A couple of days ago I received the following. Do not get "Computing"
so have not seen the original article...
>To keep you appraised of developments, please be aware that this week's
>'Computing' (23rd April) carries an article on page 12 that Margaret Beckett
>has denied suggestions that the government will shortly announce
>controvertial plans for regulating the use of cryptography.
>
>The article states that at a recent press conference she said "An
>announcement is not imminent. I dont know who told you it was". She declined
>to specify when a statement was due. "We're working on it," was all she
>revealed.
>
>The article concludes that banks and IT companies have voiced hostile
>reactions to the government's insistance on including capabilities to decode
>encrypted messages through a practice known as 'key recovery'. This requires
>users to deposit copies of encryption software, known as keys, with so-called
>trusted third parties, so that law enforcement agencies can decode the
>messages.
No sooner said than the Government makes an announcement on the sly. At
3.30pm today as a very quiet reply to a written question.
There are two documents (see below). They are as clear as mud and seem
open to various different interpretations but it looks horribly as if
they support much of what was in the original DTI proposals about key
escrow and licensing of Trusted Third Parties. Law enforcement officers
will in some circumstances be able to demand private keys to decrypt
confidential information and there is no mention of any exceptions.
This is as yet obviously some way from legislation but it shows what the
government is thinking. All done on the quiet - I wonder why. Text can
be found at:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/ftp/users/rja14/dti1
and
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/ftp/users/rja14/dti2
--
John Williams
Email: [log in to unmask]
Fax: 01483 440928
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|