[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [FYI] (Fwd) Financial Times LEADER on RIP - "the UK governmentshoul

> The Home Office insists the new measure, the Regulation of
> Investigatory Powers bill, simply updates existing powers to tap
> telephones. Covert surveillance is an important weapon in the fight



> against serious crime. Unless law enforcement agencies have the power
> - enshrined in the RIP bill - to intercept and decode encrypted
> e-mails, criminals will be given a free rein online.
> This is a powerful argument. But the bill that springs from it is
> seriously flawed. Unless the government listens to the wide array of
> RIP critics, it risks inflicting damage on business interests and
> civil liberties alike.

Muesste man ja mal auseinanderhalten.
> The most immediate industry casualties of the bill are internet
> service providers, who will have to offer a permanent interception
> capability. The government has yet to decide what technology it will

Durch den Thread sind wir schon durch, oder ? "BMI will mailboxen
kaputtmachen"...stimmt nicht IMHO.

> impose. But the minimum running cost for a small provider is £9,400 a
> year, according to a government-commissioned report. That alone could
> encourage potential new industry entrants to go elsewhere.
> But the RIP bill carries wider costs to business. It will allow state
> officials to demand access to a private decryption key or to a plain
> text copy of an encrypted message. In certain exceptional
> circumstances - yet to be defined - only production of the key will
> suffice.

Da ist doch im Prinzip nichts gegen einzuwenden und warum sollten die
Gerichte da kein Augenmass entwickeln koennen ?

Nur so um die Entwickluingen besser einschaetzen zu koennen.