The Labour Party
Extracted from http://www.labour.org.uk/views/info%2Dhighway/content.html 

Begin Extract

It is important that privacy is rigorously protected over the new networks,
for both personal and commercial reasons. We do not accept the "clipper
chip" argument developed in the United States for the authorities to be able
to swoop down on any encrypted message at will and unscramble it. 

The only power we would wish to give to the authorities, in order to pursue
a defined legitimate anti-criminal purpose, would be to enable decryption to
be demanded under judicial warrant (in the same way that a warrant is
required in order to search someone's home). 

Attempts to control the use of encryption technology are wrong in principle,
unworkable in practice, and damaging to the long-term economic value of the
information networks. There is no fundamental difference between an
encrypted file and a locked safe. A safe may be effectively impregnable in
that the effort taken to open it would destroy the contents. An encryption
algorithm, similarly, may be effectively unbreakable. 

Furthermore, the rate of change of technology and the ease with which ideas
or computer software can be disseminated over the Internet and other
networks make technical solutions unworkable. Adequate controls can be put
in place based around current laws covering search and seizure and the
disclosure of information. It is not necessary to criminalise a large
section of the network-using public to control the activities of a very
small minority of law-breakers. 

In all other areas, privacy must be rigorously protected, particularly in
the light of the potential for secondary, micro-marketing on the new
networks. The Data Protection Act already applies to personal information
held in relation to computerised services and providers should be aware of
their responsibilities under the Act. We would wish to consult with the
Registrar to ensure that the provisions of the Act provide adequate
protection for new digital services. 

As long as sources were only traced when specific legal permission for
defined reasons had been given, and this process were openly monitored, we
believe the arrangements set out above would provide the most appropriate
balance between freedom of speech and freedom from harm. 

End Extract