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.
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 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.
Whether it breeds corruption or not is of course a matter purely of personal opinion. I personally do not share this opinion - but the point is, does it really matter? I very highly doubt the British government is any more corrupt than the US government, and indeed substantially less corrupt than quite a number of other countries worldwide. No matter what people might have said about it breeding 'tyrants' the fact of the matter is the people elect the government, and they are the primary source of legislation. The very fact that if they don't do well they will be voted out acts as a detterent to corruption - especially with the press keeping such a close watch on them - any hint of corruption and it'll be splashed all over the pages, which would be extremely damaging to public opinion of them.
And as to your comment about the upper seats you get by heraldry - I admit perhaps this isn't the best system. But the whole point is they're not voted in - having them voted would simply produce another government. They wouldn't have any aims, interests or ideals different to that of a government. They are there to act as a safety barrier for legislation they feel would be damaging, so what good is having the same government look at something twice? I would be perfectly willing to accept alternative systems, but at the moment it works - perhaps not perfectly, but it works.
Oh and while I'm at it, God save the Queen and all.
Microsoft is not the answer, NO is the answer. Microsoft is the question.
- Andy
---- Microsoft is not the answer, NO is the answer. Microsoft is the question
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."
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.