[677] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Situation in the UK
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Bradley)
Sun May 4 21:09:40 1997
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 18:26:22 +0000 ( )
From: Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
To: "Axel H. Horns" <Horns@t-online.de>
cc: cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <m0wNMDp-000803C@fwd00.btx.dtag.de>
On Fri, 2 May 1997, Axel H. Horns wrote:
> Is anyone out there who might whish to give a brief comment on any
> possible influence of the change in 10 Downing Street on UK crypto
> policy?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Axel H. Horns
>
We can only speculate. The Labour party have made no specific noises,
encouraging or otherwise, about encryption policy but their general law
and order policy along with the warped views of Jack Straw (very similar
to Michael Howard in many ways) which have lead to their proposing a
total ban on handguns in the UK, curfews for all children under 16,
installation of CCTV cameras in yet more public places, holding parents
responsible for the "crimes" of their children, mandatory minimum
sentencing for repeat offenders and further action against "evil drug
pushers" doesn`t bode well for future policy. Whichever way strong crypto
will prove to be the tool that brings down governments worldwide no
matter how many laws they pass.
First a small introduction to British poly-tics (many small blood sucking
parasites) for those outside of the UK:
The UK system is based around a parliament with 2 houses, the house of
commons and the house of lords. The lords can be pretty much ignored as
even if they reject a bill the commons can force it through on a majority
vote. The house of commons has a whips office, the whips are members with
party allegiances which bully, threaten and otherwise coerce with threats
of losing privelages and services, the elected MPs into voting the way
the leader of the party wants them to.
I would imagine (and I am speculating wildly here but I have proven to
have a talent for second-guessing governments in the past so I hope I may
be allowed this indulgance) that we will see, within a few months, the
labour party (which has such a significant majority over all of the other
parties it cannot be defeated on a whipped vote) passing a bill derived
from the DTIs TTP white paper of a few months ago. This rather confused
paper didn`t really know what it was proposing but ended up, after
careful untangling, proposing the making illegal of selling "encryption
services" such as key signing, certificate provision etc. without a
licence from the government. The paper also seemed to propose making
these TTPs (which would be large corporations the government could bribe
and threaten into breaking the codes of practice laid down in the bill)
act as escrow agents and (and this part was hazy with not even the DTI
knowing if it were true) making key escrow on even domestic crypto
mandatory. Rather confusingly the escrow scheme would also have included
signing keys, suggesting the govt. is acting on behalf of GCHQ or some
other LEA who wants to forge signatures using peoples cryptographic keys.
(Disclaimer: This paper was very confused and badly written, contradicted
itself a number of times and I may not understand it correctly, for this
reason I ask for all corrections to be send to /dev/null)
<Rant>
The Labour party, portrayed, as usual for a party which promises to burn
books and cast out heretics, by the tabloid press as the universal tonic
is in fact as corrupt and evil as any other group of people who believe
in the process of democracy. I have a sincere and deep hope that all of
these criminals die in severe pain.
</Rant>
The bottom line is we can`t be sure what will happen. Even though it is
no guarantee of sucess the first ammendment assists US citizens greatly
in challenging government policy, indeed the whole constitution is of
great use in taking the rubber hose to the political classes, however, we
have no such "guarantee" <sp?> of rights in the UK so any challenge to
laws that may be proposed or passed is a damn sight harder. Whatever
happens it won`t be me that challenges any such law, I simply disobey
those laws I feel are not rooted in a firm basis of logic and ethics, if
a lot more people did this and followed their convictions rather than the
other sheeple we would have less restrictive government and a better society.
Challenging laws in the normal manner is simply "playing the game" and
reassures the politicians they can behave however they like and the worst
that can happen is someone will get a court judgement against them.
Paul Bradley
