Slashdot Mirror

This is one of the reasons that Stand formed, way back when. I remember writing to my Member of Parliament, trying to argue against the Bill's usefulness. It was forwarded to Charles Clarke, who replied in boilerplate about the risks of terrorism, fraud, child porn, and all the things that are as irrelevant today as they were then.

If they could get the provisions approved in 2000, then it'll be even easier for them in the "post September 11th world".

In the case of something like Skype, I believe it *should* be a simple case of explaining as to why you're unable to obtain the key. Not that I'd like to be in a situation where I was ordered to provide an encryption key, especially one I did not have access to, as I'd be likely to refuse on a matter of principle.

And, of course, I've not even begun my gripes with the presumption of guilt until you prove yourself innocent.

For those of you interested in more detailed analysis of the RIP Bill, what it means for UK Citizens, and the various provisions for Law Enforcement Agencies (and any other Government body!), STAND provide a useful guide to all aspects of the Bill.

In the UK? Yes. Which is plainly absurd.

Man you have to change the drugs you're taking, they're serious downers. Your country still has good economic growth, the police action in Iraq has killed a thousand US and not a hundred thousand, the world hasn't turned against you (those that were already against you have only now shown their true colours), and saying all elected officials are universally corrupt simply isn't true. Things could be better. Things could be worse. You, on the other hand, could be writing PR back in 1999 for major IT companies. What can you do? It appears to me that lobby groups have more power than the politicians in the USA. Try setting up a US equivalent of stand.org.uk. Make your voice heard, and if they won't listen try and hit them where it hurts (in the pocket).

Phillip.

• no2id
• Stand
• Liberty

Britain is the World's Surveillance Leader
Yeah. Yeah, that sounds about right.

I guess the idea about CCTV cameras is that in principle the benefits (in terms of greater public safety) in theory outweigh the disadvantages (in terms of infringed privacy).

But for this to be a valid argument (and I'm really not sure I'm convinced by it just yet), there are a number of things which have to happen.

Firstly, the things have to be very strictly controlled and regulated, preferably by some suitably impartial but trustworthy non-governmental organisation. I don't want to see private companies running the things, either. And any abuse of the system must be punishable by serious sanctions - not just a £100 fine and a slap on the wrist, but something like a 2-10 year prison sentence for the individual, and summary revocation of the operating organisation's licence.

And secondly, they have to be shown to actually fulfil the purpose they're set up for. Now a number of people have described incidents where they've totally failed to work. So at present, I'm tending towards the view of them not being a Good Thing - but if these issues can be resolved properly then I'd be (very cautiously) ok about them.

Actually, there was a case a year or two ago where a guy got severely depressed (due to a number of things that had recently happened in his life) and was standing on the edge of a bridge, contemplating jumping off. Somehow, a nearby CCTV camera spotted him, and the police were dispatched to talk him down. So far, all well and good - tragic suicide averted, friends and relatives spared immense grief and feelings of guilt, etc. And then the footage was plastered all over the national news, but without the customary pixelisation and identity-concealment. So suddenly tens of millions of people knew all about a particularly unfortunate and private episode in his life. Which can't have helped matters much, certainly.

Now given our current Home Secretary's attitude towards privacy, I'm not convinced that proper regulation and oversight is going to be high on the list of priorities. David Blunkett (who is currently pushing really hard for the introduction of a compulsory biometric national id card and accompanying national population database) is pretty much the most authoritarian, control-freak Home Secretary we've had since Michael Howard (who held the post under during the last Tory administration, and is now Leader of the Opposition).

Unfortunately it is still subject to interpretation: http://www.stand.org.uk/ripnotes/#keys. In fact your knowledge that the software uses strong encryption and does not store keys usable for nearly anyones perusal may be used against you.

The major problem is that there is no good reason for introducing ID cards. The Home Office makes arguements in favour that do not stand up.

Briefly, they won't prevent terrorism, they won't prevent benefit fraud, it won't cut down on illegal working, they will criminalise a large number of the population who won't carry them on principle, and it will cost a minimum of GBP6 billion (over $10 billion).

In short it's been the wet dream of the Civil Service here to have a massive database on everyone for decades(and its the database rather than the cards that's the worry). September 11th provided the excuse. The amount of scope creep here is terrifying.

For detailed analysis start at www.stand.org.uk

In some of the more oppressive legal environments, such as the United Kingdom, the police can demand that you hand over your passwords. Saying "I forgot", even if you did, is not considered a valid reason for not doing so. Check out the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill.

Using this technique, it would be possible to prove that you could not remember the password.

I wonder why they fail to mention the other part of the consultation? Of the 10000 replies, 6480 were against ID cards.
Also, this makes it sound as if the replies from the organised opposition campaign were not counted as real replies:
"Of the 5,000 people and organisations who responded formally to the consultation, 4,200 expressed a view. Over 60% of these were in favour. We also received over 5,000 e-mails from an organised opposition campaign. Over 96% of these were opposed."
http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm60/ 6020/6020.pdf

• The actual reason for the introduction of ID cards;
  
• What ID cards can and cannot do;
  
• Who will be able to demand an ID card and under what circumstances;
  
• If ownership of ID cards will be compulsory;
  
• If the carrying of ID cards will be compulsory;
  
• Whether all parties asking for ID cards will be able to see all of the information held on the card;
  
• The security of the ID cards and the centralised database;
  
• The form of any biometric data to be held on ID cards;
  
• How any biometric data might be collected and how much time and effort would be required of that process;
  
• The ability of the cardholding citizen to view personal data held on ID cards;
  
• The accessibility of such information to people using minority computer systems, to those without computers and those requiring assistive technologies;
  
• The ability of the citizen to demand the correction of misleading data held on the ID card;
  
• The supervision of the centralised database necessary to operate the ID card system;
  
• Whether there will be data on the ID card to which the citizen does not have access;
  
• The ability of a citizen to track the usage of their ID card and by whom;
  
• The ability of the government to track ID card usage;
  
• If centralised data will be shared between government departments, researchers or commercial organisations;
  
• If personal data will be exported from the country and hence out of the remit of the Data Protection Acts;
  
• What protections will be put in place to prevent "function creep";
  
• What protections will be put in place to prevent abuse of the ID card system by future administrations;
  
• What protections will be put in place to prevent official abuse of the ID card system;
  
• How the ID card system will not discriminate against ethnic minorities;
  
• If the ID card scheme violates the Data Protection Acts;
  
• If the ID card scheme violates the European Convention on Human Rights (as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998), especially as legal opinions suggest it will
  

Visit the site, write a letter then Fax your MP.

Not having any clear gains is not stopping the UK Government steamrolling ID cards onto the statute books. See Stand.

..., no need to make an entry of me in the CIA's secret files.

By acknowledging the existance of CIA secret files files you have likely earned yourself a CIA investigation.

Fortunately I live in the UK, where our politicians take our privacy seriously.

Can't change the weather though... That one you're stuck with- nature of where you are and all.

Ah, but you can use sunglasses or an umbrella, just to muddy up any metaphors that might be in play.

Apathy is certainly an issue, but people with a little online savvy in the UK have the advantage of sites such as STAND to keep them informed and services like Fax Your MP to encourage them to participate. It's never been easier to keep yourself informed and active; you still need the motivation and some sense of hope, of course. Where you'd look for those, I have no idea...

A while ago, the government of the UK started yelling about proposals for universal ID cards (historically, I believe, Britons have not had anything like this, and unless I'm mistaken, a mandatory ID goves against a lot of the traditional principles of English common law.)

They requested comments, including those sent in per email. For a long time, they utterly refused to consider comments submitted via its Stand website. Finally, they had to admit that generally, the public were opposed to the whole scheme.

However, if you look at the Queen's last speech (State of the Empire? Wotsitcalled, sorry, forget the name), somehow it slipped in there anyhow.

Comforting to know we're not the only ones doing stupid shit like this.

Further depressing developments for those of us in the UK: the 'snooper's charter' has now passed through the Lords. Ready your proxies and encryption plug-ins - but remember they might require you to hand over the key at some point.

that's funny since the EUCD is not active in the UK yet thanks to people like me taking a stand and writing to their MP.

Glad to see Stand got a 'Winston'. Long overdue.

Law enforcement agencies are just trying to do their job, you are quite right. But sometimes they make mistakes or have corrupt officers. That is one reason why warrants exist. The requirement to obtain a warrant does not prevent the police from doing their job, but it does provide oversight from outside the police organisation. I think this safeguard is in danger of being swept aside, at least in the UK, where we now have RIP

... then fax your local MP (UK citizens only). stand.org.uk are campaigning against this, and you can use a web-based, quick fax submission which will help register an anti-ID card opinion.

There was recently a story in the Register (and BBC news) on how there was a large amount of negative feedback using a web-based fax gateway (FaxYourMP.com I think). The government are doing a separate study on this as well, which the stand.org.uk campagn is against. They have received assurances from the government that any web based complaints will be treated as seriously as regular letters of complaint (much easier too).

If you don't like it though, there is a quick and easy opportunity to register your displeasure at it: www.stand.org.uk.

Somebody has already mentioned the purvasive CCTV camera that make the UK the most visually monitored country in history.

And it's been proven to reduce crime, and help crime detection, high profile cases like the murder of Jamie Bulger show how CCTV can be extremely helpful, and outweighs any paranoia concerns about being watched while in public. When CCTV is fitted into every home, then we'll complain, not before.

What about the partial criminalization of encryption under the RIP Act? You have to give the government your key if they demand it, otherwise 2 years in prison. The governement has sought, and obtained, powers to monitor e-mail, web usage and phone calls without judicial warrants.

How is being asked to hand over your key, any different to being asked to open your safe on production of a warrant ? Do search warrants mean locks and safes "are partially criminal "?
As for monitoring email, web usuage and so on, the Americans have that field completely sewn up.

The private right of gun ownership has been substantially destroyed in the past several years (with a concurrent rise in violent crime, including a rapid rise in gun use by criminals).

Don't even go there. We WANT tight gun laws, we don't want a gun in every bed side drawer culture. For more information see these comments.

People now go to jail in the UK for so- called "hate speech".

And you can't yell fire in a theatre despite having "free speech". Personally I'm in favour of not being able to say "blacks go home" "Jews faked the holocaust and are all money obssessed thieves" "Muslims are a lower form of life". The law came into force, because racial minorities were being harrassed with verbal abuse morning noon and night by British racists. Your right to free speech ends when it is designed to harm me, just as yelling fire in a theatre is illegal.

What has broken their will, I don't know--years of inept socialist rule? Some post-colonial ennui? Too much spotted dick?

Nice troll, we spent the best part of 2 decades under hard right rule with Thatcher, so spare me the brits are commies crap. As for breaking our will, we broke the governments will over expanding data access laws last year , and over 5000 people wrote and complained about ID cards this year.

And this new just in...

Company that stands to make millions from a technology is sells, promotes concept with skewed statistics indicating overwelmingly that the public wants the product and they want it now in spades.

Somewhat surpisingly, the public also declared that the product should cost four times what it can be offered for now.

Etc, etc, etc...

PS. Now we get to wait for it to be made law, and then watch the MPs/ministers involved become well paid non-executive directors of the self-same company. Cynic moi?

For those (Brits) wishing to state their opinion on the subject click here

That wasn't just "an independent survey". The Stand site was built specifically to submit valid feedback to the Home Office consultation exercise. Just like the developers' earlier work building FaxYourMP.

It would be *shameful* for the UK Government to ignore over 5000 presumably negative submissions -- from voters -- submitted via Stand. Especially when they know their figures don't add up, and they will be caught out. Expect a U-turn.

An independent survey at Stand has been taken, amongst others, where the overwhelming majority of responses have been against the introduction of an ID card of any kind.

The Government consultation emall address automagically responded to all submissions with "Thank you for your email in support of the introduction of entitlement cards". Its clear that they want to push this through wether it will reduce crime and fraud or not, and wether anyone wants these cards or not.

The Home Secretary himeslf had his identity stolen by a journalist to highlight the dangers of identity theft, which will without a doubt rise if these new cards are introduced.

For an insight into why these cards are true evil, read this piece in The Guardian about how the Spanish have been habituated into ID cards like battery chickens who refuse to leave thier cages when the doors are opened.

Really, if Europeans want to have ID cards, no one in the UK has a problem with that, and no one here is interested in arguing with Europeans who think that ID cards are "no problem at all". If you want ID cards, you are free(??!) to use them all you like. The British do not want them, under any circumstances short of actual war in Europe, and even then, only temporarily.

For us ID cards are a waste of time, money and most importantly, a violation of the human rights of British Citizens.

"The Home Office's consultation on its ID (aka Entitlement) Card proposals closes today, amidst complaints from privacy campaigners that the government has broken its own rules in canvassing opinions on its controversial plans. Human rights group Privacy International has lodged a complaint on the consultation process with the Parliamentary Ombudsman, due to several alleged breaches of the Government's own code of practice. "

I understand (and sympathise with) your points, but I think you're possibly being overly cynical in places:

There is a widespread tendency for experienced UK politicians to adopt a arrogant and patrician attitude (public opinion doesn't matter, we who rule know better than them, if they disagree with us it's only because they're stupid). As witness Bush & Blair's incomprehensible warmongering, against the wishes of a majority of both their electorates.

I agree that there's definitely a tendency to patronise the public. Right now STAND, FaxYourMP's single-issue sister site (say that one three times fast) is fighting the government's efforts to sneak an ID card scheme past us by masking it in anti-terror, anti-asylum rhetoric. However, it isn't working. As with STAND's previous campaign against RIPA extensions, it looks very much like the public outcry is going to force the government into a U-turn.

Our experience with MPs is that, despite a desperate lack of resources, many of them pay close attention to the messages from their constituents and reflect these opinions to government. Many users of STAND have had messages of agreement back from their MPs, whether Tory or Labour, and those MPs are going on to raise questions in the House.

Democratically-elected governments ignore public opinion at their peril. Apart from the current war fiasco, New Labour has been pandering to majority right-wing attitudes rather than sticking to their socialist origins. But don't forget that it's Blair and not Bush who lacks public support for the war.

The friend of the professional politician abd the greatest enemy of democracy must surely be the party political system, for allowing and even encouraging such abuses.

I don't think this is anything to do with party politics. In fact, Blair's current position is ignoring his party almost completely, which is why they're so close to revolt.

But did you know that neither the UK nor the US is actually a democracy? The US is a republic, which is different, and the UK is a parliamentary democracy, which is also different. We're never going to get power devolved to the individual until we manage to expel these witless shysters and install for ourselves some properly democratic government.

I have to confess ignorance over the difference between a republic and a "proper" democracy. However, a word of warning to those crying out for proportional representation: take a look at Israel. It's a rare Israeli government that isn't hurriedly formed, post-election, out of a coalition of big and small parties across the political spectrum which ends up a completely immobile, noisy mess as a result.

-- Yoz

Logs in hand of govt means logs in hands of big corporations.

That may or may not happen in the land where the incoming president appoints all his oil business buddies to top government positions, but it sure as hell doesn't happen in the UK. We have a little matter of a Data Protection regime. This may be avoidable by the government when they pass primary legislation such as RIPA, but corporations can't just opt out of it.

If the data protection registrar discovered that corporations were receiving identifying personal information from non-legitimate sources, their databases would be closed down the same day.

Really, this is a paranoid red herring.

All of this is likely to change at the European convention on human rights -- which does have a provision guaranteeing some privacy -- is incorporated into British law

Well, if things carry on getting incorporated the way they are, the ECHR will make little or no difference, especially with regards to invasions of privacy by the state. Essentially it makes a whole raft of privacy-invading activities illegal by default, which were previously (in the UK) legal unless explicitly legislated against. However, the government is busy doing its best to side-step around that by enacting legislation that permits anyone they want to be able to bypass the convention. See FIPR and Stand for details. The most prominent relevant legislation is the RIP act, and the sneaky "statutory instruments" that allow the Home Secretary to do what he likes unless people keep their eyes peeled.

Perhaps (IANAL, naturally) this would enable one to perform edits to a movie legally, as no altered copy of the original work is ever instanciated.

One could distribute the edits alone online, and someone else could play their DVD filtered through that editset.

1. Get story mentioned in NTK.
2. Start campaign at stand.org.uk.
3. Back up with faxyourmp.
4. Light blue touchpaper and retire to a safe distance.

Here are some ideas and examples of letters that you could use to base the letter/faxes to your MP. However please, please do not just copy and paste significant portions of the letter into your one. This does more harm than good since then the MPs will just ignore both of them and think that you don't care about the issue enought to write your own letter.

• Kuro5hin.org article
• More examples from Kuro5hin
• The letter I sent to my MP
• Stand.org.uk
• Foundation for Information Policy Research
• The previous Slashdot article

Here are some ideas and examples of letters that you could use to base the letter/faxes to your MP. However please, please do not just copy and paste significant portions of the letter into your one. This does more harm than good since then the MPs will just ignore both of them and think that you don't care about the issue enought to write your own letter.

• Kuro5hin.org article
• More examples from Kuro5hin
• The letter I sent to my MP
• Stand.org.uk
• Foundation for Information Policy Research
• The previous Slashdot article

I see that, according to NTK, the Parliamentary vote has been put back a week to Monday 24th, June. Round one to the activists who faxed/wrote/called, but keep those faxes rolling!!!!

Stand report has more detail.

Might be worth faxing again to advise your MP of the new date?

And the Department of Trade and Industry will be able to ask your cellphone where you were on friday night

I'll be sure to remind you of that should they have "good reason" to think you are a "bad guy" and arrest you when you come back from your vacation in Egypt.

I travel to Egypt fairly often on holiday to dive in the Red Sea, I also travel to the States a couple of times a year. Considering the rising tide of paranoia in the States I'm rather glad I've just gotten a new passport, and the only visa stamps in there so far are for Canada.

Fine, okay, Spetember the 11th was a tragedy, lots of people died. But your governments violation of peoples civil liberties is (to me) far scarier. Depressingly the UK government is also using the events of last September to widen their powers at the expense of our privacy (the RIPA stands out as a glaring example, but there are others).

By all means use mocktor's excellent letter as a starting point for your own. But using your own words is so much more effective.

By all means use mocktor's excellent letter as a starting point for your own. But using your own words is so much more effective.

I'm dubious.

Ok, I'm sure loads of other countries have participated, but it seems to me that this will be nothing but red tape to businesses.

As a citizen of "europe" I have yet to see the EU write one single peice of legislation that a) makes sense, b) actually has an effect other than to annoy people c) does any good. d) doesnt cost tonnes of money for sod all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad government are trying to get a hand into formalising these sorts of things, but what we really need is competant people advising them. I mean, look at what incompetance in these matters gave us the last time.

I won't hold my breath.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act passed into UK law last year, despite a campaign by the website stand.org.uk based on this very idea (they called it "Operation Dear Jack", it was against the then Home Secretary Jack Straw).

There is now a penalty of 2 years in jail for failing to disclose a key, and 5 years in jail if you tell anyone you've been asked for a key! The full text of the law is available here.

I disagree - now what ? I don't know if you all remember the RIP Bill that has now been made law in the UK. Take a quick look at the 3 minute guide at the Stand home page. The RIP Act relates to encrypted data such as email. Failure to decrypt your data when demanded to do so is a criminal offence and subject to a maximum penalty of two years. Forgetting or losing your password/key is no defence and you are presumed guilty. Please take a look at the 3 minute guide. I, like many others, disagreed with the RIP bill and faxed my MP asking him to oppose the bill. It still went through. In response to your question about what to do if you disagree. I still think you should contact your politician. Get your friends to do the same and be careful that lesser bills don't become law. Just my 2 pence.

you mean www.stand.org.uk.. www.stand.org is a US based charity, nothing to do with the UK one.

Speaking as a UK citizen who was once (looong ago :) politically active in one of the mainstream political parties, I find that I'm getting more, not less, radicalised as I get older (I'm in my early 30s now.) I think there are broad generalised conclusions we can all draw, which more-or-less hold true throughout the developed world:

• Politicians don't understand the internet;
• The more they find out about it (mostly from to highly tendentious briefings from the organisations of state and corporate control - see below), the more frightening they find it.
• Police and spook organisations see it as a magic carpet to increased powers, greater control, and bigger budgets.
• We who see that freedom of speech, increased communication across borders (geographical, political, cultural) have a moral duty to educate others, agitate against such terrible laws as much as practical, and push the boundaries of freedom back.

These proposals are up there with the current proposal here in the UK to enforce compulsory licenses for all sysadmins. No, really!! http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/18879.html

Like RIP (trust PGP communication with a UK citizen? Sucker!), there are a lot of laws stacking up that are impractical, or too unpopular, to be enforced yet. These are *more* repressive - when enforcement of the law becomes discretionary, the scene is set for corruption and repression. The drug laws are a good example: as a 30-something white middle class male in regular employment and no record, recreational drugs are de-facto decriminalised for me. But if the cops want to "get" some working class black kid who gets up their nose by (say) protesting about deaths in custody... guess how easy it is for him to "disappear" into prison, with the likely destruction of his future prospects even if it's a short sentence? Pure evil. These things are going onto the statute books so that they can be pulled out of their sleeves when they're needed by the powers-that-be.

We've got an election in progress here at present, let's try to raise these issues at every opportunity.
-- "I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"

have a go - it opens up your communication methods. sure i wish everyone used email, but they don't yet.

i was angry:1 with:2 my:4 friend - i told:3 4 wrath:5, 4 5 did end.

If you're accused by someone of supporting terrorism, child porn or piracy simple because you're opposed to the RIP, pose this question: how would you feel if the police had the power to tap your phone or open your paper mail without a warrant? Does it then seem so reasonable to give the police powers to arbitrarily intercept any communication? This is not something the "free" western world has historically stood for.

But this is effectively what the RIP does to electronic communication. By refusing to surrender your keys (and thus your privacy), you face a jail sentence, and if you attempt to talk to anyone about it, including your lawyer, you face a longer jail sentence.

Is this worth it to stop the activities of criminals? Or is it just going to drive legitimate business activity elsewhere while not really affecting criminal activity in any way?

www.stand.org.uk

How legal is this? Is it, for example, legal here in Britain?

www.stand.org.uk has details on how silly/scary (depending on whether you're watching or on the receiving end) the RIP bill is.

Of particular interest is the letter to Jack Straw complete with encrypted confession to an unnamed crime. As it explains, under the RIP bill Jack Straw could be imprisoned unless he can prove that he does not have the decryption key. Proving you do not have something is a little tricky, of course.

And even you can prove that, you're still liable for imprisonment unless you give the police information enabling them to get the key.

A full guide to the implications of the bill is here.

As the previous poster mentioned, press coverage of the bill has been extremely limited, which is surprising given the far reaching effects on the right to privacy it has.

www.stand.org.uk has details on how silly/scary (depending on whether you're watching or on the receiving end) the RIP bill is.

Of particular interest is the letter to Jack Straw complete with encrypted confession to an unnamed crime. As it explains, under the RIP bill Jack Straw could be imprisoned unless he can prove that he does not have the decryption key. Proving you do not have something is a little tricky, of course.

And even you can prove that, you're still liable for imprisonment unless you give the police information enabling them to get the key.

A full guide to the implications of the bill is here.

As the previous poster mentioned, press coverage of the bill has been extremely limited, which is surprising given the far reaching effects on the right to privacy it has.

www.stand.org.uk has details on how silly/scary (depending on whether you're watching or on the receiving end) the RIP bill is.

Of particular interest is the letter to Jack Straw complete with encrypted confession to an unnamed crime. As it explains, under the RIP bill Jack Straw could be imprisoned unless he can prove that he does not have the decryption key. Proving you do not have something is a little tricky, of course.

And even you can prove that, you're still liable for imprisonment unless you give the police information enabling them to get the key.

A full guide to the implications of the bill is here.

As the previous poster mentioned, press coverage of the bill has been extremely limited, which is surprising given the far reaching effects on the right to privacy it has.

(OK, so that links a little old - it's law now, though possibly with some modifications).

Basically, they are enforcing ISPs to install interception equipment, and I'm not sure it's just for e-mails - it may also be for all traffic (although how they'll do this I'm not sure (I don't know if the government is either) - they might just store e-mails, and accessed URLs / IP addresses and port numbers).

The authorities don't even need a warrant to be signed in order to start monitoring you - I think the word of a senior police officer is enough.

If you encrypt anything, they can force you to decrypt it, or face up to two years in jail. If you've lost the decryption key, it's your responsibility to prove it (er, how, exactly can you do this ?). Bang goes any right not to incriminate yourself. And bang goes the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

If you tell anyone they're being monitored, you can face several years in jail, also.

As the article says, if you're a terrorist or paedophile, and you've encrypted your illegal stuff, are you really going to decrypt things on demand, or will you stick with a shorter sentence in jail for not decrypting it ?

Finally, I can see some justification for the police intercepting traffic in this manner (if suitable controls were in place), but with this equipment installed in ISPs, anyone working at that ISP could potentially have access to it. Blackmail, anyone ?

PS: One of the justifications for intercepting traffic is 'in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom'. So I guess even if you're not in the UK, this may be a reason to listen in on any of your traffic which might get routed through the UK. Just out of interest, does much traffic between America and Continental Europe get routed through the UK ?

This RIP Bill may well have sonething to do with the treaty which is the subject of this article.

Coming soon to a country near you ?