Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Debate Postponed On UK RIP Act Amendment 103

Posted by timothy from the keep-delaying-please dept.
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. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Debate Postponed On UK RIP Act Amendment More

Debate Postponed On UK RIP Act Amendment

Comments Filter:

  • Fax MP (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tomasdore ( 222625 ) <tomasdore&yahoo,co,uk> on Sunday June 16, 2002 @04:20AM (#3710341) Homepage Journal
    Also http://www.faxyourmp.com/ [faxyourmp.com], which does what it says on the box.

    • Re:Fax MP (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jweatherley ( 457715 )
      That's what I did when this unholy bill was first announced asking why any of the listed groups [hmso.gov.uk] could have access to emails, mobile phone and ISP logs without so much as a warrant. Read that list - it's beyond belief what they're trying to get away with. The only one I can see a justification for is the Home Office as they deal with crime and internal security.

      Within two days I received a reply signed by the man himself [labour.org.uk] which suggested that he agreed that there were privacy concerns here and he has forwarded my concerns to the home secretary [homeoffice.gov.uk]. So I await Blunkett's justification for all this with baited breath.

      It's nice to see that they have delayed the debate but the House of Commons is so stuffed with New Labour drones that they will be able to whip whatever fascist legislation they want through there. Still if this proposed legislation does concern you write to your MP [faxyourmp.com] and let your views be known. Who knows maybe even New Labour will deign to listen to the electorate if enough people kick up a fuss.

    • And if you're using www.faxyourmp.com [faxyourmp.com] please see what they say about not sending form letters [faxyourmp.com].

    • Dear Mr Vernon Coaker,
      I am writing due to my deep concern about the RIPA bill due for debate on Monday (24th June). Never before have I been so horrified and, yes, frightened, by an act of parliament as I am about this one. The potential for abuse for what this law will allow is tremendous, and will affect us all - even you.
      The bill will allow amost anyone in the civil service to read your email, examine your 'phone records and view the list of which web-sites you have visited - without a warrant, and with precious little accountability. The sheer number of people (untrained and inexperienced in the handling of secret data) who will soon have access to this information means that it will become de-facto public knowledge (unscrupilous post office workers (for example) could make a mint selling such data to journalists and private investigators).
      Ask yourself: would you mind having records and transcripts of ALL emails, faxes and phone calls you send or receive available to the media, or perhaps even Conservative central office?
      I would like to end by questioning what exactly this law is expected to achive? It will not aid in the arrest of on-line child molesters (it is much easier and more efficient to monitor web-sites and IRC chat-rooms) nor will it have any effect in the fight against terrorism (terrorists will not be foolish enough to use electronic telecomunications). So this leaves me wondering - why exactly does my government want widespread blanket surviallence of the entire population?
      Please, it is within your power to try to prevent this bill becoming law. It is inconceivable that the British public WISH to be spied upon in this mannor. I therefore request that, as my elected represenative, you do everything in your power to fight this distrubing bill.
      Thank you very much for your time,
      Jim
    • Dear Miss Kate Hoey,

      You probably know by now about the statutory instument which is due to come before the House of
      Commons next Tuesday, by which the powers given by the RIP bill to demand communication 'traffic'
      information will be extended from the initial short list of police, secret services, the inland revenue and customs and excise to add twenty four new bodies or classes of body.

      The new list includes local councils, assorted government agencies, the NHS and Consignia.
      Bear in mind that 'traffic data' includes not only the sendors and recipients of your emails, phone calls and text messages, but also where you logged on, what sites you browsed (domain, not web page, which should be just enough for people to draw 'fellow-travellor' type conclusions) and where your mobile phone is at any time (and with foreseeable technological trends such as the imminent convergence of GPS and cellphones - so handy for emergency calls or locating the nearest pizza - this may eventually locate your mobile to specific rooms, if not to the nearest metre).

      Given the number of these bodies, how will it be possible to monitor suspected leaks or abuses?
      For instance, whatever we may think about the result of Brian Paddick's drugs policy, I'm sure that you were as horrified as I was by tabloids trawling a £100,000 reward for 'the dirt' on his private life. With what confidence can you assure me, or yourself, that commercial organisations or wealthy but paranoid individuals won't be able to increase their ability to pry into the affairs of others through the illicit purchase of traffic information?

      The recent conviction of two police officers who used unauthorised police computer inquiries as part of their plot to kidnap, torture and possibly murder a businessman's alleged blackmailer shows that classified law and order information can leak into the realm of crime and initimidation. Now think what possibilities this order raises for the politically or commercially powerful to track down whistle blowers, and establish the web of relationships surrounding internal or external 'trouble-makers' in order to identify their point of maximum vulnerability.

      I hope you share my conviction that the interests of law and order, and privacy are equally at risk here, and that you will feel able to represent this constituent, at least, by questioning thoroughly the ends, means and consequences of this instrument.

      Yours sincerely,

      Francis Norton.

    • I sent the following off to mine last week:

      I am writing to you today because I am concerned about the proposals to extend the range of agencies able to access traffic data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act section 25(1) as reported in today's Guardian.

      Personally, I feel that the Act should never have been passed in the first place, although I accept the need for some sort of snooping powers by the police etc.

      However, to extend the reach of the Act to include a variety of government departments, local authorities and agencies as diverse as the Food Standards Agency and the Postal Services Commission is pushing it a bit too far.

      Although the Prime Minister's official spokesman is quoted as saying '...I think it is also important to recognise the safeguards which are in place. This data can only be sought if it is judged to be necessary in the interests of national security; for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or preventing disorder; or in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK; ...' this looks to be deliberately fuzzy in definition.

      There are precedents in the US where such powers have been used on 'fishing trips' such as the FBI trying to obtain details of book purchases by individuals.

      While it is one of the functions of the state to protect the people from terrorism and serious crime, these proposals do not seem to be doing a good job of protecting the people from the state. Extending the reach of this Act would open up further avenues for abuse of power to another 24 agencies. Surely the government's stated policy of 'joined-up government' should enable routes of communication between the agencies concerned and those which already have investigatory power under RIPA, rendering the proposals unnecessary.

      Regards...

      I got this reply:

      Thank you for you letter of 11 June. I share your concerns about this Order to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and feel that the number of authorities that may have access to emails and phone calls is quite excessive. I accept that there is a need for the state to combat terrorism and serious crime, but do not believe that that entails local authorities and bodies such as the Environment Agency having access to our phone calls and emails without any safeguards for individuals, such as Court Orders being necessary.

      Please be assured that I will oppose this measure.

      Yours...

      That's one vote against, hopefully.

      © RIP Act. We know who you are, where you live, what websites you visit, who you email, who you phone, who you write to. All we need to find this out is a request from a "senior" member of the secret services or the police. You have no right to appeal. Do not pass go, do not collect £200.

      Coming soon, unless you lobby your MP!!!***
      -24 extra agencies with sweeping powers!!!
      -Including, but not restricted to: The Post Office, your local Authority, the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency
      This offer must end soon!!!
      Act now to prevent future disappointment!!!

  • Date wrong (Score:2, Informative)

    by caek ( 571864 )
    It's not been postponed until the 18th (that wouldn't be much time!). stand.org.uk:

    "Instead of next Tuesday (18th June), the Commons debate will now take place on the following Monday (24th June)"

  • Investigative organisations like the NHS and GPO cannot function unless there is a supply of valid useable data. People hiding this sort of data will prevent them from operating.

    We need a law like this to prevent terrorists from being able to hide from these groups.

  • It gets worse! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dr_Cheeks ( 110261 ) on Sunday June 16, 2002 @04:38AM (#3710355) Homepage Journal
    Oh Lord! The original act was bad enough, but now they want to give The Post Office!!!! (among others) access to traffic data w/o a warrant or anything!

    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).

    • The Post Office? Don't you mean Consignia? No, wait... now it's the Royal Mail. No, wait... :-)

      Ah, the wonders of rebranding!

      • Ironically, writing to your MP requires using the Post Office. Who will shortly be able to find out that I edit a pro-privacy website, and will be able to list all the people (EPIC, EFF, PI, FIPR, Stand) that I visit, donate to, or keep in contact with.

        More ironically, to get a letter to my MP in time, I'd have to send it first class (next day delivery guaranteed) which now takes at least two days because the Post Office just sacked most of their workers without thinking who's going to deliver the letters.

        "Letter for Alan Simpson MP on the eve of a privacy debate? (P.O. supervisor thinks, and points at a bin) That pile right there"

    • Re:It gets worse! (Score:2, Informative)

      by dagenum ( 580191 )
      I emailed my MP on Thursday about this and was amazed when I received a personal written reply yesterday. While agreeing with me in general she said there was nothing she could do, here's the last paragraph. "This particular Satatutory Instrumeny is being put forward under the Regulation od Investigatory Powers Act 2000. As the Act has already been passed, the instrument will not be discussed be the whole House of Commons. It will be discussed by a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on the 18th June and as I am not a member of that comittee I will not be able to vote on the instrument. You can be sure, however, that the views you express will be represented within what will be a lively debate before the decisions are taken." So unless your MP is in this committee, I can't find a way of getting a list of members, or they are willing to lean on someone they know that is on it there's diddly squat we can do about it. Don't you love living in a democracy.
      • Let me guess you live in Bristol? I got the same letter on Friday.
        • Whoever works on the local council in Bristol should know that they are amongst some of the WORST elected representatives in the country. When I've had problems in the past that required their help, they all respond with the right noises, but then just sit on their lying fat arses not actually doing anything.

          So be warned - Bristol will say they're going to take up your cause, and then just plain old do nothing.

          -Nano.
      • I have done a little digging, and can only find out that the names will shortly be published , on a saturday in the "Weekly Information Bulletin". this can probably be had from http://www.parliament.uk.
        However - If i recall BBC's question time correctly, Mr Chris Mullin MP will be on the commitee. Mr Mullin made a ludicrous attempt to justify the food standards agency getting these records by saying it was related to foot and mouth disease.
        I urge anyone in SUNDERLAND SOUTH , Mr Mullin's constituency to write or fax (i cant find an email) as he is currently the only one known to be involved in this nightmare legislation. If you are in his constituency , it is his duty to represent you.

        I apologise if I have broken any slashdot rules - im not trolling or whoring, Im new round here and I simply care about civil liberties. Thank you.
      • To which the correct response would be that, while unable to vote, she would be able to attend and make her views known by her presence. Its very easy for an MP to wriggle out of doing something by saying that their hands are tied, but in this case the lack of a vote in the committee is not good enough.

  • wake up call... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OzPhIsH ( 560038 ) on Sunday June 16, 2002 @04:38AM (#3710357) Journal
    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.

    • . .

      I don't want to disagree with you - us Brits imo do seem to take a while to get stirred up, often too late, and often I look across the pond, enviously, at the sheer range of public interest activity . .

      _but_ to some of us, nay a whole deal of us, the simple absense of constitution and connected individual rights is enough to scare up some action . .

      However a fair deal of the action I am seeing now is Brit businesses looking to relocate (at least some, occasionally critical, functions) to jurisdictions with more enlightened or less draconian surveillance / privacy / censorship legal infrastructures. . .

      I'm conscious that I am being deliberately provocative now, but if as a foreign national you wished to do something independantly, the best I can think of in real terms is to withold investment from the country, or lobby your business bureau to state its disinterest in trading with UK counterparties whose data, and consequently data concerning your business, is vulnerable to potentially arbitrary executive branch intercepts.

      Investigative powers as they are proposed affect business, overseas subsidiaries, and potentially all data traversing or transiting the UK. The Gvmt here fails to realise, imo, the negative effect proposed legislation will have, risking economic pain and potential brain - drain.

      The current Gvmt (Labour, since '97, and due an election, if you need the info) is especially fond of transferring legislative power to the executive. One only needs to cursorily observe the declining depth of parliamentary debates, and the increasing frequency of Statutory Instruments (executive or civil service rulings) which are utilised to specify the implementation of law which is only very broadly debated. In the absense of a bicameral system, the legislature and executive branches are vertically integrated - civil servants theoretically subordinate to the gvmt ministers are historically intentionally neutral. Current gvmt has been very keen to augment or replace these ranks with political appointees. The RIP Act is merely a function of a wider situation (undue political influence over executive) which is at last suddenly becoming sujet du jour in the UK, brought to light by some outstandingly dumb and offensive scandals, particularly in the transport department.

      If you really want to help, there are many ways to lobby and assist, in however small a way it might result. In the sphere of electronic communications I should have thought (global transit wise at very least) that US enterprise should have some clout.

      . .

    • I can think of four things that non-UK citizens can do, some of which depend on where you live.

      Firstly, cash always helps. Making donations to UK organisations that fight against these measures will always do some good. STAND is a place you could start.

      Secondly, you could try writing as non-UK citizens to express concerns about the legislation. I doubt this will do much, but the fuller the mailbags are, the more likely they are to take notice.

      Thirdly, if you are an EU citizen, write to the European parliament to fight off similar measures there, and to make sure there are European safeguards on privacy. If the UK signs up to these it has to implement them, and that might be a way of getting rid of these stupid measures. The real danger though is even more intrusive legislation coming from the EU, and that needs to be stopped.

      Finally, if you are a businessman with links to the UK, or with potential links, write to the Department fo Trade and Industry saying that these new regulations will make you think twice about staying in the UK or openning offices there. Money talks, again, and if the government sees the real economic dangers of these actions, they might think twice.

      Of course given past experience, they'll ignore all protests and carry on regardless.

      Anyone got lists of countries with more sensible laws to move to?
    • Our problem in the UK is that it is very difficult to block the plans of a government with such a huge majority in parliment.

      Unless large number of MPs rebel, which will only happen over something outragous, whatever the government wants gets done.

      At the moment there are too many excuses for the giovernment to hide behind for this (they will claim it helps fight paedophiles and terrorists). Civil rights in the UK will keep deteriorating until there is some major abuse (an equivalent to Watergate). Until then not enough people will care

      All political parties are for better civil rights when in opposition. Once in power, i.e. once they are the people becoming more powerful as a result of reducing our rights, they see things differently.


    • What makes you think the U.S. isn't that far behind? I last read that the U.S. Government is busy creating a massively-linked data infrastructure that will give access to all manner of information about U.S. citizens. The U.S. p4tr10t act exists now, and is already overly permissive. As long as these actions are framed in a manner that they're being used to fight t3rr0r1sm, I see no reason why such invasiveness can't spiral out of control in much the same way. What's particularly ironic about all of this spying is that it won't, for a second, yield the touted effect: Any soul sufficiently motivated will find a way to route around the system- assuming it even works for its 'intended' purpose.

      In reading a recent news article on the BBC news site regarding Britain's (Jack Straw, I believe) unreasonably invasive 'security' measures, I was particularly amused to see Straw compare B1n L4d3n to the Nazis. The irony here is quite astounding- the Nazis were known for (among other things) the use of a secret police force (the SS/SA/SD), to gather information about just about everyone, and then take care of any 'problems' that arose. I see strikingly *more* similarity between the Nazis and a government's insatiable apetite for gathering information about its citizens.
  • 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 [faxyourmp.com] and do something about it
  • You can fax your Member of Parliament

    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?

    • Now tell me, ye fine young lad, just who is my Parlimentary Representative for California?

      Easy. The same one as for DC.

    • And when Slashdot runs stories [slashdot.org] asking its readers to contact their representatives and senators, do you hear the UK geeks complaining?

      The Internet crosses borders in such a way that if one country passes a stupid law, it has the potential to mess around with the lives not just of citizens of that country, but of net users all over the world. (The obvious example is the former American ban on exports of cryptography software, which caused everyone, American and non-American, ridiculous amounts of extra work.) But only the citizens of the country passing the law get a say in whether it's clueful or not, even though it's in everyone's interests for the laws to be clueful everywhere. There's nothing particularly wrong with that-- it's just the way legislation works-- but it does mean that the global community depends to some extent on local action. If Congress were to propose some crazy law, you could write your representatives; I couldn't. If Parliament did the same, it would be the other way around.

    • Well, of course... no taxation without representation!

      They found the loophole.
      • Oddly, I get to vote in the UK (Parliamentary only, no EU or local elections) where I haven't paid taxes in seven years, whereas the US government taxes me, as the locals say, "up the wazoo", but prohibits me from voting at any level.
    • 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?

      Same place as all the congressmen and senators I keep being exhorted to write to for my area of England... if you find them, let me know.

    • The more cynical amongst us might suggest that the parlimentary representative for California and the other US states is Mr George W Bush. Like many of the more influential people in UK politics, he is unelected and, I understand, has the Prime Minister's ear... ;)

  • It took me a while to find a clear and concise link. Here it is. [sap.com]

    Looks like a pretty ugly violation of privacy.
  • Just why are they doing this?

    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.

  • How long until it gets abused..? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dynamoo ( 527749 ) on Sunday June 16, 2002 @05:39AM (#3710404) Homepage
    How long until it gets abused? Well, probably about 5 seconds in my opinion. Look, I have to real objection to anti-terrorist or anti-organised-crime bodies such as MI5, MI6 or Special Branch having this sort of access - Echelon [dynamoo.com] has been doing this for a while anyway, it's just a logical extension of those powers for intelligence services.

    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 [newspeak.com] and get it over with.

  • Goverments (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kiowa ( 5743 )
    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!
  • We can't RIP (rest in peace) until the RIP act is dead, and we better let it RIP after we RIP it to shreds otherwise it'll probably come back and RIP our privacy apart.

    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!

  • Dear Whoever
    I am concerned about the extension to the RIP bill that is to be debated in Parliament shortly and as your constituent, ask of you to oppose it. It is an abusive and unnecessary extension to an already heavily intrusive act. This will allow multiple government departments that have nothing to do with law enforcement to access all manner of information on us without a Warrant. There is quite simply no need for such a high level of surveillance.


    Whilst there is a need for the Police to be granted a limited amount of authority to combat practices like online Pedophillia in law, there is no need every government department from the department of transport to the Post office to legally obtain data about me without a warrant. A careful balance should be kept between the need to investigate crime and the civil rights of the individual that were once granted in the Data Protection act. This act gives unprecedented power to those not even involved with investigating crime without a thought for an individual's rights (A practice disturbingly commonplace in Blair's government) without increasing the efficiency of the police to combat crime in the slightest. The law already gives them ample powers.


    Not to mention the potential for abuse that this act has. I'm sure you are already aware of the situation with Stephen Byers's Special Advisers, who tried to smear members of the Paddington Rail Crash Survivors Group. This act would have made it infinately easier for them to do so. Giving the Ministry of Transport the legal right to keep record of all of the phone calls they made, a list of all the websites they visited and read all of their e-mail. I hope you agree that this scandalous invasion of our privacy needs to be fought at all opportunities.
    Yours Sincearly

  • 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.
  • Is anyone organising a protest over this ?

    A few thousand people outside the commons on the day of the debate would no doubt generate some useful media interest.

    The Sunday Times ran a long article on this subject only this morning.

  • Some suggestions for letters/faxes (Score:3, Informative)

    by sjmurdoch ( 193425 ) on Sunday June 16, 2002 @06:46AM (#3710464) Homepage
    Unlike the article states, the debate on the RIPA ammendment has been delayed from Tuesday 18th June until Monday 24th June (see Stand.org.uk [stand.org.uk]). This now leaves you time to fax, or better still, write to your MP.

    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.

    • I'm sure I can think up some excuse to go to london, only £30 in petrol. I'll be there if there is going to be a protest.

      my letter:

      Dear Mr Ben Bradshaw,

      I am extremely worried about the new amendment to the RIPA bill proposed, and due for debate on the 24th of this month. I can appreciate for organisations such as the police to gain access to my private email and data.
      Ho
      wever this amendment is extremely worrying. It allows organisations such as the Post Office, The NHS, Department of transport and the environmental agency, among others. It is not legal for the post office/consignia/royal mail to steam open my letters, even though they have possession of them. Why should they be able to read my private email?
      I am very concerned about the potential abuse by such a large number of organisations. There is no judicial oversight to use these powers, and with no strict regulations affecting the 24 new departments, the potential for abuse is even higher then that of just the police, HM customs and excise, and the secret service.
      The original RIP bill threatens to put people in jail, for up to 2 years, if they forget passwords to encrypted email. Aside from being a violation of the most basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty, it also prevents you from telling anyone you are being investigated.
      The fact that the post office could investigate me if they see I'm investigating using DHL to deliver a parcel, and throw me in jail for 2 years, it shocking to the point of non-belief.
      All it takes is one corrupt official, or one cash payme
      nt to one of thousands of people authorised to use the bill, and any of their 'enemies' could be investigated. I have encrypted many email in my time, and there is no way I can remember the password for each one. In addition one time encryption passwords - or keys - are gaining ground and used in more programs then you might think. You may not even realise that you have sent an encrypted email until agents from the department of the Office of Fair Trading knock on your door.
      Out of the 24 agencies that stand to gain powers under this amendment, I can not see the need for any of the agencies to have powers. As the bill is meant to combat serious crime (not, for example, doing 80 down the motorway), the co-operation of the secret service or the police is assured. If these agencies go through the proper channel they can investigate.
      RIPA is very dangerous. Putting it into the hands of departments and competitive organisations increases the number of weak points in the chain. I strongly suggest you use your full powers as an MP to oppose this bill.
      I am writing a letter to the University of Exeter's weekly newspaper - Exepose, I would appreciate a response so I can tell the students that their MP is working in their best interests.
      Thank you.

    • 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

        ---

  • 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.
  • Well atleast they've changed the name back to 'The Post Office' instead of 'Consignia'*sp

    That, like many New Labour policies, makes no sense what so ever..

    Something tells me Tony Blair got a toy spy kit for christmas and decided he'd like a 'slightly better model'.
  • Remember the discussion of the ammendment has been delayed until Monday 24th of June so there is still time to send a letter [locata.co.uk] or fax [faxyourmp.com] to your MP.

    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.

    • Fax your MP [faxyourmp.co.uk] couldn't make it much easier.
      I even mentioned that I was seriously considering emigrating (true).
      Don't let them get away with this - just because Messrs Betcham and Eriksson have got some people distracted (sh*t your pants Ronaldo) - we need to make ourselves heard. While we still can.
  • If one wanted to get parliament to accept access to traffic data by departments one, two and three, then one might start by requesting access for departments four, five and six as well. By the time the opporsition has finished celebrating its victory at having had the list truncated prior to the vote, the bill will have been passed in the form the government originally intended.

    Forget the Post Office, that isn't their top priority. It is only included to draw fire.

    The easier it is for a government to monitor the population, the easier it is for the government to ignore what the population is saying. Use your voice while they're still listening...

  • 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.
  • I faxed my MP (from the web site, www.FaxYourMP.com) on Tuesday night, and on Friday I got a nice letter in reply.

    It seems that there are a whole series of regulations being considered: not just the "Communications Data: Additional Public Authorities" one (no. 15), but the Order Paper also lists 18 "Maintenance of Interception Capability", 20 "Covert Human Intelligence Sources: Code of Practice", 21 "Covert Surveillance: Code of Practice", 22 "Designation of Public Authorities for the Purposes of Intrusive Surveillance", and 23 "Directed Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources: Additional Public Authorities" Orders.

    And these are not being debated by the full House of Commons: instead, they're going before the Delegated Legislation Committee, whatever that is, still on Tuesday 18th. So much for full representation.

    Still, my MP has written to the minister in question, David Blunkett, "asking if he would be willing to reconsider the issue in the light of the important points you have raised in your letter and naturally I will let you know whenever I have any news". So it definitely is worth writing to or faxing your MP – it's easy enough to whinge on a web site like this, but we must put our money where our mouths are and make our views known where they might do some good. I'm not hugely optimistic on this one, but you never know until you try, and from the FaxYourMP web site it won't even cost you a penny!

  • I don't know if anyone's still reading this story, but Radio 4 is confirming that the debate they tried to rush through on this bill has been postponed "until at least autumn". David Blunkett's comment on the climbdown is refreshingly honest: "I believe that when you're in a hole you should stop digging". He said he wasn't going to force something through with a majority that they hadn't "explained properly".

    This doesn't mean it's off the table: he's saying it will be redrafted, or something. Interestingly he says he "has a son in the data business"(!) who said "Dad, they don't understand what you're trying to do here". :) He says he's extremely concerned about his own privacy too. Hmmmmmmmm.

    Well done Stand.

Slashdot Top Deals

Wherever you go...There you are. - Buckaroo Banzai

Close