[Gllug] Editors

[home at alexhudson.com]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 05:50:26PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > I don't think it does. RIP gives _no_ new powers of interception of
> > material.
> 
> Untrue.  RIP specifies a range of interception activities for which no 
> juidicial oversight is needed.

* where a party consents, or
* it's part of the T&Cs of a provider (like the ISP), or
* it's related to wireless (antijammers, tap enforcement, etc.)

Those are the only conditions under which legal interception without warrant
can be carried out. 1&2 aren't underhanded, since you would either know that
your communications weren't secure or you would be communicating to someone
who is willing to make it unsecure. 3 relates more to the practicalities of
wireless. 

> > You need a warrant to get material. There has to be evidence to
> > support the warrant.
> 
> But not evidence of criminal activity on your part.

Yes, a warrant can be issued against a bona fide person, for example. That
warrants disclosure of information though, not necessarily keys. If there is
no evidence of criminal behaviour (i.e., you're bona fide) you only have to
disclose data they would otherwise have were it not encrypted.

As I've said before, I'm not in favour of the act. However, 90% of criticism
levelled against it is unfounded, and the rest is justifiably levelled at
virtually all of the Telecommunications Acts.

Cheers,

Alex.

-- 

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