why should anybody be forced to give up private
> data when there is no evidence of criminal activity?  As the law stands
> now the authorities can demand acces to any encrypted data without
> needing any reason or any kind of warrant.  Failure to provide access is
> a crime in itself.
> 
> This gives the authorities power to invade personal privacy in the most
> oppressive manner and is ripe for abuse.  The fact that it may not be
> being abused now is no guarantee that it will not be abused in the
> future.

This is an argument against the RIP act, and I agree with you, it sucks
that they can ask for any data with no reason, but I still stand by two
points.

a) If the authorities do ask for your data, and you have done nothing
illegal, what is the problem?

b) I would rather live in a country where the authorites can look at my
data if the _suspect I have partaken in illegal activities_, if it means
that child pornographers and terrorists (the people who really benefit
from tools such as stegfs) are more easily caught and prosecuted.

Tom.
-- 
   .^.    .-------------------------------------------------------.
   /V\    | Tom Gilbert, London, England | http://linuxbrit.co.uk |
 /(   )\  | Open Source/UNIX consultant  | tom at linuxbrit.co.uk    |
  ^^-^^   `-------------------------------------------------------'

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