Escrow rejected by UK Select Comittee 33
evilandi writes "This BBC article reports on how the UK Trade and Industry Select Committee have condemned the British government over the proposed E-Commerce Bill. Now that Key Escrow has been 99% dropped, they don't see the point of the bill at all, they're "disappointed that the government should still hold a candle for key escrow", and they're concerned about proposed changes to the Interception of Communications Act (tapping). See also stand.org.uk
" Wow-intelligent officials. Someone pinch me.
Re:Anti-politician bias and Slashdot (Score:1)
A six year old can understand that, why can't congress?
Imagine the world spoke the same language (as they pretty much do in the software world, being M$ or Un*x) and the US created 90% of all the popular TV shows, they would believe they have some leverage to force the rest of the world to conform to their agenda. Arrogance?
Intelligent Officials. (Score:2)
Put me down for another planet, thanks.
Re:good ol' UK (Score:2)
If you ask me, the government of the USA already "does" way too much. Or do you think the laws that we have now are so brilliant that we need more of them?
Not me. Every time the head of state becomes unpopular with his party (or, more likely, with part of the coalition that put him there) the government collapses and has to be reformed. No thanks. Parties are way too powerful in this country as it is; a parliamentary system would only give them more. What incentive would/does the prime minister/president/grand poobah ever have to oppose anything the legislature does, considering that he's one of them and relies on them entirely for his power? I'll agree with you that things - lots of things! - could definitely be improved in the USA, but IMO a parliamentary system is not the way to go. Check out http://news.b bc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_347000/347
Anti-politician bias and Slashdot (Score:3)
Indeed, one could probably generalize this to any specialization, be it technology, medicine, social science, etc. This isn't entirely their fault, either. In order for this to be corrected, the lawmakers/politicians would have to become experts on whatever subjects are applicable to the laws they vote on. I hope I don't have to explain that this isn't possible.
When the slashdot community (a technologicly-informed community) sees lawmakers making bad decisions, they (collectively) tend to get upset, knowing full well that a poor decision on the part of, (and I hate to use this word), "ignorant" politicians is going to adversely affect them. One only needs to look at all of the hassle the U.S. Encription-Export laws have caused to understand why.
* - this is a generalization. There are some technology-informed politicians. But the point is that not all (in many cases, most) politicians are not informed about the consequences of the laws they propose/vote-on as they should be.
Mandate Encryption Technology (Score:5)
What we need to be doing is mandating the use of strong encryption, at least to companies expecting to do business with the government. Application used by the government should have strong encryption options where applicable. This should drive the adoption of strong cryptography in the private sector. Any government outside the USA concerned about USA spying should be very interested in getting the general population to adopt encryption technology. Otherwise US companies will continue to win those huge contracts with bids only barely lower than their European counterparts.
Re:Anti-politician bias and Slashdot (Score:1)
A part of their job (lawmakers) is to recognize the limits of their knowledge, and seek advice when and where needed.
Many of the things that make me most upset with lawmakers is a basic failure of abstract logic. You don't have to be a crypto expert to understand that: The entire world has access to non-U.S. strong crypto, therfore export restrictions won't deprive the world of strong crypto. If the words scare them, they should read: The entire world has access to non-U.S. televisions, therefore, export restrictions won't deprive the world of televisions.
A six year old can understand that, why can't congress?
Re:Anti-politician bias and Slashdot (Score:1)
Arrogance?
Probably.
Hopefully, this bodes well for the EU (Score:2)
Whoever's in charge in Washington won't be happy though. I remember how they got the EC to kill encrypted digital cellular phones way back in 89 or 90.
Temporary Tyrants (Score:2)
While other parliamentary systems have proportional representation, the UK does not. This means that the majority party in Parliament received its majority even though it did not necessarily receive a majority of votes. Lady Thatcher ruled with an iron hand without a majority. The current parliamentary system in Britain makes the Prime Minister a temporary tyrant who can only be stopped if the backbenchers of his own party rebel. Given that party discipline is traditionally much stronger in the UK than the US, that is normally very unlikely.
Proportional representation gets rid of minority-elected government problem, but replaces it with unstable coalitions (Italy's government falls about once a year, Israel just elected representatives from a dozen parties to their parliament).
I doubt that we would reign in the CIA and NSA if we had a parliamentary system. After all, Congress and the President have already approved what they do, why would that stop?
officials? these are our elected representatives (Score:1)
I wonder how much of this was to do with stand.org.uk and the @dopt an MP thing?
I still don't like the anti-politician bias on slashdot, I must say.
Re:Temporary Tyrants (Score:1)
Particularly during John Major's last term (before Tony Blair) when a series of bielections whittled away the Conservative majority.
One of the significant problems is that on domestic issues there is very little difference between the Conservatives and Labour in Britain who are both now essentially centre right parties,a s are our third party the Liberal democrats which leaves little scope for proper democratic process IMHO.
I think this proabbly relates to the post about lack of faith in politicians.
In related news, I ehre the Home Office in the UK wants to erode the right to trial by jury now, so don't start thinking all is well with our parliamentary process.
And of course under devolution it would seem we are moving towards PR politics.
Re:Anti-politician bias and Slashdot (Score:4)
Note that the member of Congress sit on many different committees and sub-committees. They are then allotted (i.e., budgeted) to have x-number of staffers to do the bulk of the committee's work. If the science and technology committees were the one's drafting, let's say, the encryption legislation, I believe that you would see better laws.
Fundamentally, there is a problem attracting intelligent, technology/science oriented ppl to work as congressional staffers. The pay is not that great and the work load is staggering. Furthermore, ppl who are good with technology/science generally frown upon paper pushing work, and paper pushing ppl. We would much rather choose to be doing what we love; hacking, putting stuff together, taking stuff apart, etc...
Sadly, when was the last time you heard a nerd/geek say that they wanted to work for Congress?
that way breeds corruption (Score:1)
Victory for Privacy! (Score:2)
Re:Anti-politician bias and Slashdot (Score:1)
Indeed, but neither will happen, because politicians want to be seen as "doing something" about problems; if they passed better and fewer laws, they would be perceived as "doing nothing." Far better to engage in writing frivolous, pointless laws that have marginal effects on reality and/or won't achieve their stated goals.
Bear in mind... (Score:4)
that's like how the US system was supposed to work (Score:2)
Re:that way breeds corruption (Score:2)
And as to your comment about the upper seats you get by heraldry - I admit perhaps this isn't the best system. But the whole point is they're not voted in - having them voted would simply produce another government. They wouldn't have any aims, interests or ideals different to that of a government. They are there to act as a safety barrier for legislation they feel would be damaging, so what good is having the same government look at something twice? I would be perfectly willing to accept alternative systems, but at the moment it works - perhaps not perfectly, but it works.
Oh and while I'm at it, God save the Queen and all.
Microsoft is not the answer, NO is the answer. Microsoft is the question.
- Andy
Link to the full committee report: (Score:5)
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk
One of the best quotes is: "Although DTI has been willing to listen to what industry and others have had to say about cryptography, we have gained the impression that they have not, until recently, taken much notice of what has been said to them."
Re:Anti-politician bias and Slashdot (Score:1)
True, but if they did, there would be fewer laws and better laws. Both of these would be Good Things, imo.
g
Politicians in the UK (Score:1)
cf The decision to not fund or promote AI research.
STAND and @dopt an MP (Score:1)
Re:Hopefully, this bodes well for the EU (Score:1)
As for encrypted digital phones, that was a selling point for digital networks a few years ago, so IMHO it didn't get stamped on. Of course I bet the encryption is awful
anti-politition is closer to a cultural bias (Score:1)
obviously the strength/crulity of the jab depends on how good/bad your mayor/comminsinor/congressmen is. my father held office at one point and he was pretty good at it (read: most people liked him).
but there are some pretty moronic people elected into office.
most people hide their lunitics, in the south, we elect them
Re:officials? these are our elected representative (Score:2)
It's not bias; it's judgment based on experience. We've seen too much damage done by politicians who are ignorant, self-important, pushy, and vicious toward anyone who gets in their way or refuses to conform to their model. In short, a lot of them are what the bullies described in the Hellmouth threads a few weeks back grow up to be.
Admittedly, the politicians who fit this description cast an unfair cloud over the other 5%.