begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Wednesday 16 August 2006 08:28 \__
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> Police decryption powers 'flawed'
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| The government faces criticism over plans to give police powers to make
>>>| suspects produce readable copies of encrypted computer evidence.
>>>|
>>>| [...]
>>>|
>>>| But some peers, academics and cryptographers say the plans are flawed and
>>>| risk being abused.
>>>|
>>>| [...]
>>>|
>>>| "You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy
>>>| by undermining them," he said. "That's the road to hell."
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4794383.stm
>>
>> If the police were not corrupt and not corruptible, and the government
>> were the say in general, then it's possible that there could be an
>> argument in favour of the above, however, as the police regularly find
>> corrupt constables in their ranks, and government in general is far from
>> clean, I cannot ever see a reasonable argument for government agencies,
>> judiciary or anyone else having the right to access or store or collect
>> my data.
>
> Neither do I. But I believe that, given some open confessions, this would
> become more reasonable. At present, it deems incompetent, IMHO. Windows back
> doors, various logs and liaison with the government are nothing but a rumour
> at this stage. And speaking of encryption, why is it that the UK government
> was meeting Microsoft to discuss back door to BitLocker (Vista encryption).
> Doesn't the public deserve to know or be involved (the BBC gave no hints, so
> there was secrecy involved)? And if not, perhaps the government officials
> fear encryption that is undetectable (e.g. one where the data object has no
> headers to indicate encryption, as oppose to an arbitrary blob of 0's and
> 1's, or an independent implementation).
>
I'm sure that they fear encryption very much indeed. A brief inspection
of history books shows that Mary was executed for treason, her messages
having been decrypted. A look at more recent wars shows that eg., the
cracking of enigma was critical to the success of the Royal Navy during
the Battle of the Atlantic.
My feeling is that were we to ever be in such a position again, then the
processing power could readily be put together to crack open pretty much
anything; but for chasing low-grade suspected criminals? Hardly seems
worth it. I was very concerned by the statement from David Blunkett
that the HMG database would only collect "data which is already there",
an attempt to minimise the enormity of the mistake which was about to
be made.
We have rights to privacy, they're enshrined in law, and should be
respected.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
After your lover has gone you will still have PEANUT BUTTER!
|
|
