Euro-Clipper

I don't think I've seen this here (but it was on a bunch of security
newsgoups...)

   - Ian

Forwarded message:
> 
> According to an article in `Communications Week International', the
> 34-nation Council of Europe has agreed to outlaw strong encryption
> products which do not make keys available to governments.
> 
> The article, `Euro-Clipper chip scheme proposed', is on the front page
> of the magazine's issue 151, dated 18th September, which arrived in my
> mail this morning.
> 
> It relates that the policy was approved on the 8th September at
> Strasbourg by the Council, and coincides with an attempt by the
> European Commission to propose a pan-European encryption standard. The
> Council - unlike the Commission - has no statutory powers to enforce
> its recommendations. However, Peter Csonka, the chairman of the
> committee that drafted the document (and an administrative officer at
> the Council's division of crime problems) says that `it is rare for
> countries to reject Council of Europe recommendations'.
> 
> The proposal would make telecomms operators responsible for decrypting
> traffic and supplying it to governments when asked.  It would also
> `change national laws to enable judicial authorities to chase hackers
> across borders'.
> 
> Opposition to this measure was expressed by Mike Strezbek, VP
> responsible for European telecomms at JP Morgan, who said that his
> organisation `will challenge any attempt to limit the power of our
> network encryption technologies very strongly'.
> 
> Czonka said that the Council had given consideration to business
> interests but had tries to strike a balance between privacy and
> justice. However, `it remains possible that cryptography is available
> to the public which cannot be deciphered,' his document says. `This
> might lead to the conclusion to put restrictions on the possession,
> distribution, or use of cryptography.'
> 
> Apparently another international organisation, the OECD, has called a
> conference of its members in December to devise a strategy on
> encryption.
> 
> I for one will be making clear to my MP that his stand on this issue
> will determine how I cast my ballot at the next election. I note that
> John Major stated in a 1994 parliamentary written reply to David Shaw
> MP that the government did not intend to legislate on data encryption.
> I am disppointed that government policy has changed to the point of
> supporting the Council of Europe, and that this change has sneaked 
> through during the parliamentary recess.
> 
> Ross Anderson
> 
> 
> 
>

| I don't think I've seen this here (but it was on a bunch of security
| newsgoups...)
| 
|    - Ian

It's time for a European wing of the cypherpunks list.
Europeans - unite!

:-(

And they even have the indecency to immediately propose
to outlaw 'strong encryption for the people' - no grace
period there.


/Christian

> It relates that the policy was approved on the 8th September at
> Strasbourg by the Council, and coincides with an attempt by the
> European Commission to propose a pan-European encryption standard. The
> Council - unlike the Commission - has no statutory powers to enforce
> its recommendations. However, Peter Csonka, the chairman of the
> committee that drafted the document (and an administrative officer at
> the Council's division of crime problems) says that `it is rare for
> countries to reject Council of Europe recommendations'.

It may be rare for a council of Europe recommendation to be rejected
but that is because they can be ignored. Actually the Dutch have
completely ignored the edicts concerning Drugs, the British routinely
ignore anything they don't like in the EU where there is a 
parliamentary element. Don't expect them to snap to attention 
at the council of Europe.

Until there is a law actually passed in the UK there is no 
change in the status quo, same for the other european countries.

> I for one will be making clear to my MP that his stand on this issue
> will determine how I cast my ballot at the next election.

So you would rather have a Tory government plus a promise to permit
crypto than a Labour government plus a promise to repeal the 
criminal justice act? Be real, even the freedom issue alone there
are other factors to weigh in the balance. Plus any Tory promise
would have to be considered as trustworthy as their line at the
last election on taxes.

I can possibly see a choice between LibDem and Labour on this 
issue alone, I don't think that many people will consider it
the major issue at the next election though.

On the other hand you might be able to influence a person
looking to become a candidate in a consitituency. One vote
on a selection committee can make a big difference. 

In other words if you want to make cryptography an issue you
will have to hack it at the party level.


	Phill