> I think this is an issue of serious interest to many of the subscribers
> of these lists; it would effectively ban a lot of security-related tools
> that many of use now find indispensable, e.g. ssh, pgp.
>
[snip]
> Licensing will be mandatory:
>
> We intend that it will be a criminal offence for a body to offer
> or provide licensable encryption services to the UK public without
> a valid licence
>
> The scope of licensing is broad:
>
> Public will be defined to cover any natural or legal person in the
UK.
>
> Encryption services is meant to encompass any service, whether
provided
> free or not, which involves any or all of the following cryptographic
> functionality - key management, key recovery, key certification, key
> storage, message integrity (through the use of digital signatures)
key
> generation, time stamping, or key revocation services (whether for
> integrity or confidentiality), which are offered in a manner which
> allows a client to determine a choice of cryptographic key or allows
> the client a choice of recipient/s.
Maybe I am just confused here, but it would appear to me that ssh and
encrypted file systems would still be allowable, as long as you were
the only person involved. PGP is obviously out, but is my translation
here otherwise correct?
rOn
[mod: In the "stricter" reading, "ssh" and encrypted file
systems both
perform key management. Remember that they probably didn''t want to
prevent you from running ssh, as you are doing now, but the law is
formulated so broadly that they could prosecute you for it if they
think you are a bad guy. That situation lands innocent guys in
jail. -- REW]
--
"A computer scientist is a mechanism for turning coffee into
applications." -?
"There''s a hole in my Tardis! My poor baby. WHO PUT THE HOLE IN MY
BABY???"-doc
My doctor told me to work out with dumbells. Shall we fence? <''D
/ C /
(Shameless plug for USU Fencing Club: || epee, foil, sabre & ()-^ --+-\\
http://www.usu.edu/~fencing/ ) || shinai fencer / > | \
