Slashdot Mirror
Debate Postponed On UK RIP Act Amendment
Harry Morgan writes: "
The UK Government has postponed debate on,
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data: Additional Public Authorities) Order 2002
which is their attempt to expand the number of organisations entitled to demand communications data under
the original RIP act, until Tuesday 18th June. For anyone who feels strongly about this, now is the time to
do something about it. You can fax your Member of Parliament from stand.org.uk a
site which gives comprehensive information about the order and the original act.
"
Also http://www.faxyourmp.com/, which does what it says on the box.
In Social Democratic Sweden
"Instead of next Tuesday (18th June), the Commons debate will now take place on the following Monday (24th June)"
Please, every UK resident who values their privacy use the form to fax your MP, or better yet write a letter (I know; archaic, but it might just get the attention of a technophobe MP or two in a way that a fax wouldn't).
Finally, a wake up call to the many Europeons that visit slashdot. I've seen lots of you from across the Atlantic poke fun of and jest at some of the rediculous measures being passed in the US, but unfortunatly, as we do, other countries tend to follow. So, PLEASE, PLEASE, if you're from the UK, don't just sit on your ass as many Americans have done. Write your representives! Express your concerns. Let them know how you feel about your privacy rights. Does anyone know of any way people outside the UK can help out? Im sick of these kind of policies happening in the world as of late. There has got to be a way where we can stand up not just as citizens against our own countries policies, but as an international community againt all injustices to civil rights.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
Nevermind the fact that more government departments are going to be added to the list (The Post Office and Food Standards Agency among them) how about the fact that it is going to massively increase the power of the people in these departments, are they are going to be vetted before the deparment is added to the approve list ? (i suspect not)
Also consider the legacy of Stephen Byers former minister for transport who was caught out emailing about the political slant of activists caught up in the Paddington rail crash, with the increased range of departments able to get at our electronic history / demand PGP keys etc what kind of requests will the government be making next time about people that are speaking against them ?
Use faxyourmp.com and do something about it
A monkey in every office....
How dare those britishers! They still think that us Yankees are a colony of theirs.
Now tell me, ye fine young lad, just who is my Parlimentary Representative for California?
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Here's a nasty theory: if the amendment, as drafted, is passed, it will make life virtually impossible for investigative journalists. If you want to dig into malfeasance or corruption in an NHS trust, local parish council, or just about any government department, under the revised RIPA terms even a low-level administrator can order your phone tapped, your email monitored, and generally track all your incoming information. Which undermines the ability of journalists to protect their sources.
In addition to phone and internet taps, the RIP Act covers private CCTV footage (there are over two million private CCTV cameras in the UK). This could potentially allow affected agencies to visually monitor journalists on their way to appointments with sources -- or to demand tape of meetings in order to identify sources. Basically, if this measure passes, anonymous whistle-blowing will become seriously difficult.
The last Conservative administration encountered a deluge of corruption scandals in their fourth election term; these were partly a result of genuine corruption, but also partially the consequence of the British press scenting blood in the water and homing in on every rumour. This measure sounds to me like New Labour, in conjunction with the Home Office, battening down the hatches and tightening the screws in order to reduce leaks.
HOWEVER.. for everyone else it's a snooper's charter. For example, just why does the local council need access to my traffic records? Do I have something to hide from them.. well YES as an active participant in local democracy I sometimes find myself at odds with people in power. Do I want them (for instance) to collect the email addresses of people I correspond with and build up a list of everybody who's a member of the same political party as I am? Nope - that information is highly confidential. Do I want them to probe the URLs I'm looking at when I'm maintaining political websites or sites that are critical of the administration? Nope - remember, sometimes the password is either encoded into the URL, or the raw URL itself can often bypass authentication.
That's just an example of legitimate political activity that will potentially come under scrutiny by corrupt people in local government.. and believe me, there are plenty of those about.
To an extent, I trust MI5 and other bodies because I'm not a terrorist or drug smuggler, but do I trust all those other bodies that will be able to snoop on me? Absolutely not.. this WILL be abused, but don't count on the perpatrators ever being brough to justice.
I might just change by name to Winston Smith and get it over with.
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
Yes, you are indeed right. The thing is, the "guilty until proven innocent" method is a direct violation of the Human Rights Act, which is law in the UK, and is one of those "unmutable" laws. Thus, you could theoretically get the law struck down using the human rights argument.
There's lately been alot of these messages going around that various goverments are planning on decreasing their citizens freedom of speech. All over the world "democratic" goverments are grasping to images of terrorists in an desperate attempt to make us citizens comply with further restrictions on our lives.
Just recently the european intelligence service Europool has been cited to propose that all companies running web-services should store passwords and browsed urls for five years. All emails and information about the use of chatlines are also to be put under supervision for the timeline of 5 years.
Even if the above won't pass as stated, it will probably induce a more limited standard on ISPs and us users.
What I find dangerous about the above is the notion that we are all guilty until proven innocent (if ever). And what happens if a country suddenly gets overthrown by a dictatorship or if some joke-posting about you wanting to blow up your mothers car gets you thrown into jail?
A large part of the problem is also the various people who do not see the long-term ramifications of nations wanting to log its citizens. They do not believe that such acts will not concern them, citing "they are not doing anything illegal". But what will happen if the ruling upper class gets its way? Will the proletarian grunts be mindless workers without a will to do a new revolution when that time comes?
People believe that the world is a great place to live in. But the upper-class people of France also believed that their world was perfect, until the revolution came. Revolutions are healthy for a world because it empowers the people to choose its ruling class, and not the ruling class to choose its citizens.
For a more new-age look into things, just take a look back a couple of years and take a peek on the anti-communist era of the western world. How many people were innocently framed during those times? It can all happen again!
=-kiOwA-> EOF
Fax your letter to your MP to tell them you'll RIP your ballot if they don't RIP the act apart!
RIP RIP to shreds!
The reading of RIP is strange whichever way you argue it:
Either: You are presumed guilty of Some Crime and you must prove your innocence by revealing your secret (which contradicts english laws over a milennia old "innocent until proved guilty")
Or: Keeping a secret from government is itself a crime (which is what RIP actually says), which contradicts the European convention on human rights ("right to privacy for your correspondance")
Interestingly, the victims won't even be able to argue this "illegality of laws" in court, because RIP now makes it a crime to tell anyone that you're being investigated.
Dear Rt Hon Michael Wier,
I am writing to protest against the "Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data: Additional Public Authorities) Order 2002" which is currently going through Parliament.
I am not alone in my belief that this is a gross invasion of privacy, and while most of us have nothing to hide, our personal business is no business of the state. The sheer principle of Big Brother spying on us all is unpleasant in itself, and it is fundamentally wrong for someone to monitor us.
I realise that the aim of this legislation is to catch out people like terrorists and "enemies of the state". But punishing everyone by restricting their freedom is not the way to do it.
Please, do not let Orwell's "1984" become true. Make a stand for the people - for freedom's sake.
You were expecting a sig?
Here are some ideas and examples of letters that you could use to base the letter/faxes to your MP. However please, please do not just copy and paste significant portions of the letter into your one. This does more harm than good since then the MPs will just ignore both of them and think that you don't care about the issue enought to write your own letter.
Steven Murdoch.
web: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/sjm217/
I'm pleased to see the debate being postponed because it will give my MP enough time to read my letter and understand it (I hope). This is what I sent:
Wednesday 12 June 2002
Dear Mr David Drew,
I am writing to you because I am very disturbed about the proposed 'Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data: Additional Public Authorities) Order 2002' which will grant additional Government departments, Local authorities, the NHS and other agencies access to my personal data, including the source and destination of emails sent to and from myself, logs of the websites that I visit, and details of my mobile phone usage (including times and dates of calls, and the locations where calls were made).
While I understand the need to protect national security and prevent crime, I am becoming increasingly unhappy about the infringements of civil liberties (including the right to privacy) that the government is taking under the guise of 'preventing terrorism'. These are issues that are rightly handled by the police and security services and not the organisations mentioned above.
Although Ministers are claiming that there will be safeguards put in place to protect the public from any abuse, I have yet to see anything convincing that explains why Government should have the right to invade my (and your) privacy in the first place, when the police already have those powers.
As a supporter of the Labour party in the last two General Elections, I have become increasingly concerned that the opinions of the electorate are being ignored, and that issues such as this that affect the public at large are being pushed though Parliment due to the massive majority that the government currently has.
I ask that as my elected representative, you will oppose these proposals.
Yours sincerely.
etc etc.
IF YOU ARE IN THE UK, YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!!!!!!! (IMHO)
This issue scares me so much. It has prompted me to write to my MP for the first time in years. Just the thought of agencies like the post office snooping my on line life scares me.
Take it to the limit..... u receive a letter from the post office saying "we see u regulary email these people [list follows] wouldnt it be so much more personal if you wrote them a letter?"
Crazy? they way things are going I wouldnt bet against it.
another Roadkill on the Information Superhighway
I actively campaigned against blair at the last election, didnt do much good though, we still got Ben Bradshaw in.
The sad part is he has brainwashed many in this country into believing whatever he says. Throw in "peadophile", "terroist" and "train crash" and you have the country begging him to enact more stringent rules.
Here is the letter which I sent to my MP on Thursday. Feel free to use it for ideas for your own letters/faxes/emails but please, please do not just copy and paste significant portions of the letter into your one. This does more harm than good since then the MPs will just ignore both of them and think that you don't care about the issue enought to write your own letter.
Mr Tony Worthington
MP for Clydebank & Milngavie
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Worthington,
I am writing to you to raise my concerns about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data: Additional Public Authorities) Order 2002 --- due to be debated in Parliament on Tuesday 18th June --- which permits additional agencies to obtain certain, otherwise confidential, information under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).
As with many other people I was concerned by the introduction of the RIPA, due to the extreme powers it granted law enforcement agencies, in particular sections 21--25 which permits the Police, Customs & Excise and the intelligence services to obtain "Communications Data". Importantly, to exercise these powers a warrant is not required and their use is not subject to judicial oversight. While these powers may be understandable for the purposes of serious crime prevention, the amendment will greatly extend the number organisations which are be permitted the same power. Would the original RIPA act have been passed if the organisations proposed by the amendment were present in the bill?
"Communications Data," as defined in the order, is more conventionally called Traffic Data. This includes the address and other data which is used by the communications system to transmit the message to the recipient. For example such information would include the list of telephone numbers called, from both mobile and ordinary telephones, the list of websites visited and goods purchased over the Internet, and the addresses of any email sent. In aggregation this information alone provides great power in tracking the behaviour of a person. Worryingly the same law also permits the location of anyone carrying a mobile phone, regardless of whether it is in use or not, to be identified to the precision of a few meters. This is due to the fact that mobile phone networks must monitor the location of handsets to allow a telephone connection to be made.
Since no judicial oversight exists and other safeguards are almost non-existent, the opportunity for these powers to be abused is significant. Perhaps for this reason, the original act limited organisations to the Police, Customs & Excise and the intelligence services. However the order proposed will permit many more organisations to obtain this information. A list is included below, however it includes local authorities (including fire authorities), the NHS, the Food Standards Agency and even Consignia/The Royal Mail as it is a "Universal Service Provider". What legitimate reason have organisations like these to the information described above? Were a criminal act suspected then the Police should be consulted, who already have the power to obtain such information under RIPA and other acts.
As previously mentioned no warrant is required, only the request of a sufficiently senior member of staff. The reasons by which this information can be requested are wide-ranging and include preventing/detecting any crime (regardless of how minor) or preventing public disorder, even "in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom". This is particularly of concerning since Consignia/The Royal Mail --- a commercial organisation --- is given access to information which extremely valuable and in many cases unavailable to other companies. The "economic well-being of the United Kingdom" would seem to permit commercial exploitation of this data.
Since the powers provided by RIPA are already available to all organisations though the law enforcement agencies as part of a criminal investigation, there is no advantage to the public for this order to be passed. In fact the introduction of the amendment would be a significant infringement of civil rights and an unnecessary intrusion of privacy. Furthermore, the protections provided to personal data stored by local government and the other organisations mentioned in the amendment will almost certainly be less robust than those provided by law enforcement agencies. This raises the possibility that traffic data obtained through the amended RIPA could be accessed by unauthorised users, by exploiting flaws in security mechanisms implemented by organisations not well enough equipped to maintain a high level of security. This situation is plausible and could facilitate crimes such as identity theft, or in extreme (but still plausible) cases result in a threat to national security.
I would urge you to prevent this order from being passed and further, to encourage a review of the existing RIPA to ensure that the use of the powers it provides is well regulated and monitored. To prevent abuse, the spying on of citizens should be limited to only those organisations who can demonstrate that the information is essential cannot be obtained through other means. Also monitoring of electronic communication, even traffic data, should be subject to same authorising structure as is in place for covert human intelligence such as stakeouts and wiretaps, and hence require judicial approval.
I would greatly appreciate a reply which addresses my concerns over this urgent matter, and states your opinion on the order currently being proposed.
Yours sincerely
Steven Murdoch.
Additional relevant public authorities for the purposes of section 25(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Government departments
1. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
2. The Department of Health.
3. The Home Office.
4. The Department of Trade and Industry.
5. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
6. The Department for Work and Pensions.
7. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for Northern Ireland.
Local authorities
8. Any local authority within the meaning of section 1 of the Local Government Act 1999.
9. Any fire authority as defined in the Local Government (Best Value) Performance Indicators Order 2000.
10. A council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.
11. A district council within the meaning of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972.
NHS bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland
12. The Common Services Agency of the Scottish Health Service.
13. The Northern Ireland Central Services Agency for the Health and Social Services.
Other bodies
14. The Environment Agency.
15. The Financial Services Authority.
16. The Food Standards Agency.
17. The Health and Safety Executive.
18. The Information Commissioner.
19. The Office of Fair Trading.
20. The Postal Services Commission.
21. The Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency.
22. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
23. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary.
24. A Universal Service Provider within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000.
Steven Murdoch.
web: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/sjm217/
This is just more encouragement for people to adopt strong crypto like GnuPG. Anyone who has the resources can read your internet traffic if they want to anyway, as you will know if you've worked at an ISP. Allowing more groups to legally do so will catch out the criminals who don't know what they're doing (and let's face it, a camel trader from Afghanistan, who whilst maybe being willing to give up his life for the cause, has no idea about crypto). The most dangerous people are the very people who are least likely to be able to protect there secrets.
So here's the deal: we let Consignia monitor the unprotected messages, and anyone who needs to keep secrets can use GnuPG. I don't know about you, but I think this is one case where we can afford to give up some temporary freedom for greater safety, particularly as it doesn't affect us as much as it affects the more clueless of the criminals.
http://www.faxyourmp.com/
Issues to cover when:
1) represents an erosion of civil liberties and basic human rights.
2) reduces the competativeness of UK IT Businesses in the International arena.
3) digital communications should treated consistently with traditional/analogue communications such as letters and phone calls, intercepts should require a warrent issued by a judge.
When coupled with other Government policies such as position on Software Patents, Government position is anti-IT.
Point out that this anti-IT position is so significant to you it WILL effect you voting intentions.
This is the letter I sent my MP to help you decide on what are the important points. As other have pointed out If you really care about this issue please take the time to rewrite it, rather than use it as a form letter.
Martin
---
Dear Mr Alan Johnson,
I write as a Computing Professional and life long Labour supporter/voter who strongly opposes the pending RIPE Statutory Instrument and who is greatly concerned by government policy in the fields of Information Technology and Digital Communications.
The RIPE Act, the pending RIPE statutory instrument and pending Software Patent legislation are doubly damaging to this country; firstly by eroding the basic freedoms and fundamental rights; and secondly are at the expense of the competitiveness of the UK IT sector. A sector set to be a driving force in the world trade and where the UK currently competes on a world stage and leads in many specialised sub-sectors.
The RIPE Act and pending RIPE SI represent a gross invasion of individual rights to privacy and is completely counter to the principals of the Data Protection Act which can be rightly held up as a World Class example of good IT legislation. The Data Protection Act protects both individual rights and competitiveness of UK IT businesses.
If legislation similar to RIPE where proposed for traditional/analogue communications systems such as letters or phone calls, it would be deemed to be completely unacceptable without a second though. There is no requirement on the Post Office to photocopy every letter it carries or BT to record all telephone calls and then store these copies for seven years. However this burden has been placed on service providers who operate in the digital communications sector.
The only difference between analogue and digital communications is the perception that blanket surveillance is possible with digital communication, whereas previously with analogue communication this was simply impossible. However RIPE's requirement to store all '[digital] communications data' for 7 years is also impossible both in practice and theory. The requirement to store transient data that exists for only a few moments and potentially changes thousands (or millions) of times a second actually confounds the laws of physics in some circumstances. The amount of storage space required simply does not exist, and is unlikely to ever exist.
This cost implications of RIPE to Digital Communications service providers are massive, in some circumstances increasing the cost base by several orders of magnitude and are consequently extremely damaging to the competitiveness of whole IT sector.
The massive expansion proposed by the RIPE SI in scope to cover essentially ever Government Department and Agency and not just law enforcement draws obvious parallels between RIPE and the Ministry of Information from George Orwell's 1984. This worries me greatly because it is the thin end of a wedge towards an authoritarian state.
The pending expansion of the patents system to cover computer software is also potentially extremely damaging to the UK IT sector. US companies have been allowed by a poorly managed patent system to accumulate large number of patents on everyday practices, many actually invented in the UK.
Consider the Internet, which is built using a technology called a 'packet switched network' which was invented at Cambridge University but patented in the US. Public key encryption, the mainstay of secure ecommerce was invented in the UK at GCHQ but was also patented in the US.
The acceptance of patents on computer software will force UK companies to honour 30 years of US software patents. Without a corresponding library of patents for reciprocal agreements UK IT will be forced to pay patent fees to US corporations placing them at a considerable commercial disadvantage.
Martin Spamer
---
The goverment has no business monitoring the every single detail of what you do.
Why is that so difficult to understand for some???
IANAL but write like a drunk one.