Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Escrow rejected by UK Select Comittee

Posted by Hemos on from the smart-government dept.

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.

5 of 33 comments (clear)

  1. Anti-politician bias and Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

    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.

    1. Re:Anti-politician bias and Slashdot by craw · · Score: 4

      I would like to add a few comments to your fine analysis. While having more technology literate ppl in Congress would be beneficial, what is really required is have more technology literate staffers. These ppl are the ones that do the research and write much of the legislation. Unfortunately, for many issues like the CDA and encryption, the laws are being generated by committees and sub-committees that staffed by ppl who are not technology oriented; e.g, judicial and commerence.

      Note that the member of Congress sit on many different committees and sub-committees. They are then allotted (i.e., budgeted) to have x-number of staffers to do the bulk of the committee's work. If the science and technology committees were the one's drafting, let's say, the encryption legislation, I believe that you would see better laws.

      Fundamentally, there is a problem attracting intelligent, technology/science oriented ppl to work as congressional staffers. The pay is not that great and the work load is staggering. Furthermore, ppl who are good with technology/science generally frown upon paper pushing work, and paper pushing ppl. We would much rather choose to be doing what we love; hacking, putting stuff together, taking stuff apart, etc...

      Sadly, when was the last time you heard a nerd/geek say that they wanted to work for Congress?

  2. Mandate Encryption Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5

    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. ;-)

  3. Bear in mind... by lordsutch · · Score: 4

    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
  4. Link to the full committee report: by HugoRune · · Score: 5
    The full report from the committe is at:
    http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/ pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmtrdind/187/18702. htm

    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."