Slashdot Mirror
Escrow rejected by UK Select Comittee
evilandi writes "This BBC article reports on how the UK Trade and Industry Select Committee have condemned the British government over the proposed E-Commerce Bill. Now that Key Escrow has been 99% dropped, they don't see the point of the bill at all, they're "disappointed that the government should still hold a candle for key escrow", and they're concerned about proposed changes to the Interception of Communications Act (tapping). See also stand.org.uk
" Wow-intelligent officials. Someone pinch me.
I'd like to add, taxing CD-R's in The Netherlands, and the recent 'wet op de telecommunicatie' which gives policemen the right to 'wire-tap' ones 'Internet activities'
I just wanted to make a little point about party discipline. From what I understand, the practice of party discipline isn't really that strong in the UK either, relatively speaking. Not until recently have Prime Ministers really tried to use party discipline to push through legislation. Now, Canada, OTOH, is a totally different story. Here, Prime Ministers are capable of pushing through virtually any legislation they want, since they can declare a confidence vote on more controversial bills. If the bill is shot down, this suggests non-confidence in the party leader and forces an election. Faced with this, members of a majority party will almost definitely go with their party. In the few cases where they don't, MP's are punished, and sometimes even booted of the party (re. John Nunziata in the Alberta Legislature).
Regardless of the political impact of this report, I think it's always refreshing to read or hear British parliamentary debate. They're just so much better at rhetoric than your average American congressman on C-SPAN.
No they dropped key escrow back in March
:-)
see http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/9/ns-7248.html
May you overlooked it Dodger
Speaking as an Anonymous Coward:
I must admit to a much more general anti-authoritarian bias, not merely anti-politician. Authorities frequently feel that they have the right/duty to tell me what to do regardless of my feelings on the matter, and this does not inspire me with any great love of them. Also, what they tell me to do is frequently NOT in my best interest, no matter what they say. This doesn't mean that it tends to be actively harmful, just annoying, restrictive, bothersome, etc. They are much more likely to tell me that I can't do something that to say that I can. And why should they be allowed to choose anyway? The 12th amendment ("rights are reserved to the people" in case I've misnumbered it)seems to have fallen into total oblivion. Probably because of the cost of challenging something (i.e., becaue the powerful don't like it).
It is a well known politicians adage:
* we must do something
* this is something
* therefore we must do this
Many of the things that make me most upset with lawmakers is a basic failure of abstract logic. You don't have to be a crypto expert to understand that: The entire world has access to non-U.S. strong crypto, therfore export restrictions won't deprive the world of strong crypto. If the words scare them, they should read: The entire world has access to non-U.S. televisions, therefore, export restrictions won't deprive the world of televisions.
A six year old can understand that, why can't congress?
Imagine the world spoke the same language (as they pretty much do in the software world, being M$ or Un*x) and the US created 90% of all the popular TV shows, they would believe they have some leverage to force the rest of the world to conform to their agenda. Arrogance?
Don't be surprised that they are intelligent - they are not American policy makers. There is far too much in common in the US Crypto Policies, Drug War, and Saving The World With War ideals. The biggest is FUD, especially when it is used to gain votes or move policy. I just can't understand how the US can justify supporting and throwing cash into the above three to the level that they do.
Put me down for another planet, thanks.
If you ask me, the government of the USA already "does" way too much. Or do you think the laws that we have now are so brilliant that we need more of them?
Not me. Every time the head of state becomes unpopular with his party (or, more likely, with part of the coalition that put him there) the government collapses and has to be reformed. No thanks. Parties are way too powerful in this country as it is; a parliamentary system would only give them more. What incentive would/does the prime minister/president/grand poobah ever have to oppose anything the legislature does, considering that he's one of them and relies on them entirely for his power? I'll agree with you that things - lots of things! - could definitely be improved in the USA, but IMO a parliamentary system is not the way to go. Check out http://news.b bc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_347000/347
The reason for anti-politician bias on slashdot, IMHO, is that the laws regarding technology are not decided on by those who understand the technology best*.
Indeed, one could probably generalize this to any specialization, be it technology, medicine, social science, etc. This isn't entirely their fault, either. In order for this to be corrected, the lawmakers/politicians would have to become experts on whatever subjects are applicable to the laws they vote on. I hope I don't have to explain that this isn't possible.
When the slashdot community (a technologicly-informed community) sees lawmakers making bad decisions, they (collectively) tend to get upset, knowing full well that a poor decision on the part of, (and I hate to use this word), "ignorant" politicians is going to adversely affect them. One only needs to look at all of the hassle the U.S. Encription-Export laws have caused to understand why.
* - this is a generalization. There are some technology-informed politicians. But the point is that not all (in many cases, most) politicians are not informed about the consequences of the laws they propose/vote-on as they should be.
Everyone's going the wrong way with this.
;-)
What we need to be doing is mandating the use of strong encryption, at least to companies expecting to do business with the government. Application used by the government should have strong encryption options where applicable. This should drive the adoption of strong cryptography in the private sector. Any government outside the USA concerned about USA spying should be very interested in getting the general population to adopt encryption technology. Otherwise US companies will continue to win those huge contracts with bids only barely lower than their European counterparts.
Britain was the last big EU holdout for encryption controls. With some luck, this will mean a European directive on the subject that won't be encumbered by reservations about some states wanting escrow.
Whoever's in charge in Washington won't be happy though. I remember how they got the EC to kill encrypted digital cellular phones way back in 89 or 90.
It appears to me that our legislative system is designed not to be efficient. Sometimes, that is good.
While other parliamentary systems have proportional representation, the UK does not. This means that the majority party in Parliament received its majority even though it did not necessarily receive a majority of votes. Lady Thatcher ruled with an iron hand without a majority. The current parliamentary system in Britain makes the Prime Minister a temporary tyrant who can only be stopped if the backbenchers of his own party rebel. Given that party discipline is traditionally much stronger in the UK than the US, that is normally very unlikely.
Proportional representation gets rid of minority-elected government problem, but replaces it with unstable coalitions (Italy's government falls about once a year, Israel just elected representatives from a dozen parties to their parliament).
I doubt that we would reign in the CIA and NSA if we had a parliamentary system. After all, Congress and the President have already approved what they do, why would that stop?
I wonder how much of this was to do with stand.org.uk and the @dopt an MP thing?
I still don't like the anti-politician bias on slashdot, I must say.
Their political system is so much more productive than in the US.
Their Legislature elects the Executive branch (Congress elects the President) so that things get done!
I really wish we would do things that way in the US.
And this is the perfect example, I can just see congress and the president bickering back and forth about it and nothing ever happening while the CIA and NSA quietly start collecting keys.
I imagine that if we did something similarly a lot more things in the US would make sense
--Dave
Just look at the Canadian government and the things that have been done in the six years. Then try to tell me the British type parliamentry system is better. And don't get me started on Upper house seats that you get by heraldry.
I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but a parliamentary select committee in Britain has about the same ability to affect what the government decides to do as a small gnat. Yes, they can be annoying, but they can't rewrite legislation in any meaningful sense. It's nothing like the same thing as the U.S. House Commerce Committee telling the bureaucracy/NSA to go take a hike.
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
Instead of the citizens voting directly for presindent, they vote for electors. Then all the electors get together to make something called the "electorial college" and then _they_ vote for president. The idea was that that you might vote for someone like Linus or RMS for elector, without knowing in advance who they were going to vote for. And for the first election or two that's how it worked. But pretty quickly the system degenerated to where people voted for the elector who was going to vote they wanted, making the electorial college irrelevant.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk
One of the best quotes is: "Although DTI has been willing to listen to what industry and others have had to say about cryptography, we have gained the impression that they have not, until recently, taken much notice of what has been said to them."
Politicians in the UK are widely known for their insightful policy making wrt computing.
cf The decision to not fund or promote AI research.
I don't know about anyone else, but I adopted my local MP (Phyllis Starkey, Labour) and was astonished to receive an intelligent, informed response. I think STAND has made a difference here - if my MP took the time to research and respond to my concerns I'd hazard a guess she also raised them with DTI - and believe it or not, civil servants don't half sit up and take notice when they get correspondence from an MP.
every where i've seen there have been jabs at the people in charge, it's mainly a way of shifting blame
obviously the strength/crulity of the jab depends on how good/bad your mayor/comminsinor/congressmen is. my father held office at one point and he was pretty good at it (read: most people liked him).
but there are some pretty moronic people elected into office.
most people hide their lunitics, in the south, we elect them
(mother(you) -> hamster) and (smelt(father) = smelt(elderberries))
It's not bias; it's judgment based on experience. We've seen too much damage done by politicians who are ignorant, self-important, pushy, and vicious toward anyone who gets in their way or refuses to conform to their model. In short, a lot of them are what the bullies described in the Hellmouth threads a few weeks back grow up to be.
Admittedly, the politicians who fit this description cast an unfair cloud over the other 5%.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
NTK Now had this last week, but they promise not to gloat too much. Check them out at http://www.ntk.net
It it great news for pro-privacy advocates, both in Europe and the U.S.
the AntiCypher
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on