South African Gov And ECT Bill 12
GothicManSlut writes "South Africa's ITWeb(http://www.itweb.co.za) has released this article (http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/internet/2002/020 8011154.asp?O=FPT) in regards to the controversial ECT Bill being passed now as law. This is sure to provoke the industry in South Africa as it expects the public
to hand over all cryptography keys the SA public
has just to name a few of the problems with it. I wonder who will actually obide to these laws."
Soon to be followed by... (Score:2)
You may think it absurd, but this (or something to the same effect) is more likely than not. I remember the end of the BBS days when the ACs were screened out by most SysOps via mandatory IDing of the user before an account was allowed on the systems. This due to rampant abuse by ACs and the coming of the concept of legal accountability to those running the systems.
I have mixed feelings in that I'm not sure if it's good or bad as there are good arguments on both sides. Guess we'll get to watch it play out in time.
Re:Soon to be followed by... (Score:1)
OMG. It's almost as if... they're following the OSI 7-layer model! Ever heard of ARP or RARP?
Small world view strikes again... (Score:1)
Even when they're actually good ideas (I'm not claiming that this is a good idea!) they're implemented on a country-by-country basis and so their use to the global Internet community is severely limited.
I didn't see anything that required the end users of the net in SA to register themselves though - just the providers of cryptographical solutions - so I think we're safe from complete user control for a few more months...
.za domain (Score:2)
Last I'd heard [slashdot.org] he'd moved the servers that controlled it out of South Africa for when this bill went through.
Did I miss something? (Score:2)
Frankly, I'd be very happy if public key encryption became standard, and there were government-registered companies to certify people's public keys. How do you know that this key purportedly from John Smith is really from John Smith? Why not welcome the government's seal of approval that the company verifying John Smith's identity isn't "Fly-By-Night Enterprises" [verisign.com]? Or are you happy trusting Microsoft [passport.com] to verify this stuff for you?
Yeah, is there a real story here? (Score:2)
If there's something else nefarious going on here, could someone explain?
I think this bill does contain the new .za domain control legislation, so that part may be iffy (I don't know), but that's nothing like the UK RIP-like encryption fascism described in the submitter's posting.
There's a possibly interesting pattern developing here: some of the most technologically advanced nations, arguably having the most to lose from preceived "abuses" of technology, are attempting to control development with unreasonably strict laws: DMCA, RIP, and whatever's going on in Australia with e.g. net filtering and the like. Meanwhile, some developing nations have a double incentive to be less restrictive and more open to "subversive" technological innovation: they're not dependent on revenue from the existing hi-tech industry, and they may see an opportunity to leapfrog some of their more advanced competitor nations. Perhaps this is how Western global economic and dominance will end, as short-sighted politicians try to ban innovation in genetic research, encryption, digital cash, and other promising areas...
Crypt-Keys (Score:1)
Sorry, wrong bandwagon.
IMHO It's quite a step forward, actually. (Score:2)
I'll still have my private key and privately encrypted messages (but they won't be legally recognised). These will be as safe and ans private as a locked box was and still is. (The law about this is still the same to promote general anti-crime sentiments.
Finally I may be able to send electronically signed letters to my bank! Faxes are SOOOO outdated.
I have also read most of the bill itself and note that there are (still) some things that need to be scraped or wiped before we come into alignment with european standards.
Re:IMHO It's quite a step forward, actually. (Score:2)
The "handing over keys" thing is just FUD from the article poster. There is NO provision in the bill for this, after there was a public outcry about the recommendations of the technical committees (which did the research which led to the bill).
Unfortunately the public outcry was caused by FUD from morons just like this poster. The technical committees recommended that a court could issue a warrant to force any person to disclose their keys or the contents of an encrypted message or transaction (at the discression of the person receiving the warrant).
This would have been the most enlightened stance on the matter in the world, since you (if accused of wrongdoing) could avoid handing over your keys!
At the moment, legal opinion is that in most countries the court could force you to hand over your keys under existing law, if it deemed them important in an investigation, or find you in contempt.
So, thank you FUDding dipshits for fucking up a really good thing, because you couldn't be bothered to READ and UNDERSTAND the ACTUAL BILL, but relied on bullshit that you got from the rumourmill.
Re:IMHO It's quite a step forward, actually. (Score:2)
I really TRIED to find something that was deeply negative, but could not. I made the effort of reading through several sections of the bill.
If anyone could just give me the sections they have problems with, then we can talk again. I think the bill is fair for all parties, and lays the ground of lealising electronic (inter-)personal transactions. Another step toward a paperless society. I love freedom but hate anarchy
-shrug-