Dear Mr. Straw 176
Stand.org.uk has taken issue with the UK's proposed new e-commerce bill in a novel fashion. The Bill includes an assortment of new powers for law enforcement to combat the spread of that dread menace, cryptography. Police can demand that you decrypt and provide the keys for any encrypted communications in your possession - with a penalty of two years in jail. But what if you don't have the key? An excellent letter and even more excellent photo-essay. -- michael
Parse error (Score:1)
over the key secret, telling anyone would
render you liable to 5 years in jail."
Urgh. It took me about 6 passes to parse this sentence. At a minimum, there needs to be a "to" inserted after the first "you." At best, it needs to be re-written entirely.
screw-up (Score:1)
http://www.stand.org.uk/dearjack /images/swear1.jpg [stand.org.uk]
Given this carelessness, finding out who the 'mystery man' is becomes much easier. :)
Re:Whee.. (Score:1)
For the record, only the federal, Ontario, New Brunswick and Manitoba governments are bilingual. All others (including Quebec are unilingual.)
Steemheet@hotmail.com who still can't get a password from slashdot!
as i read it.... (Score:1)
How about this... (Score:2)
Top ten suspects implicated in confession... (Score:2)
9. Ted Kennedy
8. Patrick Naughton
7. Kevin Mitnick
6. JonBenet's daddy
5. Whoever shot JR
4. Eric Clapton ("I shot the sherriff...")
3. But he didn't shoot the deputy...
2. Dr. Richard Kimble
1. Hemos and CmdrTaco (*they* killed Kenny!)
Hmmm... all that, and I didn't even *mention* Bill Gates!
Good idea / Stupid implementation (Score:2)
But, sure, the current wording is really stupid and this letter does a great job to prove it. The obligation should apply exclusively to the messages / documents YOU encrypt. And penalties should be enforced only for voluntary destruction of key/clear text. What can you do if your hard drive crash ? And anyway, for the "no disclose" part of the law, even in UK, you cannot be denied a legal counsel at anytime in a procedure. So, this law is already dead.
Good idea, but redo your homework, Mr Straw
Ah...but what cryptosystem are you using? (Score:2)
A.C.
Huge files of random data to become probable cause (Score:3)
Re:Civil Rights in the UK (Score:3)
Yes, it's apparently Rowan Atkinson. (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Good point ... what's possession? (Score:2)
If I keep all my encrypted files on my ISP and access them remotely (though ssh), am I in possession of them?
Re:great (Score:1)
--
To be fair.. (Score:1)
Re:US version? (Score:2)
Cops aren't *asking* you anything but administering a breathalizer test. You aren't *giving* them information by allowing it. You are simply allowing them to *collect* information, similar to when a cop searches you for weapons.
Constitutionally, this is *perfectly* legal. If you have any doubt about this, please by all means consult a lawyer. If ANY law in your area is unconstitutional, it's your OBLIGATION as a citizen to have this law contested and repealed.
Every time I hear somebody say "this is yet another example of laws passed that are unconstitutional," I just get this knot in my stomach. If your local legislature is busy passing laws that are *actually* unconstitutional, your local government has some serious problems and needs to be fixed or overthrown ASAP. (I recommend the former.)
Re:US version? (Score:2)
A law like this would not be passable in the US without suitable alterations.
Re:US version? (Score:2)
It's like a cop saying, "Hmm, that person lying in front of you appears to have been stabbed. Oh, my, is that a knife you're hiding behind your back? May I see it please?" You can't simply plead the 5th (or the 4th) and refuse to turn the knife over.
I'd suggest you consult a lawyer if any of this is unclear to you. He can probably better explain it than I can.
Re:4th amendment (Score:2)
Re:US version? (Score:2)
I can't even hazard a guess why this is necessary, but I imagine it has something to do with the local government's ability to govern its citizens. By surrendering absolute ownership (you still maintain ownership in "cooperation" with the state, as I understand it), this gives the state the ability to do things like impound your car if you break laws, etc. But along that line of thought it would then be illegal for the state I'm in now to impound my car, since it's still registered in my last state of residence. So again, I'm not quite certain what all of this means.
It would be nice to get a lawyer's take on the matter.
In any event, all of the URL's you quoted deal with vehicle registration and the certificate of title, not driver's licenses or "invisible contracts". The third URL simply quoted a bunch of text from various decisions without giving any sort of background on the cases. For all you know these cases could be about bus terminals and airports barring a person from travelling without sufficient reason, which naturally would be illegal. (I just happen to notice that a couple of the defendants were names like Dulles (the airport?).)
In addition, International Driver's Licenses are only valid in member countries EXCEPT the country of origin. Thus, feel free to get an IDL, but it won't do anything for you while you're in the States.
Re:US version? (Score:3)
This has nothing at all to do with 5th amendment protections against self-incrimination.
Re:What an beautiful Foobar... (Score:1)
-----
New E-mail address! If I'm in your address book, please update it.
Re:US version? (Score:1)
Ever since it was decided that being compelled to give blood/saliva/urine/etc. is not a violation of a person's 5th ammendment rights, I have been worried that the right to not self-incriminate is on its way out (along with the rest of the Constitution).
Re:Canada Crypto Policy (Score:1)
Spelling (Score:1)
Shoulda hit that preview button.
Re:Well Said. (Score:1)
Man, I really should have hit the preview button on that comment.
Re:Well Said. (Score:2)
I just think its a hell of a lot better to have enumerated, hard to modify rights than to have the kind of wishy-washy mishmash that the British have. My impression is that Parliament could turn GB into a totalitarian state tomorrow and that nobody could do anything to stop them legally.
I think that is the peculiar genius of the american constituion: checks and balances, combined with two layers of law (i.e. statutory law and constiutional law). One is easy to change, and so we can adapt. The constitution is very difficult to change -- it is the bedrock of our society.
What scares me is the courts: they have grown more and more liberal. If they go south, then we may as well kiss the constitution goodbye.
Spelling (Score:2)
Shoulda hit that preview button.
Well Said. (Score:5)
But I wouldn't want to live there. In the US, I could challenge such a bill on a number of constitutional grounds. I could claim that it violated due process, unreasonable search and ceisure, freedom of speech, and unnenumerated rights such as privacy. It wouldn't last six months (much like the late CDA did not). However, my understanding is that in Britain their are no such consitutional protections -- don't I remember hearing that they don't even have a formal consitution?
On
Re:Love it, but... (Score:2)
Re:Lose the key? (Score:2)
I'm really having a hard time understanding the point of this law: If I'm a terrorist, am I likely to be coerced by two years jailtime into revealing a key that will decode messages that will land me in jail for life? Terrorists may be stupid, but I doubt that they are THAT stupid.
On the other hand, if this were rigorously enforced, you could (anonymously of course) send people you dislike a random block of data and tip off the police that they have encrypted messages pertaining to a crime....
Re:Can't even complain? (Score:3)
In itself that is fair enough - after all you don't want to allow one of the proverbial peadophiles/drug traffickers/international terrorists to tip off their colleagues. What is insidiuous is that the government under the current proposals will not be required to reveal the interception / decryption request even after the fact - not even in summary form. In other words, the government can claim that this law is very effective in preventing crime without ever having to prove it
I don't usually subscribe to conspiracy theories, but this is beginning to suck. But at least we still have the European Court of Human Rights to fall back on.
What an beautiful Foobar... (Score:1)
Great article (Score:1)
A really incredibly well done article. The photo essay was wonderful, I laughed so hard... Hopefully further articles/letters like this will help convince governments to adopt logical legislation about internet and cryptography legislation. Very nicely done, Stand.
-David Ziegler
-dziegler@hotmail.com
Re:Well Said. (Score:1)
AFAIK most people living in the UK are British citizens. A subject is someone governed by Britain, but not entitled to a UK passport. This mostly means people in the leftover bits of Empire which are too tiny to govern themselves. I believe there are moves to grant these people citizenship, or at least the right to live in the UK.
Re:Well Said. (Score:1)
The British constitution isn't written down in one place as a big document. It's an accumulated mess of laws, conventions, legal precedents and so on. I am not a lawyer, but I'd guess that a judge might decide that a prosecution brought under the Bill was not valid, because of the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. This is just a guess of course, and if Parliament wanted to pass a law stating explicitly that everyone is guilty until proven innocent, they could do so.
There is the European Convention on Human Rights, which is due to be incorporated into British law. Until then, cases get taken to the European Court of Human Rights (I think) who will rule on things, which requires (in practice, if not legally) the law to be changed. For example, the recent ruling [bbc.co.uk] over homosexuals in the armed forces.
Sheer Brilliance! (Score:2)
There is something very satisfying about this. This is an excellent, textbook quality example of how to make one's point on the net. That the issue is important is just gravy.
Warmest Congratulations to the parties responsible.
Re:... (Score:1)
Some would claim it was Bill Gates.
Actually, it was both.
The explanation of how it is possible that they both invented the same Internet independently of each other is a complex one the relies on several principles of Quantum Mechanics, a rare alignment of two distant stars and our planet, and the religious theories of a race of hyper-intelligent mice living in a space station orbiting Venus.
But trust me, it's the truth.
Re:Civil Rights in the UK (Score:1)
US version? (Score:2)
Does the UK not have similar protections for it's citizens?
--
Re:Well Said. (Score:1)
Britain is a constitutional monarchy because in effect the monarch has no power to raise money without parliament, so in fact it is parliament that has the power. That goes back to James I (of England, VI of Scotland).
Having said that, I agree with you that the way Britain is run could use a little modernisation, and that writing down how its meant to work would be quite useful, and I'm right with you on the ECHR, except that reform of the Law Lords really needs to be tackled first.
Re:Drunk Driving (off topic) (Score:1)
test positive for marijuana, for instance. And Insurance? Probably won't be able to get it, or
you'll need a special expensive kind. And the thing that floors me, in Texas anyway, is that it's a severe impediment to renting an apartment.
No apartment on the Texas Apt Assn. will approve your lease if you've had a DWI or drug possession
*arrest*. Not a *conviction*, mind you. An *arrest*. I think I'm more afraid of the corporate entity than I am the government.
Re:great (Score:1)
There are plenty of things (e.g.: this, the 3-lines-of-Perl RSA sig, the publication in exportable book form of the PGP source code) that fall somewhere between protest action and Gedankenexperiment.
There should be a catchy generic name for these sorts of hijinks. Anyone care to step up?
Re:Deniable encryption (Score:1)
But then you don't have the data. (Score:1)
Re:Civil Rights in the UK (Score:1)
Wouldn't this fall under some sort of 'obstruction of justice' type law?
Re:the usual suspects (Score:1)
Humor alert. Attempts to paradory IBM's "e-whateverthefuck" campaign.
Decoy keys (Score:1)
Then, when the police come knocking, demanding that you turn over the key, you can give them the decoy key, which will decrypt the file to something innocuous. (a letter to your Mom, maybe)
Then the police move on, thinking there is nothing there, and stop harrassing you, and your "real" message is forever safe. Problem solved?
Re:US version? (Score:2)
An example of possible abuse would be if you just happened to have a shed with a good lock. The police note this and come around demanding to see inside. You procede to tell them to fsck off. They throw you in jail for 2 years, no questions asked. If you try to complain, make that 5 more years.
Not the greatest system. Unfortunately executing search warrants on encrypted files is a very real problem, there has to be an answer but this isn't it.
Re:US version? (Score:1)
Re:Power of the Word (Score:1)
Insightful and well-read for an AC! Yes, in fact, I was referring to Austin and Searle and a few others in my treatment of the post on Word Power. And I've written a small paper [utexas.edu] on how action words work on-line, and my thesis [utexas.edu] has a chapter or two on it.
Power of the Word (Score:2)
The power of words and information is becoming increasingly tangible--here with this letter to Mr. Straw, with the Torah, and in similar things, like signs that say "Warning: Narrow Bridge" which perform actions of warning by sitting there looking yellow.
Expect some changes in general thought about words being 'just words' in everyday parlance. It's already in philosophy and has been most of the century.
Re:Stegano (Score:2)
Yep, we're going from an age where everything must be encrypted, to an age where everything must be steganographically encrypted.
But steganography requires noise to hide in. Here I was, all happy that higher bandwidths, larger storage devices, etc. are becoming cheaper and more available, and now I realize that I'm going to have to use ten times as much of it, just to break even.
It kinda reminds me of the CPU advances vs bloatware situation. People are able to opt out of that by not using bloatware, and thereby ride the hardware technology wave. But will not using stegano really be an option?
---
Have a Sloppy day!
great (Score:1)
where would we be without danny o'brien, eh? erm, probably doing more work on friday afternoons. that's where.
----
the usual suspects (Score:2)
----
Re:US version? (Score:2)
You couldn't claim 5th amendment protection if the information they are after isn't about you to begin with.
Which leaves us back at the beginning, you are in violation of the law simply for failing to surrender the key.
-Helping Satan Daily, in small amounts
Satan's Little Helper
A Nit (Score:2)
Also loving being British
Presidential politics (offtopic subthread) (Score:1)
What are the implications for ISPs? (Score:4)
Not a good thing for the relationship between web hosting companies and their customers, I would imagine.
Re:Civil Rights in the UK (Score:1)
Found the article. (Score:2)
A Ron Rivest paper [mit.edu]
and a postscript document on deniable encryption by Canetti, Dwork, Noir and Ostrovsky. [mit.edu]
Happy hacking!
Re:Deniable encryption (Score:4)
There was also a short piece on it in 2600 a few issues back, I think in enough detail to implement it if you know basic crypto programming. I think it mentioned some prototypical crypto-stego filesystems already available that use this idea.
IIRC, you divide the cyphertext into blocks, which are either chaff or real data. You use the key to scan along, decoding blocks until you get a decrypt that checks out, and then that block has some of the data and the key to the next valid block. Thus, depending on what key you start with, you can pull out any one of many embedded plaintexts. You can set the ratio of chaffing to be whatever you want, but it generally needs to be pretty high for it to be truly effective. I think, for example, that if you wanted a secure 2 GB filesystem, you'd want an 8 GB disk, with 2 GB of filesystem, 2 GB of alternate plaintext and 4 GB of random chaff. Not very effective or fast, but when you need to be secure...
Deniable encryption (Score:5)
So if Mr. Fed demands a key, you give him one, and it pulls a couple of porn pictures and some old issues of Phrack out of the cyphertext. You gave him a key, it produced plaintext from a cypertext- get out of jail free.
That there's another key that decrypts entirely other information from the file is impossible to prove, due to the chaffing.
Any sensible criminal would just use this type of encryption.
Re:How about this... (Score:2)
This wouldn't provide any security if you made the key ring larger (ie, a portion of the keyspace), either. If you can access your data without knowing the key, you can bet the police can.
I think this is a really good hack on the part of STAND. In fact, I think that if the law is enacted people all across the UK should commit their favorite crime, encrypt a confession, and send it to their MP.
Getting around laws like these with technological hacks (ie, chaff-n-winnow) is the wrong attitude to adapt. We should be fighting these laws instead of finding ways around them.
Re:Well Said. (Score:2)
> don't I remember hearing that they don't even have a formal consitution?
No we don't, and some of us are quite annoyed about it!
You may hear the UK described as constitutional monarchy - this dates from (I think) when William of Orange was installed as King; the 'constitution' said "You can be King, but these are the limits on your powers" In other words, the only constitution in Britain is to do with the Crown, not the people.
We are subjects, not citizens.
Secondly...
> In the US, I could challenge such a bill on a number of
> constitutional grounds. I could claim that it violated due process, unreasonable search and
> ceisure, freedom of speech, and unnenumerated rights such as privacy.
Britain should be in a better position in this regard shortly, when the European Convention on Human Rights is incorporated into our legal system (can't remember when exactly... beginning of next year?)
But that's jam tomorrow - better not to pass such crap encryption legislation in the first place.
--
Re:Well Said. (Score:1)
More and more liberal? Geez. Without going off on a rant, I'd like to point out that throughout American history, many self-described liberals have been the fiercest guardians of Constitutional rights. Without getting into an argument on political terminology, might I suggest that it may be more appropriate to say that courts may have grown more and more disrespectful of constitutional law (or alternatively, civil rights) rather than just saying they're becoming "liberal" (as there's a significant difference between the two).
Freedom of Thought, and When Society Can Go F* Off (Score:3)
Your hard drive. When you can't readily remember everything, you use your handy dandy computer to store it. At this point you have various expectations of privacy, but chances are anyone encountering a file that is encrypted will realize that it isn't for them to see.
Freedom of thought is an individual right, and it is no one's business but the thinkee what is being thought about. But like the schoolyard bully, the powers that be do not wish to be humbled by anything beyond their purview. Encryption is just one of the many tools available to the individual to protect this absolute right against oppressive forces, whether or not they operate under the banner of law.
Re:US version? (Score:1)
(I already stated this a previous post, but let's recap)
Say you kill your wife and kids and stash their dismembered corpses in The Shed Out Back. Since you don't want Lil' Jimmy to come by and open the shed and be covered by an avalanche of dismembered arms and legs, you put a lock on the shed door. (One of those REALLY good locks. Like a Kryptonite-Master super lock. (Takes 6 years to break through with a hacksaw and you can put a bullet through it, without breaking.)
The neighbors get noisey (afterall they're neighbors) and eventually call the police syaing your wife and children have been missing ever since that night of screaming, gunshots, and buzzsaws. So the cops drop by with a search warrant and say, "Hey, open up the shed." and you say, "Fuck you pig! If I did that I'd be self-incriminating me!" Then the courts hold you in contempt until you comply, or the cops finish sawing the lock off in 6 years, whichever breaks first.
A Clarification (Score:1)
The conspiracy charge was only hypothetical if the Government decided, "Aw hell. We can't get him with on this with out the evidence. Let's see what we can charge him with....how about conspiracy?"
Of course it's MUCH more likely that they'd just let you rot in jail until you gave in. (Whether you're in jail for 20 years for contempt of court, or 20 years for the actual crime, it doesn't much matter to the Government. (Of course if you do cave in 20 years, they'll be more than happy to keep you in the can for 20 more years because of the original crime.)
Re:Too much of a price to pay? (Score:1)
That's not exactly true. I can't tap phone calls.
What's to stop me from alleging that a business communication from one of my competitors contains evidence of illegal activity, then bribing the law enforcement officials to disclose the contents to me, thus gaining a competitive advantage?
That is HIGHLY illegal, and anti-corruption laws already exist to keep you from attempting to do this, and for the police from fullfilling your request.
Would Nixon have needed to send burgulars into the Watergate Hotel if he could simply tell the NSA to retreive the DNC's keys from key escrow, and intercept all their communications?
Again, that's corruption, and abuse of power. Anyway the whole point of the burgulry was to hide the fact that the Whitehouse was involved.
Civil Rights in the UK (Score:5)
Since I've already admitted that I'm not qualified to speak about British law, let's suppose that this law was passed in the United States. (Which isn't unlikely.) This law would be perfectly legal. When the government suppeanas information from you via a search warrant, you have to give it.
Turning over a crypto-key is no different than turning over the key to you shed where you stashed the dismembered corpses of your wife and children. (Claiming privacy for stashing a body doesn't cut it, and it doesn't for encrypting a document either.) It doesn't violate the 5th amendment (Freedom from self-incrimination, for all our non-American friends) because it's evidence gathering, not testamony.
Imprisonment for not retrieving the key is where American and UK law start to diverge. INAL, but I belive the governement can still imprison you under some sort of conspiracy law, but I'm not sure. (I really don't know alot about conspiracy law, except that they only have to prove intent, which has a very low threshhold. Also they don't need physical evidence, (thus the "Conspiracty to ______" charge rather than for "_______ing".)
I understand law enforcement's predicament when it comes to crypto, but it's no different than any other civil-rights vs. law-enforcement issue. Basically the crypto-issue reduces down to Search. Sure having cops rabndomly raid someone's home will prevent crime, but is it to much of a price to pay? Sure key-escrow/recovery will allow the cops to evesdrop on you and the criminals, but is it too much of a price to pay?
It's a classic predicament, and there isn't an easy answer. A long time ago, society decided "No, you can't let the cops barge in and search. They need warrant to do that." Later society decided, "No, you can't just let the cops evesdrop on phone conversations, they need a warrant to do that." Sure the cops should be able to gather evidence, but they should have a warrant first. (The easy of getting a warrant is another issue, that deals with judical oversight (or lack there of).)
Personally I have no problem with the cops forcing me to decrypt a message. I don't like it, but it's no different than forcing me to unlock a safe. (However. I would kind of like to see the FBI crack the crypto.) I also feel the US crypto-export laws should be repealed, because they're completly ineffective against curbing the spread of strong crypto, and only serves to hold back the software industry and e-commerce.
--
The following was just random line noise.
Re:great (Score:1)
Work-arounds (Score:5)
In particular, I notice sections 10 (2) where (a) and (b) might give grounds for defence / opting-out, but "require" towards the end stamps on our freedom & privacy.
(3) (b) seems to allow for any means the requirer sees fit - I wonder what happens if they choose PGP-signed mail?
(11)(2) and (3) appear to leave a loop-hole; if you're required to release information believed to be held under a key system, might you only have to release "useful information" ('in an intelligible form'), not necessarily the *actual* information you've encrypted.
Big deal? Why've I gone to the trouble of looking all this up?
Because while it will only apply if the police demand it, which will probably only happen if they suspect you of something, the problem is that if we don't *exert* the basic human right to *privacy*, then someone will trample all over it later and you'll wake up powerless to fix things.
or how about... (Score:1)
Bob knows we need it!
Re:Actually.. (Offtopic remark to offtopic joke ;) (Score:1)
Re:Well Said. (Score:2)
Start getting ready with this challenge, since the terms of this bill are nearly identical to those proposed for US law in the SAFE Act [loc.gov].
It requires that you must provide keys when demanded by law enforcement, provided they get a search warrant within 90 days (but only if they use it in court), and that you not tell anyone that you have decrypted anything.
Re:Canada Crypto Policy (Score:2)
Here's a good site (remember that US$1 = CAN$1.50):
http://www.canadasearch.com/jobsearch/emp loy.htm
Personally, I like the Halifax area. They have a great music scene and people are actually nice. It's not too expensive to live there, either.
Oh, well that changes everything (Score:1)
Re:Oh, well that changes everything (Score:1)
I would suspect not, at least not officially. I am a citizen of a constitutional government of constitutionally limited powers. He is the subject of an omnipotent and unbridled parliamentary government. There are things that my governmetn cannot constitutionally do to me (like strip me of my citizenship, see Trop v. Dulles). His government is completely sovereign over every aspect of his life and his affairs with others. There is still officially a monarch at the head of his government, and that monarch has a non-zero amount of actual power.
These are very different relationships.
at least with the Torah... (Score:2)
UK /.ers, support Stand (Score:1)
There are already a lot of MPs "adopted" into the scheme, so when the time for action does come, it should guarantee that a lot of politicians at least hear about the situation.
Re:Civil Rights in UK (locks on sheds vs crypto) (Score:1)
Re:Drunk Driving (off topic) (Score:1)
This isn't legal advice either and may vary in other states.
Re:Well Said. (Score:2)
Part III Investigation of Protected Electronic Data
The spooks' charter. Here any policeman could show up with some encrypted data and an order to provide the decryption key. If you refuse you go to jail for 2 years. Usually they won't need a judicial warrant; sometimes they won't need any sort of warrant at all, just their say-so.
The problem is that if you don't actually have they key it is up to you to prove that. If you deleted it, or if you never actually had it, you're in trouble. If the authorities reckon you've got it stashed on a floppy buried in the flowerbeds at Hyde Park Corner, go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect £200.
How can you prove you don't have something? Try slapping your forehead in a manner likely to convince the judge.
The other new power here is that the authorities can order you to keep the disclosure of your key a secret. If you tell anyone at all you'll be going down for up to 5 years for "tipping off". Not only is this disasterous for information security, but it even stops you complaining about unfair treatment. Toddle off to court to demand judicial review of the order to disclose and all you'll get from the Judge is an extended stay in Her Majesty's finest accomodation because telling the judge is illegal!. There is a tame Tribunal to hear complaints and cover them up; you aren't even entitled to legal representation at it.
STAND says, poetically: How does Part III breach the Human Rights Act, let me count the ways... Unfair offences, reversal of burden of proof, defences that are logically impossible to prove, a wholly inadequate complaints procedure with no appeals, unneccesarily broad powers, potential to force you to incriminate yourself, the list goes on.
The police need something to help them to decrypt data in certain circumstances (and not in others). Part III is not it. Parliament should delete this Part and try to come up with something better when it replays the Interception of Communications Act next year. If it doesn't throw this Part out, the European Court of Human Rights will.
Sounds to me like they do have some sort of legal leg to stand on. (With the European Court of Human Rights?)
Can't even complain? (Score:2)
"If the police ask you keep the demand to hand
over the key secret, telling anyone would
render you liable to 5 years in jail."
Perhaps somebody on the other side of the Pond could clear something up for this rebellious colonist.
White Noise (Score:2)
It's not too difficult to create a PGP like utility, that produced files without headers, consisting of a single, inscrutable globs of zero entropy data.
Such a file might bear a striking resemblence to ones used in the random number generation experiments, data compression tests, and background radiation measurements we will all be conducting real soon now...:)
Re:Well Said. (Score:2)
Your tone about how great rights are in the US strikes me as a bit complacent however. British rights against governmental intrusion, and the poor defence of free speech are poor, rooted in an odd view that these aren't really matters of government at all. However the British track record on rspecting the paper rights that exist are better guaranteed than in the US. Also the US has extraordinary archaicisms existing (and occassionally enforced) at the state level. Check out the ACLU website and weep. I would say that overall, Germans have better rights in practice than Americans. [aclu.org]
Lastly, the merits of of a formal constitution are easily overrated. Russians had excellent constitutional rights in th 1930s, and they weren't worth an awful lot.
Re:Actually.. (Offtopic remark to offtopic joke ;) (Score:2)
Oh well. At least there's Ralph Nader and the Green party. And Michael Moore, if he could ever be drafted to run for office.
Actually, here's a suggestion, kids -- support third party candidates, whatever your political slant is. If everyone went by the best candidate, and not the one more likely to keep you placated given the choice between options A and B, maybe we'd end up with a smarter, more dynamic government, where boneheaded laws like this wouldn't be so likely.
Interesting idea, no?
Aha! The Immigration Website (Score:2)
The way I read it, you are assessed an elligibility score. You need a total of 70 (out of 100 possible) points, if you are fluent in both French & English, you get 15 points, if you are fluent in one of them, 9 points. Contact C&I for details about how the points are assessed, but it looks as though it is relatively easy to qualify, especially if you are young, have a degree (or other post-secondary training) or job experience in the computer field.
Hope that helps (and wasn't getting to far off topic)
Dana
Canada Crypto Policy (Score:5)
The policy allows Canadians to develop, import and use whatever cryptography
products they wish and does not impose mandatory key recovery requirements or
a licensing regime. "This policy is good for the Canadian economy," said Minister
Manley. "It supports the increased use of electronic commerce products and
services in Canada, as well as the export of Canadian information technologies to
other countries."
Wow! A consumer/industry friendly approach! The full article is here [ic.gc.ca]
Dana
Re:US version? (Score:2)
You CAN drive without a license. Search for "the right to travel." Here are some links to get you started:
http://teaminfinity.com/~ralph/dl.html
http://205.218.170.194/www.svpvril.com/vehicle.
http://www.lvdi.net/~willys/travel.htm
Also, check out "Manufacturer's Statement of Origin." Specifically, why does the DMV want you to submit one, and they give you a "title" back?
i.e.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/441
If you don't want to be harrassed you can get an International Driver's Permit.
Cheers
Re:Well Said - Not Quite the Same (Score:2)
The prohibition on telling anyone is the same as in any other criminal investigation, it does not simply apply to encryption. You are generally guilty of interfering with a criminal investigation if you go telling people (your "known associates") that the FBI searched your house. The courts have rarely applied this to talking to a reporter or any other figure as long as it is clear that the subject was not trying to interfere with an investigation.
If the cops come to your house looking for someone, and you call that person after they leave and advise them to flee, your are guilty of obstructing justice, even if that person is later found innocent. This is the same idea.
That all being said. This is a ridiculous law, like many English laws regarding individual rights. They may have lit the first candle of some of these concepts in the modern era, but they have pathetic protections in the areas of Speech, Press, arrest and detention, civil procedure, and state security. That a society with such strong traditions fails so significantly in practice should give some insight to the origins of restrictive democracy in other homogenous countries (Singapore, Greece)
Hurrah for Stand, A Silver Lining? (Score:3)
One bright spot here. I am a US citizen, and while I am disturbed by the almost daily threats to privacy and other civil rights in this country, what struck me while reading this is the resonance between the British citizens' problems and our own with similar attempts.
If nothing else, we at least are truly starting to talk about issues in this world without regard to traditional borders. It is becoming more of an attack on OUR rights, as opposed to their rights. Once people are the same side of the fence, they work together. What affects the rights of people "over there" affects people everywhere. With forums like this, the position of the world's repressionists is becoming more difficult. We must continue to think in terms of we, regardless of outdated borders and outdated ways of viewing people that many of us have grown up being taught (by our societies, families, churches, etc.). The purpose of free speach has always been to keep unpopular (to the gov't or to the people) opinions flowing so we don't stagnate in our thinking.Hurrah for Stand, for doing something. As long as we keep discussing and acting on these attempts to limit freedom, those who are afraid of everyone having the same freedom they have, will be unable to succeed. The more we incorporate the people of the world into the "we" of our mindsets, the more we move toward the world we all want.
Love it, but... (Score:3)
Does the UK have anything akin to the U.S. "Freedom of Information Act?" I wonder if an entire Gov't agency could get into trouble for having information that's encrypted that the public should have access to but won't give up the decryption key?
-=-=-=-=-
Actually.. (Offtopic remark to offtopic joke ;) (Score:2)
I don't think McCain is all that bad, so far. I, like many others, have suffered under the delusion that one party is liberal, and the other is conservative, when they are really just two like-minded groups fighting over the same piece of pie. ;)
Oh yeah.. (Score:2)
I'd much prefer those offerings than that of Mr. "I invented the Internet.. Who's this Tim Berners-Lee guy?" or Mr. "My father was a loser who couldn't get a second term even though Clinton did but you'll vote me in because he's my father anyway".. Ugh. I might actually vote if McCain and Bradley get nominated. ;)
Whee.. (Score:2)
Damn straight. Companies like Nortel kind of scare me, though. I always did like Canada's less restrictive laws. Yet another reason why I want to move there. However, I'm a bit annoyed at the law that prevents one from becoming a permanent resident (barring special exceptions) unless you know conversational French. Seems like that would only make sense in Quebec (and who the hell wants to live there..? *ducks and covers*).. The only thing knowing French in Canada will save you from is Canadians who like to say "cute" things about Americans that they can't understand.. ;) Of course, if you do know French, you get to read everything.. twice.. (yes, this all assumes one knows English.. but then, you kind of have to in order to be reading this, right?)
Not unless the law has changed.. (Score:2)
I looked into it a while back, and though IANAL, it seemed to me that you had to be one of a few things: 1) a business person looking for new business oppurtunities (who doesn't want to boost their economy?) 2) someone with job skills immediately transferable to the Canadian job market (and who spoke enough conversational English /and/ French to get by) 3) someone fleeing their country due to some kind of prosecution (often religious or political) 4) if you have a relative in Canada who agrees to sign some stuff and "be responsible" for your financial well-being for up to 10 years.. The last of those 4 (presented in incorrect order, I believe) being the easiest.. If you have a relative in Canada. ;) Being your average person who wants to immigrate (sense 2) is, naturally, the most difficult way to get in.
Of course, if you only wanted short term residency, the options opened up quite a bit. Like if you wanted to go to school there. However, you got the boot as soon as you left school and there were some /harsh/ restrictions on what kind of jobs you could get (that is, only those revolving around your major ;).
If what I used to know now stands incorrect, that would certainly be exciting (I understand those laws are updated every 6 months to a year or so).. It would certainly open up my options as far as moving somewhere more hospitable is concerned.
... (Score:2)
Of course not.. It was Al Gore. ;)
No, the chances of getting a straight answer out of me on this thread are decidedly not good. Why? Because it's funny. So laugh. :)
Interesting.. (Score:3)
"This is why such sober organisations as British Telecom, Hewlett Packard and Microsoft have publicly criticised the Bill at each stage of its development."
Microsoft doing some good in the world besides giving us the WAV format? Nifty. I'm still not sure I would refer to them as "sober" (they seem to prefer free beer to free speech.. most of the time, anyway ;).
Too much of a price to pay? (Score:2)
The problem is that any mechanism that allows the cops to intercept your communications and use them against you as part of a valid law enforcement effort may also be used by non-police. What's to stop me from alleging that a business communication from one of my competitors contains evidence of illegal activity, then bribing the law enforcement officials to disclose the contents to me, thus gaining a competitive advantage? Would Nixon have needed to send burgulars into the Watergate Hotel if he could simply tell the NSA to retreive the DNC's keys from key escrow, and intercept all their communications?
The problem here is that the massive potential for abuse here far outweighs the legitimate law enforcement needs. Besides which, if your want to see what is in an email you can always simply get a warrant and record the keystrokes as they are typed in, negating the need for anyone disclosing the key.