UK Investigatory Powers Bill

keith gnupg at
Thu May 5 12:33:34 CEST 2016

On Thu, 2016-05-05 at 00:48 +0100, Steve Karmeinsky wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 11:15:47PM +0100, MFPA wrote:
> > Hash: SHA512
> > On Wednesday 4 May 2016 at 6:04:55 PM, in
> > <mid:1462381495.2764.63.camel at keith>, keith wrote:
> > > Personally I almost realise that
> > > some of this may be
> > > needed and/or indeed necessary
> > By contrast, I am 100% certain that none of it is needed. If "the
> > authorities" think they need access to some specific group or
> > individual's communications, they can employ plain old-fashioned
> > deception to have undercover agents worm their way in and get
> > themselves trusted and included in the encryption list.
> Unfortunately it doesn't matter if it's needed, it's becoming law (well
> it's already law under RIP, but DRIP 'expires' this year, so now
> enshrined under IP Act).
> It's a blanked law to ensure what's being done already is now legalised.
> Steve

Ah well... As you suggest they are looking to legalise past actions and
extend their capabilities in the future.

Resistance as they say is futile. The Public Bill Committee was 'loaded'
in favour of the Government with any and all Opposition amendments being
voted down. Basically it has gone through this stage without anything
being changed. I do not see much hope for anything happening in The
House of Lords or any time later so we are left with the ECtHR, Davis
and Williams. I guess I look forward to receiving a 'Technical
Capability Notice' in respect of my Raspberry PI e-mail server. 

Otherwise welcome to Full On Hard Core DPI across the whole of the UK
that is going to affect all internal traffic and anything transiting the
borders.... Not that you could trust them, or others, anyway but it
might be time to set up BGP to steer all traffic away from DataStrip



More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list