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