From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 20:52:59 -0800 (PST)
To: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: UK to ban free use of crypto?
Message-ID: <199703250451.UAA13267@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 12:56 AM 3/24/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
>The document is at http://dtiinfo1.dti.gov.uk/pubs/
>>It quite clearly does not intend to ban the use of cryptography or the
>>publication of cryptographic software.  
>
>And Michael Froomkin offers similar sentiments.  They're both lawyers,
>and I'm not (:-), so they're expected to do a better job of reading
>the legal parts of it.  On the other hand, the DTI says:
>	57.The legislation will provide that bodies wishing to offer 
>	or provide encryption services to the public in the UK will be 
>	required to obtain a licence. The legislation will give the 
>	Secretary of State discretion to determine appropriate licence conditions. 
>and it's got a really broad definition of "encryption services",
>including even things such as time-stamping.

Allowing government to "license" such services is a truly awful eventuality. 
 If such organizations merely had to comply with limited number of laws, 
getting around those laws would be relatively easy.  And the burden of proof 
(in many/most jurisdictions) is on the government to prove "guilt."  But the 
moment you start "licensing" those organizations, the licensing terms may 
allow refusal or revocation of license for little or no reason, or hidden 
reasons:  Perhaps the organization wouldn't "play footsie" with the 
government, giving up some information secretly and without a warrant.  
Potentially a large business goes down the drain.  Licensing is, therefore, 
an invitation to an essentially unlimited amount of coercion and manipulation.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com