Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

RIP: No Privacy In the U.K. 21

Posted by michael from the you-have-no-privacy,-get-over-it dept.
jeffsenter writes "The NYTimes (free regis. req.) has an article on a new law being passed in the U.K., which 'goes further than the American plan unveiled on Monday in Washington, would make Britain the only Western democracy where the government could require anyone using the Internet to turn over the keys to decoding e-mails messages and other data.'" The RIP bill controversy has been going on for some months now, but it looks like the snoops are going to win.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIP: No Privacy In the U.K. More

RIP: No Privacy In the U.K.

Comments Filter:
  • Regardless of Britains world position, they do not have a massive population -- wether you are comparing with the whole of Europe or even the US. My question is, then, if the UK is planning on "setting an example" to the world, what influence might the rest of the world have on the process of this law?

    IMHO, this is violation of a basic right of free speech -- does that not violate the ECHR's rulings at least somewhere? I sincerely hope that the rest of Europe, and even the US (though highly doubtful) will put pressure on the UK not to pass such idiotic legislation.

    --

  • Naturally, not all British citizens (sorry, British Subjects) agree with the Baroness' characterisation of the First Amendment or living conditions in America.

    Frankly, people like her make me sick...
    Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls

  • yup. i used to live there but moved after seeing the dozens of cameras springing up, guns being confiscated forcibly (anyone have a pistol legally in the uk anymore?), motion tracking software being loaded into cameras etc etc. after my company passed out radio freq. badges and security locks which monitored everyone in the bldg and within a 100m (it was so incredibly restrictive they could time your smoking breaks outside the bldg AND keep exact timesheets on you), i quit and headed for the states. this was in london BTW. the rest of the country still has some catching up to do. subject of the british empire ? no thanks.
  • Playing devil's advocate (almost literally as this seems really evil), there is an adage which goes, "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." I think in in America, too many people have abused the first ammendment and too many people have not been vigilant about it. If they don't trust their own citizens to act responsibly, it might be better to restrict them rather than face the consequences.

    I'm just trying to see this from both sides



    Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
  • You'd be guilty of perjury if they did catch you out.

  • The Baroness and the First Amend. (Score:5)

    by Jim Tyre ( 100017 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2000 @04:43AM (#921788) Homepage
    During the Paliamentary debate on July 13 [fipr.org], Baroness Thornton nicely put in perspective what many outside of the U.S. (and too many here in the U.S.) think of the First Amendment:

    It is beholden on noble Lords who are using the lobbying material and literature of that organisation to understand where it and its supporters are coming from. They do not want the technology to be available to all or for it to be safe. They would like to have the regime which exists in America, which is protected by the First Amendment and which has no constraints at all.

    I do not want the industry to grow in this country under that regime because, in America, children are kidnapped. In America, there is no restriction on the paedophile activity which can take place. In America, there is no restriction on the Nazi propaganda, bomb-making and all the other things that can take place on the Internet because the authorities in America are hamstrung by the regime under which they work. I do not want the Internet in the rest of the world to operate under that regime. This country must take a lead in ensuring that that is not the case.

    The First Amendment is not perfect, but statements like that should remind those of us in the U.S. to be thankful for what we have.

  • I have watched Britain's gradual transformation into a police state for some years with dismay. At the moment, it's a largely benign police state. But such conditions are seldom stable. Hey: the Brits are wiretapping everyone and have abandoned traditional Anglo notions of due process. Everything important in Europe is run by Germans. Who won the war again?
  • The UN seems to agree with you according to this report [guardian.co.uk] from the Guardian. Not that I agree with everything the UN or the guardian have to say, but I feel they have a point.
  • I think its a balance of probabilities. I think I could make quite a convincing case for having forgotten it though - It's 128 characters of random gibberish.
  • I'm not familiar with the UK's state of affairs, but I assume it is similar to here in the US. Which is to say that the government was already snooping as they saw fit.

    Now, with the keys, they can do it more quickly and more easily. That should reduce the expense of invading privacy significantly.

    So you see, it's all just to save the taxpayers' money.


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  • Ok to be fair I dont know who concopted this plan but it really does appal me.

    I get the very clear impression that the government dont actually have a good understanding of how the net works or how they intend to enforce this.

    I suggest you take a look at The Stand [stand.org.uk] who can provide a good insight into the pitfalls of this bill along with information for lobbying your MP.

    What makes me sick is this is just a government ploy to appeal to the aol-makes-the-world-safe-for-kids group of parents. If the public percieve this as anything else then they will quite quickly change their minds again. And this is the same government which is tightening it's stance on drugs nationally while my local division (scotland :)) are considering decriminalisation and legalisation.

    The whole thing is just a shambols but we need to make sure this doesn't go through.
  • RIP: No Anarchy In the U.K.
  • I am an advocate
    I am an advocate
    Don't know what they want
    But they know how to read it
    I wanna destroy censorship
    'Cause

    I wanna have some privacy
    No dogs body

    Privacy for the U.K.
    It's coming sometime maybe
    I give a wrong passwd, stop a telnet session
    Your future privacy really stinks
    Cause

    I wanna have some privacy
    On the Internet

    How many ways to get what you want?
    I use ssh
    I use PGP
    I use the enemy
    I use privacy!
    Cause

    I wanna have some privacy
    It's the only way to be!

    Is this the M.P.A.A. or
    Is this the R.I.A.A. or
    Is this the I.R.A.?
    I thought it was the U.K.
    Or just another country
    Another spyware tendency

    I wanna have some privacy
    I wanna have some privacy
    Oh what a name

    And I wanna be a privacy advocate
    Get pissed!
    Encrypt!

    --
  • Some ISPs have already indicated that they'll have to consider relocating ouside of the UK if the RIP bill is passed: eg Claranet [claranet.com] and Poptel. [poptel.org.uk]

  • They've now modified the bill.

    You have to turn over a plain text version of all encrypted files. Unless you say you've forgotten the keys.

    Does anybody else spot the flaw here? I could take all my encrypted stuff, put it in a zip/rar file, encrypt the resulting file, then change the date modified/created to 2 years ago.

    I could first claim to have forgotten the password, and if they do somehow prove that I do know it (is there a telepath in the house?), then I print of a plain ASCII text dump of the zip file, which would come to over 100 pages at least. It's complying with the letter but not the spirit of the law

  • Can I just endorse that? The only criticism I ever had of the First Amendment was that a truly civilised country wouldn't need to write it into the law. But then neither the US nor the UK were civilised when the First Amendment passed.

  • It's not a violation of a basic right of free speech. It's a violation of the principles of prior judicial scrutiny, of the presumption of innocence, of the right to be secure in one's correspondence and communications and of the right not to be forced to incriminate oneself.

    The US most assuredly will not pressurise the UK into withdrawing the legislation. It's the US that's been responsible for this wretched Bill from start to finish. Basically, what it does is place Echelon (or insert current code-word-of-choice for monitoring kit) on a sound legal footing.

  • OK, here's the basics:

    Here, we have the Bill itself [parliament.uk] as it emerged from its report to face it's third reading (last stage in parliament before Royal Assent and passage onto the statute book: it comes into force on a date to be fixed thereafter)

    Thi s [parliament.uk] is the complete list of amendments, and you'll notice that Lord Bassam and chums seem to be out with their castrating knives and good on 'em, ain't it handy to have legislators who aren't going to have to face re-election.

    This schweinerei [parliament.uk] is the really offensive part.

    Things you ought to know about this Bill:

    1. It's already been beaten back once. The really offensive stuff started out in the Electronic Communications Bill (now the Act, minus all the nasty parts and as such totally useless and unlikely ever to be brought into force)
    2. On and from 2nd October 2000, when the Human Rights Act 1998 [hmso.gov.uk] comes into force, it will be more or less impossible to get convictions under clause 53 (it may not retain that section number in the Act-as-it-passes) since the threat of a penalty for non-disclosure amounts to a violation of the privilege against self-incrimination. This particular legal device - questioning under compulsion, a rather genteel and bloodless form of torture - resulted in the defendants in l'affaire Guinness getting judgments in their favour in the EHCR. Because compelled answers to a (non-criminal) DTI inquiry were used as evidence in their eventual (criminal) trial, they were found to have had their human rights violated.
    3. The Encryption stuff isn't the big deal. It's the government's automatic right to install whatever variant of the carnivore system they want into any ISP, telecom provider, whatever so that they can monitor whenever they like without prior judicial restraint. The warrants are to be signed by the Secretary of State. And how much scrutiny is he going to give them?
    4. There's a Commission going to be appointed to hear complaints. Sure, right. Fact fans, listen carefully: this is what they did last time around, when they passed the old Interception of Telecommunications Act fifteen years ago. In those fifteen years, the Commissioner has heard four (4) complaints. And rejected all of them. Can you say "dead letter?"

    I could, and at very small provocation will, go on, but it's 0025 here and frankly I want to go to bed.

  • Not quite. The demand by the police to know who was driving the car at the time it was caught on camera *on pain of prosecution* was the offence, and it was a breach of the right to silence/ right to a fair trial.

    Privacy doesn't come into it - whoever was driving the car was committing an illegal act in a public place and the public interest in detecting and preventing crime overrides the right to privacy in that case.

    There are ways around the problem with speed cameras, but they don't involved monkeying with the right to privacy, which was never really affected in the first place.

  • don't know whether the copy i'm looking at is out of date... but according to this version [parliament.uk] , under section 53: Offences, it states:

    (3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if-
    • (a) sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
    • (b) the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

    so even if you can say you forgot it, you must still prove that beyond a reasonable doubt...
    of course the version I was reading says nothing of that, you must either prove you did not have the key at the time notice was given or that it was not reasonably practicle to disclose the key at the time but you did disclose it as soon as it was (Section 53, subsection 4).
    (Of course, no definition of reasonably practicle is given, much like no definition of reasonable doubt is...)

    This, from what comments I have read seems to be the main problem with the bill... if you are asked to hand over a key you are guilty of failure to disclose it unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you never had it... now it canbe hard enough to prove you had something if you no longer possess it, imagine proving that you didn't have the key
    (Defendent: Well Your Honour, if you look at my hardrive you can see it's not there...
    Judge: Ah but you could have deleted it. Guilty)

    hmmm.... all this gives me an idea... let's all send the MP's an email that's encrypted and let them prove they never had the key... I'm sure we'll see just how flexible "reasonable doubt" can be then...
  • Re your point 2 - don't be too sure about the Human Rights Act and the ECHR providing a defence. There was a recent UK court ruling that speed cameras are a violation of privacy under said act - so it's only a matter of time before HMG supported by the road safety lobby get an exemption pushed through - which they can then use whenever they feel like it.

    Eazy-N

Slashdot Top Deals

"Your stupidity, Allen, is simply not up to par." -- Dave Mack (mack@inco.UUCP) "Yours is." -- Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.sigma.com), in alt.flame

Close