Edward R. Murrow

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954. "We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear - one, of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of un-reason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men; Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were - for the moment - unpopular."

Scrambling for Safety 8

WHAT: An open meeting on the Home Office access to keys and communications code of practice consultations.

WHEN: 2-5pm, Monday 14 August 2006.

WHERE: The Gustave Tuck Lecture Theatre, South Wing, UCL, Gower St, London WC1.

Map

Admission is free but space is limited, so if you wish to attend please
subscribe to the meeting mailing list

Please e-mail sfs8@fipr.org with requests for any other information.

The UK Home Office is currently consulting over plans to give the police powers to require the production of decryption keys and of plaintext. They have also produced a draft code of practice on government access to "communications data" -- phone numbers and e-mail addresses contacted, web sites visited, locations of mobile phones, etc.

What impact will this have on privacy and security in the UK? Could you go to jail for forgetting your password? Who in the 500+ agencies with access to communications data will be looking at records of your Internet and phone use? Will organisations with highly sensitive cryptographic keys (such as financial institutions) move their operations offshore?

"Scrambling for Safety 8" will bring together representatives from government, industry and human rights organisations to discuss these consultations with interested members of the public. This is the only such meeting during the consultation period, and is free to attend. Come along and make sure your voice is heard!

Agenda

1400	Welcome	Dr Ian Brown, UCL Computer Science
1405	The Home Office consultations	Simon Watkin, Home Office
1420	Government access to communications data	Dr Richard Clayton, Cambridge University Computer Laboratory
1435	Government access to decryption keys	Caspar Bowden, ex-director, FIPR
1450	Questions
1505	Risks to safety and security	Dr Brian Gladman, MoD and NATO (retired)
1520	Errors of judgment and integrity in presenting computer-based evidence	Duncan Campbell, expert witness and investigative journalist
1545	Parliamentary scrutiny of RIPA and its Orders	The Earl of Erroll, House of Lords (crossbencher)
1600	Questions
1615	Compatibility with human rights law	Prof. Douwe Korff, London Metropolitan University
1630	Do the police need longer detention periods to investigate encrypted evidence?	Prof. Ross Anderson, Cambridge University Computer Lab
1645	The changing public mood on privacy	Lord Phillips of Sudbury, House of Lords (Liberal Democrat)
1655	Questions and conclusions	Simon Davies, Privacy International and LSE
1700	Close

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is the clear separation between Internet access and Internet content.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee is the guy who hand on heart can say "I invented the World Wide Web" so simply quoting him seems to be the best way to explain. He says the web should remain neutral and resist attempts to fragment it into different services. "What's very important from my point of view is that there is one web," "Anyone that tries to chop it into two will find that their piece looks very boring." "It's better and more efficient for us all if we have a separate market where we get our connectivity, and a separate market where we get our content. Information is what I use to make all my decisions. Not just what to buy, but how to vote," "There is an effort by some companies in the US to change this. There's an attempt to get to a situation where if I want to watch a TV station across the Internet, that TV station must have paid to transmit to me."

As always the Open Rights Group wiki has more on net neutrality.

The Police and Justice Bill 2006 contains amendments to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in Miscellaneous Part 5 Computer Misuse amendments.

The Open rights Group asked me if I could look over the amendments and I have written up my notes here.

I must first say that after looking at some of the jibberish written in European Bills its nice to see this was written in plain English.

Unfortunately clause 38 of the bill is problematic. This clause intends to ban the development, ownership and distribution of so-called "hacker tools", which is troubling as it does not make allowances for security personnel who must have ways of testing the security of systems. The clause does not handle "dual use" software that could be used for legal things but could also be used to do things that are harmful.

As an analogy, consider that while a knife or a hammer may be used as an offensive weapon, and as such may well be prohibited from being carried in public, they are generally legal in a chef's kitchen or a carpenter's workshop. It is also perfectly legal to make or adapt such physical tools in a factory or workshop.

This clause would prohibit the manufacture, copying or sale of dual-use software tools and utilities, even in a legitimate software company such as Microsoft.

rss feeds

Just finished installing a rss feed on backandlay, and the improved odds ladder is next.