Slashdot Mirror
Using The Web to Fight Bad Legislation
Over in the UK, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill is in severe danger of becoming law. In a nutshell, ISPs will be classed as telecoms operators, the Home Secretary can demand taps on ISP traffic with little deliberation -- and without publicity -- and you can be jailed for not handing over decryption keys, even if the police can't prove that you ever had those keys in the first place. There's more on this at the URL above; it's difficult to do it justice in this space. Anyway, the good folks over at STAND are a bit concerned about this. After their earlier @dopt an MP campaign, and their Operation Dear Jack photostory, they've unveiled their latest attempt to involve people. They've set up a web/fax MP gateway. Tap in a few details, including your postcode, and then compose your message. The backend determines who your local MP is, and then faxes your carefully crafted comments off to them. What could be easier? Just remember that it's only for British constituents, and naturally, you should only use your own postcode.
To me, an ISP is a bit like a post (mail) office. If you mail an illegal document to someone, you shouldn't hold the mailman responsiblle for delivering it. It's the same for ISP's - they just deliver.
Isn't an ISP a tellcomm company?
So you've got yourself a shit load of kiddie pr0n (just as an example) encrypted on your computer, and you find yourself in severe trouble with the law, do you a) hold on on to your crypto keys and deny all knowledge of it therefore suffer only 2 years in prison. b) give them everything, setting yourself up for 10 years in prison, marked down on the kiddie pr0n register and get fuxked up the ass everyday in jail for being into kids.
Whether ISPs are seen as telecoms operators is IMO not the important issue in this bill.
If I have understood it correctly (and unfortunately I think I have) then it will mean suspects are NOT innocent until proven guilty. If a suspect has encrypted data and has lost the key, it is up to him/her to prove they have lost the key. It is NOT up to the prosecution to prove that they haven't. If they can't prove it they face jail.
The important point here is where the burden of proof lies. It should NOT lie with the defendant in this case IHMO.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Have any changes been made to the bill that prevent the scenario in "Operation Dear Jack"? I don't see any information to that effect on www.stand.org.uk.
I'm really interested in seeing what happens when the bill becomes law and STAND repeats operation Dear Jack. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that Home Secretary Jack Straw is not going to jail for failing to hand over the decryption keys.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
What I find scary about this law is the law that require you to decrypt anything and everything, or be jailed. They don't have to reasonable grounds to believe there's anything illegal there, nor to prove that you are even in possession of the key. I.e. I mail you a PGP'd attachment, and they find it in your mailbox (before you've even seen it or known about it) which of course you can't encrypt. Enjoy two years in jail. Or I'll send you a wave file (which works just fine) then all of a sudden cops tell you there's a Scramdisk container in it, go directy to jail once more. Fortunately this law will never apply to me. I'd compare it with a person refusing to testify, nobody can prove he's guilty of anything, but he won't tell us anything, so he has to be guilty of something, right? I'd say a person refusing to give pw for encrypted material would be exactly the same. Kjell Rune Skaaraas (btw not anon coward, just I don't bother to join your register of what I'm reading and posting...)
- Unfortunately, this posting has missed the two main thrusts of the bill. ISPs have been "cooperating" for years with the LEAs provided they produce the correct paperwork (most insist on a court order; some don't) but this is pretty normal - I don't think anyone can really object to the police having a right to tap any communication device given a suitable bench warrant. The *real* problems are these:-
- The RIP "orders" don't require a judge's signature - they can be issued based on several different people's authorisation, don't have any time or size limits, and don't need to justify their existance to anyone
- Give the authorised authorities, without judicial review, the right to write out an order as follows:
- Demand from an *innocent* person, not suspected of any crime, their secret decryption keys - on the basis that the demanding officer thinks that it appears *to him* that some data he has seen was encrypted
- Emprisonment if you don't produce a key - not HAVING a key is not a defence unless you can prove you never had it; this is impossible anyhow, and could make the common procedure of expiring keys and generating new ones at regular intervals a criminal offence
- Emprisonment if you tell anyone you have been required to hand over a key - even by changing your key if the LEA thinks that will tip people off (and yes, this does let them continue to read your mail indefinitely)
- No requirement to safeguard the key once they have it - so if you are a bank, and are forced to hand over your electronic funds transfer key, you may find the local plod's cleaners can pick it up.
- No legal right to appeal (apart from to a closed board not required to publish or justify their decisions) or compensation (there *is* a discressionary compensation scheme, but I suspect if your business loses four or five billion after a competing firm gets details of every bid you put in (and undercuts you by one dollar
:+) you may find they don't think you are entitled to it.
There are just SO MANY reasons why this is wrong and open to abuse - none of which seem to have been considered while drafting it.--
-=DaveHowe=-
>The USA could use a politician with true >conviction of his beliefs, like the Presdent of >the UK, Tony Blear lol, you have no idea what you're talking about do you? President of the UK? Tony Blair? I wont even bother to comment on the rest of the garbage you spewed.
Profoundly so.
My crying out was to no avail.
You fed the troll. For shame.
from the np-paint-it-black dept.
Nik, what is the "np" in the department? I noticed you did it on the previous article you posted also.
The point is, that by criticising this law, you are demonstrating your ignorance of other cultures.
STAND is a group of British net activists. Even in Britain we're allowed some dissent.
In the interests of saving SlashDot readers time, Here is a brief pro-forma letter for you to cut and paste into the Fax a MP box. Fill in the relevant fields and off you go.
Dear [MPname],
As a [Constituant] constituant I am writing to you to object to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill.
I feel you should be made aware of the ramifications of this bill, and its implications for [Constituant] citizens.
In a nutshell:-
Internet Service Providers will be classed as telecoms operators and as such the Home Secretary can demand taps on ISP traffic with little deliberation -- and without publicity.
You can be jailed for not handing over decryption keys, even if the police can't prove that you ever had those keys in the first place. There is no jury for this procedure and the appeal can only be made to a closed committee to which the plaintif would have no access. You are effectivly guilty until proven innocent, with the burden of proof lying upon you!
As I am sure you can see, this bill poses a serious threat to personal privacy and rights.
I would be pleased to discuss this further with you. You can contact me in any of the ways detailed below.
I look forward to hearing from you soon,
[Yourname]
[Your contact details]
Remember kids! Guns don't kill people - Americans kill people.
using encryption is treated as going to commit a crime.
Therefore its seem as bad idea. The current 'going equipped' law means you can be arrested for carrying 'tools' in the wrong place at the wrong time (ie lurking on a street corner at 3am looking for a house). Now doing this at 3pm in a van marked "General builder" is OK as its suspicious behaviour.
So if you are using encryption you must be able to prove
1) you can decrypt it and
2) do so on less controls than currently exist for phone tapping (Home secretoary must sign the order) or even search warrants (judge),
ie using encryption is suspicious behaviour and is likely to get you arrested!
--
Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
This is because you fed a troll.
Think about the initials "dmg" for a second, and where you've seen them before.
Hint: "M" is for "Marketing".
Thank you.
Bullshit.
Or those subversives who would threaten the national security interests of the United Kingdom.
Bullshit.
Freedom of expression is all very well, in a culture (like the US) which has had over 200 years to adapt to it, but for ancient cultures like the British, and Europeans, such ideas are not fundamental.
Your arrogance is compounded by your ignorance. Where do you think we Americans got our ideas and culture from? Sure, we have carried some ideas further forward than Europe has, but in England at least it used to be true that most of the same rights we Americans take for granted were also the Rights of Englishmen, and it was the perceived violation of such rights which led to the Revolution. Sadly, totalitarian apologists like yourself have been justifying every retreat from that tradition in England for the past 100 years.
More important is the idea of a consensus, and even more important, of equality
Sure, there are these differences, but "equality" is a rather recent idea, as currently understood. I thought everyone was always going on about how we could not allow the USA to become isolationist, that the history of the 20th century "proved" that we could not ignore what happens overseas. Or is this another case of liberal, leftist selective moral indignation?
This is not a "troll" (whatever that is), I am simply pointing out that other countries have different standards of privacy & freedom.
So did the USSR and National Socialist Germany, but you don't hear anyone openly advocating we readopt their legal systems. Sure, everyone has differing standards of privacy and freedom. But it is disturbing to some of us Americans to see the mother country, the source of our ideas of rights and liberties, slowly destroy and forget everything it once believed in. Yes, other countries can do what they want, but we can criticize them for it, too.
The USA could use a politician with true conviction of his beliefs, like the Presdent of the UK, Tony Blear.
Are you insane? And why can't you even spell your hero's name right?
It would make a change from the current circus parade of criminals, adulterors ex-movie stars and nonentities we currently have to endure, and which make us the laughing stock of the very countries and cultures we are criticizing.
Fuck you. Tony Blair is every bit as big a political whore as the rest of them. Pushing these kinds of laws proves it. Sorry, but what happens overseas does effect us here in the USA, precisely because the net is international, and because we have similar police-state types working within our own government to bring about similar laws, chipping away at our constitution bit by bit, to make us more like "the rest of the civilized world". No thanks. These kinds of totalitarian measures in the country which gave birth to our American ideas of rights and liberties should disturb all Americans. Sure, it is "their" country and "they" can do what they like, but so too can we call them damn fools if they let it happen.
thank you.
Fuck you. Arrogant asshole.
Thanks, buttfuckers.
- Jesus Christ
(#154953, account temporarily disabled for being moderated down, imagine that!)
I am the Lord.
God Hates Moderators.
> int speed; /* Stroking speed */
.75 get converted to an int because speed is an int. The above loop is exactly:
> for (speed=1; speed 10; speed+=.75) {
Infinite loop(*). I feel very sorry for you.
Cheers,
--fred
(*)
for (speed=1; speed 10; speed+=0)
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
This might be offtopic, but I'm under the impression that privacy isn't that cool in Great Britain. I mean, I recently read somewhere (can't remember where!) that London has surveillance cameras which can identify a persons face among the masses. And there are surveillance cameras everywhere, even in public toilets(!)
I'm more than a bit sceptical about those claims, so are they true, or was I reading Reader's Digest?
God that was funny. I haven't seen anybody get trolled this badly in a long long time.
I don't think the government actually cares that this law is so incredibly stupid that it won't actually work in practice... I suspect that it's designed to work through scaring people into dulvulging information when asked and to and also to make people more paranoid and afraid to encrypt email.
This is basically how things like Section 28 work (a daft law brought in by the Tories a few years ago to stop Local Authorities 'promoting homosexuality') -- frighten people into following the spirit of the law even though the fine print is daft.
However these are not reasons to opt for apathy -- I think that the work being done by stand.org.uk is very good and I will be urging lots of people to do stuff around this issue.
Chris
--
Check out MKDoc a mod_perl CMS
But don't dissent too much, as this law now means that they seize your computer, find some random data, say it is encrypted, demand the key, and then give you five years for not yielding it!
threadeds blog
In function 'main': parse error before ';' .75 to an integer does wonders for your sex appeal. And so on.
Also, adding
It wasn't even funny. Go back to school.
Do you have any idea how PK cryptography works? the majority of these warrants are not going to be served on the suspected criminals - otherwise why are there such draconian punishments for the "Tipping Off" offence? They are going to be served on innocents who have more to lose by serving the two years than from any "criminal" information they reveal by doing so. It's a part of technology swinging back - Improvements in digital exchanges and computer analysis have made interception and monitoring possible to a degree that would have been unthinkable a mere twenty years ago, back in the days of mechanical switches. Now, encryption is threatening to take the new-found powers away from them, and then some - in the old mechanical days, you could at least rely on that, when a given pair was croc-clipped to a recorder, that you would be able to understand what you heard (they may use a codebook approach, and talk about candy rather than cocane, but you could probably figure it out in time). They would have to go back to physically sneaking into places and planting bugs! Gosh, how terrible.
This is not a "troll" (whatever that is) /. sense (you havent' mentioned stone females or hot grits) but in Usenet, someone that makes patently wrong and uninformed statements that get a "flamebait" rating here on /. are trolls..
It isn't in the usual
, I am simply pointing out that other countries have different standards of privacy & freedom.
Hmm. I *am* english, and I am disgusted at this - it violates MY standards of privacy and freedom, and I suspect no polititian would consider signing it for a minute if he thought it applied to him.
--
-=DaveHowe=-
RTFI! That is exactly the point. If you have nothing to hide you are in a more perilous position! This is because if they say you have encrypted data, and you don't, the burden of proof is on YOU to PROVE they are wrong!
threadeds blog
Britney Spears is considered hot by all normal males, regardless of age.
God, I would love to impregnate her. And drink the sweet motherly milk from her full supple tits.
[sigh]
I am writing to urge you to object to the The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, 2000 in its current form. As drafted the Bill appears to have a number of unintended consequences and its scope is excessive. In particular the granting of a general right to monitor international correspondence is meaningless in the context of the Internet where cross-border traffic is routine. Indeed this message could have travelled outside the UK - your mail could now be subject to monitoring. You may like to consider comparisions with Russia where Internet Service Providers are compelled to co-operate with the Security Services in what appears a similar fashion. Furthermore, I routinely use encryption - everytime I buy on-line. Were an 'decryption' order to be served on myself I could not provide the key as this protection is applied automatically. How can this help the Government's stated aim of encouraging e-commerce and Internet adoption? While I appreciate the intentions behind this power it cannot work in practice. Indeed it could be counter-productive. Criminals - which I would be if I forgot a password - could easily feed incorrect or misleading information to the Security Services (if the requirement is for plain text). They would also be aware of the possible insecurity of electronic communications and take steps to mitigate this risk making the law inforcement task more difficult. Further details of these significant flaws in the Bill and some suggested changes can be found at "http://www.stand.org.uk/ripnotes/". I hope you will give this matter some thought. Regards
I'm under the impression that privacy isn't that cool in Great Britain.
Good point. So what is cool in the UK...?
And what else, besides privacy, isn't cool in the UK?
Now wasn't that educational?
- Jesus Christ
(#154953, account temporarily disabled for being moderated down, imagine that!)
I am the Lord.
God Hates Moderators.
It isn't in the usual /. sense (you havent' mentioned stone females or hot grits) but in Usenet, someone that makes patently wrong and uninformed statements that get a "flamebait" rating here on /. are trolls..
That's because this is a troll. The Slashdot sense of the word troll should be the same as the Usenet sense of the word. I'd call the others spammers.
Also, one correction -- a troll does not just make patently wrong and uninformed statements. So do genuine idiots / morons / etc. A troll makes them for the express purpose of getting a rise out of people.
What puzzles me is how you knew all this and _still_ managed to get trolled.
The troll to whom this was originally a reply wouldn't have caught that. I was hoping it would be a quiet little joke to those who could actually read the code. :-( Oh well.
It took a almost an hour for someone to catch it, though. And such a classic textbook example... what has become of Slashdot?
(Oh, wait, that's my fault. My trolls are driving people away. Sorry. ;-)
Anyway, I hope that some found that educational. Particularly GenCuster, that buttfucker.
Thanks for replying...
- Jesus Christ
(#154953, account temporarily disabled for being moderated down, imagine that!)
I am the Lord.
God Hates Moderators.
See, my trolls are educational. Like this one, in this very discussion! ;-)
Thanks again for replying,
Jesus Christ
(#154953, account temporarily disabled for being moderated down, imagine that!)
I am the Lord.
God Hates Moderators.
Please think before going into a standard rant about how our freedoms are being eroded.
Mine are. I'm a UK citizen.
It is obvious to anyone even from a cursory glance at the proposed legislation, that this will affect only those who are attempting to hide some nefarious activities. Or those subversives who would threaten the national security interests of the United Kingdom.
Nonsense, and it looks like you didn't even take a 'cursory glance'. It threatens anyone who might be suspected of having anyencrypted material on their computer, whether or not they are aware of it.
This is not a "troll" (whatever that is), I am simply pointing out that other countries have different standards of privacy & freedom.
As a UK citizen, I can tell you that, although you may not be trolling, your point of view is severely naive.
Also let us not forget that although freedom of expression and democracy are enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, the British subject enjoys no such rights, and it was for this reason, that our ancestors decided to leave that little island off the coast of Europe, in order to enjoy "true freedom" in the USA.
So nobody in the UK reads Slashdot? Dont be so damned US-centric, sunshine.
The point is, that by criticising this law, you are demonstrating your ignorance of other cultures. (After all the USA is not the center of the universe, even though we sometimes act like it is) :-)
No YOU demonstrate your ignorance. This encroaches my freedom. Stop behaving like the only audience for Slashdot is American.
Freedom of speech and democracy are not the "accepted norm" in every country in the world. The more advanced Socialist societies like Europe, and the United Kingdom, recognise that some freedoms are not absolute, and must be curbed for the greater good of the majority, or to protect the weaker members of society.
Sorry to correct you, but the UK is not Socialist, since New Labour avoids Socialism as much as it possible can. And I disagree that 'curbing freedoms' is necessarily a good ideal; freedom is the only political absolute.
For example, recently the subjects of Her Majesty democratically decided to give up their rights to own handguns, since they recognised that that freedom was not worth having, since it would inevitably lead to crazed gunmen running amok.
Deranged drivel. We have never had the right to own hadguns, nor has their been any vote on the subject. Where do you get this bizarre idea from?
Her Majesty's subjects have also agreed to being monitored by thousands of public video cameras whenever they are in a public space. Again the aim is not to erode their freedoms, but rather to protect them from antisocial elements.
More drivel. There was no agreement at all. This has happened without any public consent. Stop talking crap.
Freedom of expression is all very well, in a culture (like the US) which has had over 200 years to adapt to it, but for ancient cultures like the British, and Europeans, such ideas are not fundamental. More important is the idea of a consensus, and even more important, of equality
Your First Amendment is under attack daily, so dont make me laugh. And just for the record, the ideas of 'consensus' and 'equality' are probably no more important over here than they are in the USA. Stop talking naive nonsense, please.
For this reason, we Americans should not jump up and down and shriek like stuck pigs with self-righteous indignation every time a foriegn culture comes up with an idea that we do not like. Instead we should take time out and consider, if these ideas have any relavence closer to home ?
Oh we're back to Slashdot as a USA-only forum are we? Sorry, sunshine, but if there's anyone Stateside or int he rest of the world interested in helping us out with this one, then they are welcome to comment.
Given that this new law seems to give the authorities the power they need to better hunt down and prosecute net criminals, I suspect this legislation could be put to good use by our own crimebusters in the FBI and CIA, to increase their effectiveness. Just think, if you have nothing to hide, why would this legislation worry you ?
Oh yeah, the FBI and CIA dont have agendas, and neither do the UK security services. No-one innocent ever goes to jail. Policemen don't do bad things, and just because a law says they can lock you up, without trial, and there is an impossible burden of proof of innocence on the individual, then that OK. Sunshine, fuck right off. You have a lot of learning to do.
The USA could use a politician with true conviction of his beliefs, like the Presdent of the UK, Tony Blear. It would make a change from the current circus parade of criminals, adulterors ex-movie stars and nonentities we currently have to endure, and which make us the laughing stock of the very countries and cultures we are criticizing.
Erm, get some facts will you? His name is Tony Blair, and he's our Prime Minister. We don't have a President. And Margaret Thatcher, Mussolini and Hitler all had conviction in their beliefs. That aint an automatic win.
Personally, I trust Blair about as far as I could spit a camel. And I live in the UK so I reckon Im a bit better a judge than you, who knows so bloody much about our country.
Fact is this is a serious issue. It puts innocent people at risk of arrest, and incarceration, and the onus on them to prove innocence. For the benefit of the intelligence-impaired, like dmg above, thats a VERY BAD thing.
free experimental electronic music netlabel at www.viablehybrid.com
Look no further than the MP finder, and then send a good old-fashioned letter to them at House of Commons, Westminster, SW1A 0AA .
I've found the last discussion of this on slashdot but I can't find the article that RMS wrote on it a few months ago -- can some post the URL?
Chris
--
Check out MKDoc a mod_perl CMS
If you want to fax any congressman and request
action on your favorite pro-marijuana issue, their
site can do it for you. It's a great idea. There
are over a million marijuana users in prison here.
What a waste of my tax dollars.
Mark
- Jesus Christ
(#154953, account temporarily disabled for being moderated down, imagine that!)
I am the Lord.
God Hates Moderators.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a majority of internet users are connecting via modem over POTS lines. So, can law enforcement just run over to the local telephone company, demand a tap on a line, and get the evidence they need as the data passes through a current telcom provider? Granted, they still may need a decryption key. But come on! You mean to tell me that a government doesn't have the resources to crack an encryption key? Hey if a "cyber-crime" is so serious, you should be able to afford the technology and intelligence to solve it. They just want things to be easy. The end result? The internet will be crowded with "cops" that have nothing to do. The day will come when we get "speeding tickets" online for using too much bandwidth. Hey, is donutshop.com still available??
What you don't seem to realise however, is that far from being the "land of the free", the US does in fact have more of its population in prison than any other country in the world (mostly for such "crimes" as being black), it retains the death penalty despite almost universal condemnation from the international community, and the interfering hand of the Federal Government intervenes at every step of your lives. From the ludicrous warning labels on hot apple pie - "warning contents are hot", to the inhumane prohibition of smoking in an airline lavatory.
You seem to miss the point, that despite having no written constitution the UK remains by any standards more free, more democratic and safer than the US.
Admittedly the original poster demonstrates a remarkable lack of knowledge about the Governmental system in the UK (we don't have a President, we have a Queen, and a Prime Minister), but the point about Tony Blair is well made. He doesn't carry the aura of "slimy snake-oil salesman" or "serial adulterer" or "CIA Stooge", like so many previous US presidents have done. In fact, he is that rare commodity, a genuinely popular (not "populist") politician.
MPs are used to receiving loads of identical letters in lobbying efforts. They all get counted as a single letter and ignored. This is why STAND doesn't give a sample letter.
This pro-forma letter's a good example of what yours should look like - take notes, perhaps even cut and paste bits, rearrange etc., but DON'T make it look identical.
(Sorry, shockwaverider... thanks for the effort!)
-- Yoz
The key to understanding where this legislation is going is in the statement of purpose. "The economic well-being of the UK" can only have one real meaning - the ability to harass, jail, or retrieve communications from trade-union activists.
Before I get accused of paranoia, cast your minds back to the '80's and how much of a role MI5 and other Government agencies such as Special Branch played as key agents in breaking the Great Miners Strike.
"But" I hear you say "this is a Labour government, and aren't they sympathetic to the Trade Union movement?"
Dream on. "New" Labour has repeatedly demonstrated their hostility to the TU movement. They have categoricaly refused to repeal any of the disgraceful anti trade union laws passed in by the Conservative governments of the 80's and 90's, which infringed on the Civil liberties of all UK citizens (although many still don't realise quite the extent of those laws), and which were opposed by the Labour Party at the time. New Labour have also been actively distancing themselves from the historic link with the Unions for a long time now. Many of them are ex -Thatcherites, and some (like Tony Blair for instance) have publicly expressed their admiration of Margaret Thatcher.
The Trade Union movement is still an International movement, and technically Labour is still affiliated to that. If you want to get active over this disgraceful piece of legislation, you can do so if you are a Trade Union member in any part of the World. I strongly urge all trade unionists who object to this Bill to email, write or fax Jack Straw in your official capacity. Also talk about this to your local branch meetings and bring it up on regional committees etc.
www.labournet.org is as always very informative about this bill and the strubble against it.
"The great are only great because we are on our knees"
-James Connolly, Irish Freedom Fighter and socialist
Richard Stallman wrote about these proposals last November in Linux today.
Chris
--
Check out MKDoc a mod_perl CMS
Should have read 'struggle' of couse :) (Must get used to using the Preview option)
Point 1 - europe's not a country (yet)
point 2 - I'd hardly describe Nanny Blair's UK as Socialist. Even people who were on the right wing of the Labour Party 5 years ago seem to think it's pretty Tory now
recently the subjects of Her Majesty democratically decided to give up their rights to own handguns
Never had a right to own handguns. There was a privilege, with associated licensing. Not a right. Mind you, technically we are still obliged to own a longbow and do 2 hours of compulsory Archery practice per week.
Her Majesty's subjects have also agreed to being monitored by thousands of public video cameras
Her Majesty's
Who? Oh, that Mrs Windsor at #1, the Mall. Less of the reverent capitals, please. She can have the capitals back if (a) she pays her taxes (No Capitalisation without Taxation) and (b) gets out of our state structures along with anyone else whose great-great^n-grandparent was the biggest bully of his time
er, no. Nobody asked me. This was brought in using Statutory Instruments to legalise the practice, and has generally been implemented in piecemeal fashion by the commercial owners of shopping centres, railway stations etc. Not many Councils are implementing cameras yet, largely because of worries about the consequences once we incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights
The USA could use a politician with true conviction of his beliefs, like the Presdent of the UK, Tony Blear
Where to start? firstly we don't have a President (official elected by the population as a whole) - we have a Prime Minister who is, effectively, in the post ex-officio as leader of the party with an unearned first-past-the-post majority in the House Of Commons. Furthermore, it's been a few years since anyone last seriously suggested that Tony Blair still has any beliefs; certainly anything that might affect the opinion of the 11,000 or so voters in the 50 most marginal constituencies has to go through the whole Alistair Campbell spinfactory before it's allowed to see the light of day. And we must never upset all those multinationals in the City of London, or we'll lose that hard economic competence image we had to gain at the cost of everything the Labour Party (created by the Unions for the benefit of the Unions) ever stood for.
Not that conviction politicians are a good thing. Look at Maggie. And flinch.
TomV
To understand the phrase "the national security interests of the United Kingdom", I consult Robert Ringer's Newspeak-to-English translation of JFK's famous line: "Ask not what the people in power can do for you; ask what you can do for the people in power".
Obviously, the real objective of the power sought in this legislation is to gather up another club for use against opponents of the people in power.
This is not a "troll" (whatever that is)
TROLL: 1)obnoxious cyber-graffiti, 2)a post profoundly devoid of logical thought and steeped in knee-jerk button-pushing. Your post fits the latter definition.
Also let us not forget that although freedom of expression and democracy are enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, the British subject enjoys no such rights
Political freedom is largely an outgrowth of the British tradition. The fact that the British failed to live up to this standard did force us to kick them out, but that doesn't negate the underlying historical reality.
The point is, that by criticising this law, you are demonstrating your ignorance of other cultures.
No, it demonstrates that we recognize that some cultures (e.g. a culture of power-hungry politicians) are inferior to others (e.g. a culture of free people).
Freedom of speech and democracy are not the "accepted norm" in every country in the world.
See previous comment. Some countries have better norms than others.
For example, recently the subjects of Her Majesty democratically decided to give up their rights to own handguns, since they recognised that that freedom was not worth having, since it would inevitably lead to crazed gunmen running amok.
Her Majesty's subjects have also agreed to being monitored by thousands of public video cameras whenever they are in a public space. Again the aim is not to erode their freedoms, but rather to protect them from antisocial elements.
Both imposed by scams of the people in power, not by general consent as you imply. Even if there had beem majority consent, it would be irrelevant; both British and American political traditions recognize the need for a rule of law that supersedes the decision of three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
Freedom of expression is all very well, in a culture (like the US) which has had over 200 years to adapt to it, but for ancient cultures like the British, and Europeans, such ideas are not fundamental.
I've already addressed your error concerning the British political tradition. In any case, an ancient error is no more deserving of respect than a recent one.
More important is the idea of a consensus, and even more important, of equality
Been there, done that, run the body count into eight figures. Can we give it up as a bad idea now?
Given that this new law seems to give the authorities the power they need to better hunt down and prosecute net criminals
I'd rather see them hunt down and prosecute the criminals in power who violate the supreme law they have sworn to uphold.
Just think, if you have nothing to hide, why would this legislation worry you?
On the contrary, I have plenty to hide. Not that I've done anything wrong, mind you, but given the government's habit of abusing police powers to harass opponents it is only prudent not to give them anything that could be distorted into grounds for bringing frivolous legal actions.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Could someone in the know ask them for their sourcecode so we can put up a site like that here in the states? it wouldnt be difficult to do the same thing here. and if they have the code already, let's ask permission to borrow,modify, and impliment! heck if we could get several people involved in key areas (I.E. in local telco locations to each with a fax gateway) or set it up as a non-profit company. This would be a really good thing. Heck, could we just use it as a basis to form a geek party? even start filling the offices with geeks... our power would be limitless.... we could rule the world.... and outlaw jocks....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm a UK citizen
That would be subject, not citizen, brit-boy. We in the free world are citizens -- you buggers are subjects, cor blimey! You've jolly well got no rights beyond what her Majesty decides to give yer, God bless us all!
Apart from the draconian laws, and fog, and video cameras everywhere, did you know that as an American, your Constitutional Rights do NOT APPLY in the UK ????
You could be thrown in jail for refusing to bow to the Queen (or curtsey if you are female). Until this quaint country brings itself into the 21st century, all Americans should steer well clear, and if you want to get an idea of what the UK is really like, visit the English Village at Epcot center in Florida, but imagine it with warm beer, a non-airconditioned smoke-filled pub, and the streets filled with litter, and criminals.
The following occured to me when reading this.
If a few IANAL types can spot the holes in the laws, surely the draftees could too. Much as we like to believe otherwise, the government (Civil Service) does employ some smart people.
So:
a) the problems are intentional, the intended effect is to gain control over the innocent populous at large, by scaring them into handing over keys etc.
- Most paranoid scenario, hope it's not the case.
b) the original draft gets totally fucked up by everyone involved adding their own agenda to it, without thought to the effect on the whole bill.
- Most likely in my opinion.
c) they're all stupid.
- Nah. Note, I'm not talking about MPs here, they are mostly quite thick. I'm talking about the people who dream up these proposals in the first place. Civil Servants and heads of Security Organisations etc.
Let's hope it's b, incompetence I can deal with , major stupidity or hidden agendas are far scarier.
--
"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
This is what will happen:
Public outcry prevents the law from getting through.
The Bill fails a second time.
A horrible crime is commited that disgusts the entire country.
By luck alone, someone manages to decrypt message that allows us to catch the perpetrator.
This is used to demonstrate that this law is a good idea.
The law is forced through the commons again because of public pressure
I'm just an AC observer, but I like DMG's trolls. DMG is too tactful to post something like this in response to his own troll.
"YHBT. YHL. HAND." was a common response on Usenet when someone fell for a troll. I just felt Slashdot needed to keep the spirit alive. (Because trolling is about the _love_, man!) And yes, you got the acronyms right this time.
Perhaps I am only saying this because I am a stupid American. But in the US, everyones privacy is in theory protected by the 4th Consitutional Ammendment. England however is another story. It's a contry that's toyed with idea of Democracy for the past 100 years or so. Perhaps they decided that the Internet, in its current form, empowers individuals too much and makes the State too important. Perhaps they don't mind the fact that they are about to enact a law that will make them a totallitarian state. They have every right to do that. Just as I have every right to ask everyone I know or associated with to boycot British products. How about Reuters, for starters. If the law gets passed, I will stop reading any articles that Reuters contributed to. I will write to all the newspapers that I subscribe to that I am offended that by the fact they use services of a news agency that is based in a totallitarian state. There are also some food products that can be boycotted. Not to mention that visiting the Isle on vacation will be a moral equivalent of visiting Iraq. South Africa took year to yield the international boycott. England is much more dependant on being part of the internation community to ignore this action with impunity. Oh, and before the law gets passed, you may want to let the english legislature know that you are planning to boycott them if they become a tyranny.
Please, don't give us any bullshit about "the European Convention on Human Rights", there's no such thing. Europe is a Socialist contintent, and they have no concept whatsoever of "human rights", other than the right of the ruling caste to do as they please. This is identical to the previous political system in Europe, monarchism. There has never been and never will be a free country anywhere in Europe. Their culture militates against it. The people there don't want freedom, and their rulers will certainly never let them have it.
In Europe, the law states that the citizens are the property of the State, to do with as it pleases. European governments are not bound by law. They own their citizens as slaves. I would never risk setting foot in Europe, since the governments there can and will detain or kill anybody, at any time, for no reason at all.
Sorry to strike down on this sentence since your post was so good otherwise
There *are* no political absolutes. There are far too many cases where one freedom or other "absolute" right collides with another.
Right to life? Yes! an absolute right, you say.
But at what cost. Do I have the right to demand 24/7 free instant access to a medical team? If not, there goes a piece of that "absolute right"
Freedom of speech? Including that standard example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.
Freedom of thought? yes perhaps that. But only as long as I keep my thoughts to myself. If I start expressing my thoughts (other than "nice" thoughts) I might be stepping on someone else's "absolute" freedom.
Politics is the art of weighing one freedom or right against another. If there was such a thing as an absolute right, there would be no need for politics.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Fundamentally, this is a civil liberties issue All civilized nations have the requirement of evidence before conviction and imprisonment. This legislation denies this fundamental right. It is even more appalling when you consider that in the UK's glory years, we exported this very principle of law across the globe ! It moves the UK much closer to becoming a police state. In that respect, this legislation is worse than anything passed in the Thatcher years. It attaches too much power to a PACE warrant. Given the recent track record of the Police in the UK, they are already demonstrably abusing great power, and should not be given any more. In addition, the recent revelations on ECHELON suggest that the need for a warrant to tap your phone line is a paper formality in any case.
One big concern which governments about the globe must be facing is how to levy tax on e-commerce, particularly if it is encrypted. It works fine in the UK, where your every wage-slip is shared with the Inland Revenue, and your every purchase open to scrutiny by the VATman. I believe that this legislation is targetted not at criminals and child molesters. This is emotive language used by the government to justify this bill. I believe that this legislation, if it goes through, will be used for one by the Inland Revenue to pursue alleged tax evaders. This misses the real issue, which is that taxation is coercive in nature, and the citizen is forced to pay what the government demand, instead of the government treating its citizens like consumers of their services, with rights.
Stephen Hawking has written another book. It's about time as well.
Its a (probably) odd, but very personal viewpoint, and probably, my reference to it was misleading in the context of my original post.
free experimental electronic music netlabel at www.viablehybrid.com
That law dealt with regulating "e-commerce" and was, I gather, abandoned due to the complete negative response to it from both industry and pressure groups.
This law was originally (and still is, to an extent) about regulating Police Informants and how they should be treated. However, the Government took 90% of the rejected "e-commerce" bill and just pasted it into the Regulation of Investigatory Powers bill, the one we are fighting today.
This "new" bill was only first revealed about a month ago, so any articles prior to the beginning of February are probably discussing the previous bill (in fact, one of several previous, abandoned bills).
It is, most likely, precisely because those previous bills were rejected, that they have "integrated" it (yes, in the Microsoft sense) with the regulations on Police Informants, and, placed it on a "fast-track" which means they are rushing it through parliament as quickly as possible with no period of consultation, and (from today) less than ten days for Members of Parliament to propose amendments. That is why this is so urgent.
a) Instant arrest.
b) Torture until confession.
c) Death upon confession.
d) Death upon claim of innocence.
In fact, it was common practice for the accusers and torturers and especially the church to split up the accused's estate.
Back a few short decades ago, in the USA, if you didn't like someone you could accuse them of being a communist. This would, among other abuses, often result in,
a) Swift arrest.
b) Interrogation and humiliation.
c) Blacklisting upon confession.
d) Blacklisting upon insistance of innocence.
Often, the only way to clear your own name was to finger other friends and associates as being communists.
Now we have this new legistlation being considered in the UK. It has much in common with the travesties above. With this proposed law, one of the dangers is that if someone doesn't like you, they will simply have to send you encrypted email, then cry encrypter! This will result in, among other things,
1) Sudden search, seizure, and probable arrest.
2) Interrogation and humiliation.
3) Jail sentence upon confession.
4) Jail sentence upon claim of innocence.
This will happen regularly by jilted lovers, angry employees, school children, and the police. It is no trouble at all to put files on someone's computer. It will be especially easy for the police, who if they decide not to take the encrypted email route, will instead be able to waltz in your home, shove you out of the way, and directly plant any files they want anywhere on your system. When you are asked for your decryption key, well, gosh, officer, I don't have one.
The burden of proof should NEVER have to reside with the accused.
Just like that, because you pissed off the wrong guy, you get two years.
You will if this insane law gets passed, that is.
She's an encrypter! Burn her!
-Jason
Dear Mr Truswell,
I am writing to you to express my deep concerns regarding the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, 2000 and to urge you to vote against it at its second reading on 6th March.
As I am sure you are aware, the bill makes provisions relating to the interception of communications and the carrying out of electronic surveillance. It also provides for the establishment of a tribunal for which it is to be commended.
The bill is deeply flawed, however, in several respects and may result in the criminalisation of large portions of the internet-using public. I list my principal objections below:-
1) Section 11.(4) obliges employees at internet service providers (ISPs) to observe wiretap warrants or face two years imprisonment. Revealing the existence of a wiretap is punishable by five years imprisonment and there is no whistleblower clause (Section 18.(2)). In fact, the requirement to install a wiretap on request by warrant is extended to " a person (...) who has control of the whole or any part of a telecommunication system located wholly or partly in the United Kingdom." (11.(4)(c)), which can be easily interpreted to mean any person who own a land-line telephone, fax or mobile phone.
This widens the number of people capable of being prosecuted for refusing to serve a warrant considerably. One of the features of the internet is that potentially, anyone can operate a "public telecommunications service" online. By widening the definition, the bill is placing a huge liability on British companies to provide interception capabilities, which foreign companies do not have to comply with.
2) Section 8.(3) allows for the mass monitoring of communications sent from or received outside the UK with the permission of the Home Secretary. Note that this allows for the serving of unnamed warrants which grant blanket permission to the security services to monitor any particular type of communication. The section, in limiting itself to communications external to the UK, is clearly aimed at national security concerns but is easily open to abuse. This is because data on the Internet is not confined to national boundaries. Domestic internet traffic will frequently travel via a route that takes it overseas. The e-mail that a constituent in Yorkshire sends his MP in London might very well get there via Amsterdam and New York, such is the nature of the internet. Clearly, then domestic traffic will fall under the remit of Section 8.(3).
3) Section 12.(1) allows the Home Secretary to oblige ISPs to monitor their own users. Currently, ISPs do not do this (for obvious reasons of privacy) and in fact the technology to do so does not exist - it would be incredibly complex and cumbersome to implement due to the vast amount of traffic that flows through an ISP. Any monitoring system attached to an ISP will, by necessity, be accessible from the rest of the internet and it will come under electronic attack from crackers (or 'hackers' as the popular press incorrectly calls them.) The monitoring equipment will be an easy target for hackers, many of them beyond the jurisdiction of UK courts, who will make their own uses for the names, addresses and credit card numbers collected by the monitoring equipment.
4) Section 16.(1) prohibits revealing the existence of a wiretap warrant in a court of law. Thus, there is no legal recourse for those who believe they are the illegitimate target of a wiretap.
5) Section 46.(2) governs the treatment of keys to encrypted data. Anyone under suspicion of any crime or in conflict with any public authority is required to hand over their private keys or face two years imprisonment. Handing over a key should not be a trivial exercise. The potential liability to companies and individuals of losing control of their private keys is incalculable. Allowing any statutory body to demand these keys trivialises the importance of encryption in the future of the internet. It is comparable to allowing any government body access to the most private areas of citizens' life.
The government is in the habit of indicating that this bill is necessary to defend against monstrous criminal acts. They claim that without it, drug barons, child pornographers and terrorists will use encryption to evade paying for their crimes. Usefully, this bill guarantees that they will. If you encrypt all your data, and refuse to hand over the key, you can be punished to a maximum of two years . This makes it worthwhile for criminals to pursue this aim, while actively dissuading regular citizens from taking the risk that they will be imprisoned for being unable to decrypt their own data. As the old Net proverb has it: if you outlaw encryption, only outlaws will use encryption. Additionally, the defence of "forgetting your passphrase" will quickly become discredited: making it even more difficult for innocent citizens to use this as a legitimate defence. This section also reverses the burden of proof - rather than the burden being on the authorities to prove that the defendant has a key, the burden is on the defendant to prove that he or she does not have a key.
To summarise, the bill is poorly drafted and provides powers to the authorities at the expense of public privacy, and even goes against the basic assumption of innocence which is a cornerstone of English criminal law. I urge you to vote against the government on this bill.
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
I have a couple hundred megs of data that I encrypted a couple years ago and have not been able to recover the keys. Basically I moved and misplaced the disk with the key during the move. I've been optimistic that one day I'll be digging through my closet and it'll turn up.
Suppose I lived in the UK? Does this mean I would be legally required to destroy the encrypted data since I'm no longer certain I possess the key. In my case I'd probably delete it since it doesn't seem likely that I'll ever find the key to this data.
What about unidentifiable files on my hard drive? What if there's a temp file that contains what looks like garbage. How would I prove that it's not encrypted data? The average computer user is never going to able to account for every file on their hard drive. The expert computer user probably won't either. Won't this allow the UK govt to basically prosecute *anyone* with a computer and garbage files on it? It just seems like a shortcut to lock up anyone owning a modern computer without actually having to produce evidence. The user can be required by law to produce something that doesn't even exist. Scary stuff.
numb
Can't be. Just not possible. Except in a true anarchy. I'm not moaning about the curbs on my freedom to rob, rape and murder, though.
Do I have the right to demand 24/7 free instant access to a medical team?
If you're American, then the answer is no. As a UK subject, the answer is Yes. Admittedly the NHS is underfunded by comparison with our European neighbours, and a four-hour wait is about the norm for inner city Casualty departments, but we DO have a National Health Service, and of all the things that destroyed the last Tory government (corruption, incompetence, ...) it was probably the perceived threat to the NHS that got the traditional Tories out for Labour
TomV
If you're American, then the answer is no. As a UK subject, the answer is Yes
No I'm not american, I'm Swedish.
The point was *instant* access. ie my own personal team watching over me constantly, just in case.
We can always save/prolong more lives by pouring more money into the health service. However we must draw a line somewhere, or we will be too preoccupied by surviving, to actually live. (and the doctors deserve a life too..)
All opinions are my own - until criticized
What do you do when a law reduces your freedom to increase someone else's. In real life, I happily give up the freedom to knock people down, so that I may enjoy the freedom of not *being* knocked down.
How can I make that decision if I want an *absolute* freedom?
The problem is that the word "freedom" is so soaked in various agendas, that it has almost lost all real meaning.
Not that maximizing your personal definition of it is a bad philosophy though.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
The first time this gets to the European Court of Human Rights it will get torn to pieces. Gagging orders are a legal stupidity under EU law so anyone who is gagged by this law can take the case to the EU, where the facts will get drawn out in a court that is higher than the UK courts.
I do not see this law lasting long if it does come in.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
OK just for the sake of the argument (so, I'm bored to death debugging someone else's C++ source)
...and Ive got IRIX 6.5.7 to install on 40 machines. Not exciting....
What do you do when a law reduces your freedom to increase someone else's. In real life, I happily give up the freedom to knock people down, so that I may enjoy the freedom of not *being* knocked down.
Its a question of trade-offs. Personally, I'm in favour of allowing armaments for speed-limited cars and pedestrians, purely as an enticement to encourage good driving, but its too difficult to prevent abuse of the system. To respond though, I'd say that wanting to knock someone down (other than in a transitory 'I hate my boss' kinda way) is rarer than wanting to not be knocked down. Hence that's a plus sort of situation. Unless you want to knock someone down, and can find a willing 'victim' in which case that specific instance becomes a separate issue...
How can I make that decision if I want an *absolute* freedom? Think of it as absolute freedom in the Crowleyan sense, with the usual Wiccan proviso, to wit, Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the Law, An' It Harm No-one. ie You can -allow- people freedoms that might impinge upon your own freedom, but you cannot demand to impinge upon theirs. Not can they damnd to impinge on yours without consent.
The problem is that the word "freedom" is so soaked in various agendas, that it has almost lost all real meaning. Absolutely.
Not that maximizing your personal definition of it is a bad philosophy though. That's what happens when you let thirteen year-old kids read Robert Anton Wilson :)
free experimental electronic music netlabel at www.viablehybrid.com
As a libertarian I would have to say "yes" you do have the right to demand that, just as I have the right to tell you to pay for it yourself.
Perhaps a better question would be: Do I have the right to demand 24/7 free instant access to a team of qualified legal experts ?
Britain may have a good health system, but access to the legal profession is still sadly lacking...
Its a question of trade-offs. Personally, I'm in favour of...
But if we resort to trade-offs, the it is no longer an absolute freedom, but a relative one. It is no longer a matter of having *freedom* but having *more* freedom.
That's what happens when you let thirteen year-old kids read Robert Anton Wilson :)
Or your basic slashdot story ;)
Lets moderate Wilson [subversive -1E100] immediately!
All opinions are my own - until criticized
I agree, and said so when the previous bill came up for discussion here.
The problem, though, as another poster pointed out, is that that takes a VERY long time and isn't automatic. In the mean time, we have some extremely illiberal legislation on the books, granting the government powers that most of us seem to find repugnant.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
What you don't seem to realise however, is that far from being the "land of the free", the US does in fact have more of its population in prison than any other country in the world (mostly for such "crimes" as being black) So why are UK prisons full of blacks ? are they bad people on both sides of the water, or do they just 'get caught' more often ?
.....the point about Tony Blair is well made. He doesn't carry the aura of "slimy snake-oil salesman" or "serial adulterer" or "CIA Stooge", like so many previous US presidents have done. In fact, he is that rare commodity, a genuinely popular (not "populist") politician.
..... Do you watch the news in thew UK ? As for his popularity, I hope the RIP legislation drops it to sub-Thatcher levels.
Ever heard of Stephen Lawrence ? The Chief Constable of the London Metropolitan Police now freely admits that institutional racism exists in his force? BTW, why can't they recruits for the Met ? Particularly black ones ? So, can the libertarian crap on race. The UK is no better than the USA on this one
To quote Meatloaf, "Two out of Three ain't bad"
"Allright son, were gonna give you one last chance before we nail your balls to the wall.." "Man, what the hell.. I dont REMEMBER the key.. i dont even know what the hell is in that file.. jesus christ. how many times to I have to tell you this??" "DO you reliaze you are conspiring against the government? Do you understand that your breaking quite a few laws by retaining the key to this information? I'm gonna ask ooone laaast time.. what is the passkey?" "Oh man.. fuck off! I dont know! that files a year old!! i have no freakin clue whats in there, what the key is, or even where I got it.. " )) Agent Smith smacks Nero around a bit with a large trout. "Please, let get the hell out.. you can have the file.. you crack it.. youve got your big fancy computers.. thats your job you spooked out freaks.." "Allright boys, take him off.. File charges on this scumbag.." -- Epilogue... -- LittleNero spends 10 years in a federal penn for some bullshit. Had this been within the state jurisdiction Nero would have gotten off on parole, and served a setence only slighter extreme for hsi so called crime. However, the federal system doesnt know the meaning of the word parole, and thus, Nero gets to suck off a beefcake mofo named Bubba for 10 years before he is killed the day before he gets released by some big mFr he told to screw himself. And uncle sam lives hapilly ever after...
In this case, however, we are talking about personal corespondence - a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's the difference between a camera in the casino or at an intersection and a camera in my house.
So some brits may not like the public cameras or the private invasion. Most I would guess are used to the idea that you don't expect privacy in public but still have an expectation of privacy in private communications. But I doubt they are the same issue for most people.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
If this is the first time this has been used for a tech cause, its pretty ironic. I've noticed that while activists are getting more and more involved with on-line organizing, the on-line crowd actually lags. I think its the herding cats thing - That and it's hard to decide how to fix the roof when half the house is out trying to rent a bulldozer.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
PS. Echelon; Kiss my ass
Here's an idea,
this bill give the government the powers to force surrendering of encryption keys.
Suppose we do the following, (unsure of the technical feasability).
while (1) {
encypt emails using a CSS public key of a DVD decoder.
then, inform the police and wait for them to reveal the private key of the DVD firm.
}
Irritation and protest here we come
Therefore if you write to your MP tell them that this is an attack on the priveleges of the House of Commons and a denial of a citizen's right ot approach their member of parliament.
- Send an encrypted email to every member of Parliament, and to any other government employee that you do not particularly like.
- Cc some relevant law enforcement authorities who are not too pleased with their bosses. (Even LEAs employ some geeks.)
- File a police report (and tell the press) that you generated the encryption keys, and that you saw logs of these keys being downloaded by the officials before someone thoroughly reformatted the disks of the server that held these keys. (If the LEAs ask you for the key, provide the wiped server as evidence.)
This probably would not actually result in the entire government getting arrested, but it would get your point across.