Re: Government Noses

[Brian Beesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

On Thursday 04 September 2003 14:14, Watkin Simon wrote:
> > From: Brian Beesley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 04 September 2003 13:42
> >
> > Governments should
> > keep their noses out of private conversations, full stop.
>
> Which private conversations do you mean?

All of them.
>
> Do you mean the private conversations of those suspected of involvement in
> serious crime and terrorism? 

Yes. I think the risk posed by these private conversations is somewhat less 
than the risk imposed by having Government agencies overhearing all private 
conversations.

> Do you think not "poking a nose in" would
> better serve the public interest?

Possibly - if you can prove to me that your suspicions about a particular 
person are such that it really would be in the public interest, I'd probably 
support insertion of the proboscis. However you don't need to decrypt 
telephone conversations to do that. You can plant bugs on the targetted 
individual(s) or use techniques like laser reflections from window panes to 
pick up their conversations _in the clear_. Having obtained the requisite 
warrant first, of course.

The problem with "back door technology" is that it allows agencies unfettered 
access without needing to go to the trouble of making a case or obtaining a 
warrant. That makes me very suspicious indeed of the motives of those who are 
active proponents of deliberately weakened cryptography.
>
> Or, in a paranoid "we're all being listened to" moment, did you actually
> mean all those everyday private conversations about how the kids got on
> going back to school or the whereabouts of the lawn mower extension lead
> (to draw from two private conversations I've had today the interception of
> which would neither serve the public interest or make very interesting
> listening to anyone not party to the conversation)?
>
If I were a benefit claimant who mowed my neighbour's lawn, then I might be 
worried about the Government overhearing a conversation about a lawnmower 
extension lead. If you were to catch me actually in the act of taking money 
for mowing someone else's lawn, then that's a fair cop, guv, but (mis)use of 
"intelligence" information which might have an entirely innocent explanation 
is quite another matter - perhaps I'm going to cut my own lawn, or perhaps I 
cut my elderly neighbour's lawn for no charge as an act of charity.

Repeat after me - innocent until _proved_ guilty...

Brian Beesley