[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[FYI] (Fwd) Guardian 31/7/2000: "'I arrest you for emailing'"
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: [FYI] (Fwd) Guardian 31/7/2000: "'I arrest you for emailing'"
- From: "Axel H Horns" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:58:12 +0000
- Comment: This message comes from the debate mailing list.
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
------- Forwarded message follows -------
From: "Caspar Bowden" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "FIPR News Archive \(E-mail\)" <email@example.com>,
"FIPR-AC \(E-mail\)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Ukcrypto \(E-mail\)" <email@example.com>
Subject: Guardian 31/7/2000: "'I arrest you for emailing'"
Date sent: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 02:04:30 +0100
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
tml 'I arrest you for emailing' The RIP Act, passed last week, means
nothing you write in an email will ever be private
Monday July 31, 2000
On Friday the Queen graciously gave her assent to the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers bill after it was fast-tracked through parliament
with the agreement of the two main parties. So the RIP bill is now the
RIP Act, yet another piece of legislation which will prevent
journalists from operating freely in the public interest.
On the face of it, the act was proposed for the best of reasons: to
ensure that the formidable array of the authorities' investigatory
powers accord with human rights. Unless there is good reason, our
communications cannot be monitored.
But what amounts to a good reason? Terrorism, drug-dealing, serious
crime, tax evasion and that greatest of catch-alls: the national
interest. There lies the problem. What the government and its various
authorities - whether police, customs and excise or security services
- regard as the national interest is all too often about the state's
interest rather than the public good.
I'll come back to that. Let's consider the main threat faced by
newspapers from the draconian powers of this act. Emails, now the most
used form of communication between journalists, and between them and
their contacts and sources, are no longer safe.
>From this day on, without our knowledge, the authorities can
messages. They will know who said what to whom about what well before
the information can be published. Indeed, by having that knowledge in
advance they may well be able to take measures to prevent its
This isn't far-fetched. A good example occurred recently when the
renegade MI5 officer David Shayler emailed the Observer and the
Guardian. When the police - claiming to be acting in the national
interest - tried to compel the papers to hand over the emails, the
request was refused.
A judge ordered the papers to comply, a ruling that was overturned by
the court of appeal in a masterly judgment by Lord Justice Judge which
stressed the rights of a free press to investigate matters on behalf
of the public without compromising its informants.
If the RIP Act had been on the statute book at the time, that case
would never have reached court because the police would have used the
act's powers to obtain the emails secretly regardless of such rights.
It wouldn't have helped if the emails had been encrypted. Under the
new act, the authorities can demand the key to any encrypted message.
In other words, the RIP Act makes all traffic over the internet in
Britain available to the state if a body, however flimsy its
suspicion, decides to apply for the right to intercept emails.
Nor will the authorities need a legal warrant to do so. Interception
will require only the home secretary's approval while the monitoring
of traffic can be "self-authorised" by whoever decides it is
necessary. Demands for someone to provide an encryption key can be
authorised by a customs and excise official, a chief constable, a
magistrate, a judge or the home secretary.
The passing of the RIP Act denies everyone the freedom, and the
privacy, we thought the internet had provided. It robs journalists and
their sources - including that most potent and essential of tipsters,
the whistle-blower - of their rights and, quite possibly, threatens
Despite significant concessions made during the passage of the bill,
it is still badly conceived and may well prove counter-productive.
Internet experts believe that users will soon employ a range of
esoteric "privacy tools", enabling them to camouflage emails and hide
files, to avoid compliance.
In what appears to have been panic at the growth of the internet and
the freedom enjoyed by its users, the British government has accorded
itself powers which no other western country has dared to take.
Yet this, remember, is the government that came to power crowing about
its commitment to end secrecy.
Instead its record has been a disgrace. Jack Straw last week finally
announced that the Home Office will consult media bodies to ensure
that future legislation which does "impact on press and media
reporting" does not create "unintended restrictions".
What a cheek. The sound of the stable door being closed long after the
horses have bolted is deafening. So far we have seen a milksop freedom
of information proposal, a worrying data protection act, a thoughtless
youth and criminal evidence act, a potentially harmful terrorism act
and a restrictive local government act.
Now comes the RIP Act. Consultation is supposed to happen before, Mr
Straw, not afterwards.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIP)
What is it? Originated by Jack Straw, RIP sets out the government's
plans to allow official surveillance of internet traffic. Published in
February 2000, it passed through the Lords in July and becomes law in
The government line? RIP gives police and security services new powers
to monitor and intercept emails and websites, channels through which
online criminals, terrorists, paedophiles and pornographers have
traditionally been able to communicate.
Some data on computers, such as child pornography, is often encrypted.
The bill makes it illegal to refuse a police request to decrypt data.
All security service warrants for data interception will require prior
government approval, bringing the UK into line with other EU
The anti-government line? The cost and maintenance of necessary
surveillance equipment will be passed on to the internet user,
threatening e-commerce in Britain and billions in lost business.
Every UK internet service provider will be responsible for the
installation of remote-controlled black boxes relaying all data
passing through its computers to a special monitoring centre in MI5's
HQ, the Government Technical Assistance Centre.
Unlike telephone tapping, which can be specified, RIP allows the
government to monitor all UK internet traffic - sites downloaded,
address books, emails, discussion groups and chat rooms - without a
warrant, which could be considered a contravention of the privacy
requirements of the European convention on human rights. There are
two-year sentences for forgetting passwords, and for failing to
surrender or losing keys used to encrypt communications data. The
burden of proof is reversed from the prosecution to the defence.
Then there are five-year sentences for telling anyone that you have
been served with an order to surrender encryption keys or hand over
encrypted material in "plaintext" form. The RIP bill can justifiably
be called a total infringement of civil liberties. From October, no
one in the UK will be able to feel free from government surveillance.
International precedents? Only Russia, Singapore and Malaysia have
similar laws. There is nothing comparable in the US. A recent Irish
law makes it illegal for government to access commercial encryption
keys. France has relaxed controls on domestic encryption, while
Germany is opposed to restrictions on citizens' use of encryption.
------- End of forwarded message -------