RIP Powers Widened (state snooping on email & phone)

[silver]

from telegraph.co.uk story

A widespread extension of the powers of the state to snoop on its citizens was denounced by civil liberties campaigners yesterday.

Organisations ranging from the Department of Health to the Food Standards Agency will be empowered to demand the personal details of phone calls and emails.

Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, two dozen ministries and quangos will be able to obtain communications records. Although they will not see the contents of communications - something that requires a warrant - they will be able to insist that internet service providers, telephone companies and postal operators hand over the information.

This can include names and addresses of customers, their service use records, details of who has called whom, mobile phone locations accurate to within 100 metres and the sources and destinations of emails.

Even without knowing the content of the communications, such information would be sufficient for a ministry or other public sector organisation to track and thwart attempts by campaigners, journalists or members of the public to uncover information. The legislation caused controversy when it went through Parliament two years ago. Then, the Government said the information would be available only to the police, customs, intelligence agencies and the Inland Revenue.

However, secondary legislation tabled last month and to be debated by MPs next week has added substantially to that list. Seven Whitehall departments, every local authority, health bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and 11 other public bodies are now included.

Ian Brown, director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research, an independent IT think-tank, said the proposal was an "appalling" increase in the scope of Government snooping.

He added: "Two years ago, we were deeply concerned that these powers were to be given to the police without any judicial oversight. Now they're handing them out to a practically endless queues of bureaucrats in Whitehall and town halls."

Mr Brown said the oversight arrangements for the new system were inadequate and a code of practice that could reduce the scope for abuse had still to be finalised.

"Which websites we visit or where we travel with a mobile phone in our pocket reveals a great deal of personal information," he added. "Accessing this information needs to be made more difficult, not opened up to this huge range of new inquirers."

Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "This is an unwarranted and unjustified extension of state power. The Government is writing its own snoopers' charter."

John Wadham, director of Liberty, said: "It is not just the police who will be looking at our communcications records. It is practically every public servant who will be able to play this game."

Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, said: "The Home Office has absolutely breached its commitment that this law would not become a general surveillance power for the Government. This amounts to a systematic attack on the right to privacy."

The extension of the list to organisations such as the Food Standards Agency has undermined ministerial assurances that the powers were aimed at tackling crime and terrorism.

However, ministers say there are safeguards against abuse. The law allows interception only in the interests of national security; for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime; or to safeguard the country's economic well-being.

Interception is also allowed if it is "in the interests of public safety, or for the purpose of protecting public health; or for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty or levy payable to a government department; or for the purpose in an emergency of preventing death or injury, any damage to a person's physical or mental health; or mitigating any injury or damage to a person's physical or mental health."

The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "These powers are not taken lightly, and are for good reason. It is also important to recognise the safeguards."

I have a nasty suspicion this is gonna turn into a carnivore type ISP monitoring, with various keyword monitoring to start an indepth look at what certain people are doing..

time to sort out that vpn & email encryption

Sil

[Worldlife]

The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "These powers are not taken lightly, and are for good reason. It is also important to recognise the safeguards."

Tell that one to the Paddington Survivors Group!

[squidgy]

More to the point, your mobile phone is spying on you. Make sure that you only have it turned on when absolutely necessary. Oh, and have at least four different sim cards, and keep swapping between them, so that they can't track you everywhere.

Oh, and forget about the idea of using a mobile phone to receive calls too. Just use voicemail boxes instead. In fact, not much point in having a mobile at all, maybe you could just use voicemail boxes to receive calls, and payphones to make outgoing calls instead. When you do want to make a phone call, use a calling card to call another calling card in another country to call yet another calling card in yet another country to call your final destination number. Though having said that, if you dial direct from a payphone, they won't know who you are anyway .... but if you use a calling card, they obviously will ....

[msmh]

This assumes that the government is able to process all the data they receive. Whilst they can do this for a few key targets, It will not be possible for them to analise the data collected on most of us dull people.

[silver]

It will not be possible for them to analise the data collected on most of us dull people

not properly analyse everything perhaps, but they would only need to look for certain things/patterns..

they could for instance put a marker on everyone who happened to visit a certain web site or sites.

Sil

[squidgy]

Good point silv. Furthermore, they may put a marker on anyone who takes their mobile phone within 100 metres of a suspected drug dealer's house - now think how many times you're likely to do that on the way to work or the supermarket! It really is beginning to sound to me like absolutely anyone could be targeted.

The conspiracy theorist in me is beginning to think that the reason that Oftel haven't pushed for mobile phone competition anywhere near as much as fixed line and internet competition might, in fact, be a sign of something sinister. That might sound wacky, but seriously, what did you think of George Orwell 1984? It's a possibility .....

[silver]

from ntk.net

ghosts spooks and ghouls

It's not often you catch Slashdot, Kuro5hin, Newsnight and
BBC's Question Time covering the same story. And while we
still await the day Jeremy Paxman screams "MOD THE PARENT
UP!" at a ashen-faced spokesman, one topic bound them all
this week: the insane new RIP STATUTORY INSTRUMENT. This
piece of pseudo-legislation, which the government clearly
hoped to sneak past parliament next Tuesday, extends the
list of authorities able tap everyone's traffic data without
a warrant. In the original RIP bill, only coppers, customs
and the secret services could obtain phone numbers, Web
addresses, and cellphone positions willy-nilly. With the new
instrument, anyone from a local councillor to the Office of
Fair Trading, down to the Post Office^W^WConsignia^Wthe
Royal Mail can stalk you without judicial oversight. Over
twenty new government departments are listed, with no
explanation or justification (the Department of Work and
Pensions is fighting terrorism how exactly?). It really is a
"shopping" list in every sense but the car-jacking one. As
with so much of the original RIP bill, *nobody* thinks this
is a good idea. Councillors we've spoken with are worried
about the abuse potential, other departments are freaking
out at the cost of overseeing the new powers. Already the
hundreds of faxes sent to MPs and messages to the news media
have secured one concession: our gracious leaders have
postponed the debate until next Monday, 2002-06-24. If we
keep the pressure up, they may be obliged to withdraw it
completely. Check out STAND for more info on what the Blunt
Instrument means, and what to do about it.
http://www.stand.org.uk/
- looks like we chose a good week to relaunch STAND (and give up glue-sniffing)
mailto:stand@ntk.net
- mail here to get regular updates

Sil

[silver]

postponed, for now..,,,..

http://www.silicon.com/a53987

The Government has postponed a debate for its controversial plan to extend powers to snoop on telecoms and electronic communications to almost any public body that demands access.

A debate on the draft order to give seven Whitehall departments and local authorities access to individuals' email and phone records was due to be discussed tomorrow.

The government claimed the delay for the debate of the draft order, nicknamed the Snoopers Charter, is due to parliamentary procedures.

Nick Gibb, Conservative member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, told silicon.com: "There is absolutely no justifiable reason why non-criminal justice authorities should have the power to obtain people's phone bills and other personal records. This bill doesn't even require a magistrate's permission.

"I'm anxious about the police having these powers, but at least it can be justified in their respect for fighting terrorism."

Conservatives are up in arms over the proposal and will oppose the draft order when it gets to the Lords if Labour uses its majority to get it through the Commons.

A new date has not yet been set for the discussion.

Sil

[silver]

opps - that looks like old news - then ntk.net article above says its postponed..

Already the
hundreds of faxes sent to MPs and messages to the news media
have secured one concession: our gracious leaders have
postponed the debate until next Monday, 2002-06-24. If we
keep the pressure up, they may be obliged to withdraw it
completely. Check out STAND for more info on what the Blunt
Instrument means, and what to do about it.

Sil

[Dantony]

It seems that Mr.Blunkett was close to an apology today:-

Mr Blunkett said there needed to be "calmer and lengthy" public discussion of the issues before new proposals were drawn up.

"We believe we got it wrong and we need to address fears people have.

"If we get this right we can get protection and privacy while tackling organised crime."

He added: "I have no intention that we should be Big Brother."

[silver]

thanks for the info Dantony,

more from http://www.silicon.com/a54014

Home Secretary David Blunkett has issued a statement explaining why a Commons debate on controversial snooping proposals has been delayed indefinitely.

Blunkett said the proposals will now be withdrawn for detailed consultation over the summer.

He said: "I recognise there is widespread concern about the current proposals to regulate how public bodies can access phone and internet records.

"It's clear that whilst we want to provide greater security, clarity and regulation to activities that already go on, our plans have been understood as having the opposite effect&I have therefore decided that it makes sense to withdraw the current proposals to allow calmer and lengthy public discussion before we bring forward new plans in this field.
"The time has come for a much broader public debate about how we effectively regulate modern communications and strike the balance between the privacy of the individual and the need to ensure our laws and society are upheld."

Blunkett has been heavily criticised for backtracking on guarantees he gave that plans to extend powers to monitor electronic communications in response to 11 September would only be used against terrorists.

It emerged last week that seven government agencies, including local authorities, NHS groups and the Food Standards Agency, were to be allowed to monitor private communications without a court order.

Last night a debate on the proposals was delayed for "parliamentary reasons", however today's statement by the Home Secretary looks like a more significant climbdown.

Over the weekend politicians from both sides came out against the proposals, with the House of Lords making it clear it would fight the new laws.

The Conservative Lord Strathclyde, who has been leading the opposition to the plans, said Labour had been forced into a humiliating retreat: "This is exactly what the House of Lords is for - to uphold natural justice and defend the freedoms of the citizen against abuse by any government.

"Had we not made clear that we would seek to defeat these outrageous proposals they would have been rammed through the Commons tonight."

Internet policy think-tank the Foundation for Information Policy Research, which has been campaigning against the proposals, welcomed the news. Director Ian Brown said: "We're very pleased with this. The government have said it won't be looked at until at least November, but we're hoping its not going to get discussed at all.

"My guess is the government is going to let this die."

good news

Sil

[gem]

"My guess is the government is going to let this die."

And why they probably will is because they already have certain powers that allows snooping.