"Rubbish in, rubbish out" applies to all surveys, particularly self-selected ones. Please do not complete this one unless you are interested and have something to add. Each careful entry adds value for those that follow. Provided the sample size is adequate, you will get a chance to see the results so far.

Survey No. 9

Regulation of Investigatory Powers

Necessary defense or unwarranted snooping?

The government's recent attempt to widen the scope of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act gained brief press attention until it was withdrawn by David Blunkett.

The original July 2000 Act, however, remains a contentious piece of legislation on which many people hold strong opinions.

This questionnaire seeks to discover, and to record, your's.
1. Please express your agreement (or otherwise) with the each of the following statements:
Code 1: strongly agree, 2: Agree, 3: Neutral, 4: disagree, 5: Strongly Disagree
 
 
  1 2 3 4 5
Any steps that help combat crime and terrorism are justifiable  
The surveillance measures contained in the RIP 2000 Act are not justified by any likely benefits  
RIP's surveillance measures are unpleasant, but justified by the threat of global terrorism  
The RIP act is only justifiable if it can be expected to be an effective weapon against global terrorism  
Thwarting RIP surveillance is fairly easy for anybody with modest IT knowledge  
The criminals and terrorists who are the stated targets of the RIP Act are likely to be most motivated and best equipped to thwart it.  
Inward investment may be reduced because of overseas company's wariness about the surveillance provisions of the RIP Act  
The equipment and software required by RIP will impose higher costs, reduce service reliability and compromise performance  
Unless RIP provisions are imposed on every mailserver (megacorp, thru SME, to single ADSL user) they will be unfair and irrelevant  
The (pre 2000) legislation which covered telephone tapping was inadequate to the Internet age  
Those provisions of the Act that require decryption keys to be produced on demand get perilously close to reversing the burden of proof  
In practice, this act will simply swamp the security authorities with more information than they will have resources to analyse  
The provisions of the act which make a surveillance order a secret -- even to a court of law -- are particularly pernicious  
2. Please add any comments you may have here
 
 
3. Please add your email address (as proof of authenticity)
It will not be harvested for spam.
 
 
4. If you have supplied an e-mail address, would you be prepared for it to be furnished (with the others) as evidence of the survey's authenticity and coverage?
 
 
Yes
No
 
     
 
Survey © 2002 Ralph Seeley   Designed by Ralph Seeley
Survey Engine: lightly modified version of   p h p E S P  by James Flemer Copyright and Conditions