[Sussex] RIPA
Andrew Guard
andrew at andrewguard.com
Wed Jun 7 22:04:34 UTC 2006
Nic James Ferrier wrote:
> The Home Office seems to be recovering from their bad week and has
> finally got the public consultation on RIPA out the door:
>
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2006-ripa-part3/
>
> This is an important document - it is the consultation on whether the
> Government should enact powers for police and other investigative
> bodies to demand encryption keys.
Small point but a important one, why would they want encryption keys
for? What do they want to is encrypted something, it decryption.
> There is, of course, a privacy issue.
Nope it is not, it control issue. Where did anyone have idea that you
have any rights of privacy? (I reserve my right to silence, opus I
don't have that right any more)
> However, what is concerning people in the free software / open source
> world is the sheer impracticality of the idea. Are we to have to alter
> openssh so that keys for every session we establish are recorded?
Shouldn't be able to do this by default. I don't care what law says it
just dumb. Anyway this could NOT be done, as a tunleing system doesn't
know what is private key is from the other system is. You never send
your private key to other system, you only send your public key to the
other system. That's how the security works, in basic terms.
System A System B
Public > Public A
Private Unknown
Public B < Public
Unknown Private
Yes I know you might use same Public/Private or password keys to
initialized connection but it just for that. After that done you don't
know the other system Private key.
PS better get with the like's of Microsoft/CISCO and Co to change the
way there VPN's work just to make shore we stay within the law. Likely
to happen, NOT! opus didn't they ask Microsoft and did they say NOPE!
> It seems to be an example of Government not really understanding
> encryption systems in widespread use.
err, it's government, as in to govern not to be an expert on anything.
But this is really silly law when first heard abut it years ago.
Let me wonder I bet they will say something dumb like it get terrorised,
like the idea of them being put bars for a year for not saying is going
bother them. Sorry to say it but lets be real.
> If you have the time, please do read and respond to the consultation
> paper.
Not going to read it as no matter what it says it just dumb! Thought it
was dumb years ago and still do today. Nothing change in my mind.
That my 512 bytes worth.
--
C.R.A.P. formally know as DRM
Cancellation, Restriction, and Punishment
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8080
More information about the Sussex
mailing list