Legislation

Articles outlining new proposed legislation or changes to current legislation


1
In a land mark case two MPs, David Davis and Tom Watson, have won a High Court judgement that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) is incompatible with human rights (see this BBC News article here). Legislation is normally subject to significant Parliamentary scrutiny, but the MPs claimed that because DRIPA was rushed through in days, there was no time for proper parliamentary scrutiny, hence the need for the unusual step of judicial review.   The MPs argued before the court that DRIPA was incompatible with the right to a private and family life, and data protection, under both the Human Rights Act and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights.  An argument that the court accepted. In the judgement the court has ruled that the unlawful sections of DRIPA can stay in force until the end of March 2016, to allow time for the government to compose new […]

MPs Win Surveillance Powers Legal Challenge, but Government to Appeal


5
Julian De Vries reports on The Nation website that in the US it is possible for someone to be prosecuted for deleting their browser history or other electronic records, even though the individual has no idea they are under any sort of investigation. The problem lies with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was originally enacted in the wake of the Enron scandal to stop corporations under investigation from shredding or destroying incriminating documents.  However, its application has been broadened out by prosecutors to cover situations way beyond its original aims. One reason why it has been possible to expand its use is that prosecutors do not have to show that an individual deleting material is aware an investigation is underway.  As a result anybody even innocently deleting electronic records such as browser history or text messages, could years later be prosecuted for doing so.  The scenario is not a hypothetical one […]

In the US You Can Be Prosecuted for Clearing Your ...


4
Benny Evangelista and Peter Fimrite report on the SFGATE website that a bill is to be put forward in the Californian Assembly to force smart TV makers to give customers the ability to opt out of features that could monitor their conversations. The bill is being put forward by Assemblyman Mike Gatto, who amongst other things is concerned about the ability of smart TV’s to be turned into tools that determine what kind of adverts viewers see.  Gatto said: “It’s not just that you could be sent bankruptcy ads after you talk with your wife about financial problems while watching television, it’s what happens if someone hacks it.” He also highlights the privacy issues if a smart TV is listening in a room where a couple are getting intimate. “Those sounds, if you had your voice recognition on, is what would be included,” Gatto said. “That’s what’s disturbing about this.” […]

Bill seeks ban on Smart Televisions becoming ‘Big Brother’



1
Dan Hyde reports in the Daily Telegraph that Home Secretary Theresa May has indicated that a law to allow snooping on personal email accounts and internet browsing, could be pushed through now that the Conservatives have a parliamentary majority. Her comments were made in the early hours of Friday morning as the Conservatives appeared to heading for a majority.  Previously the so-called  Snoopers’ Charter had been blocked by the Conservatives coalition partners the Liberal Democrats. However, with the Conservatives having only a slim majority, Theresa May could potentially still have an up hill struggle to get the controversial measures through.

Theresa May to Resurrect the Snoopers’ Charter


David Kravets reports on the Ars Technica website that the US National Security Agency’s bulk telephone metadata collection program is illegal, but not unconstitutional according to a federal appeals court ruling. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and sets aside a judgement by a lower court that metadata collection was permissible. According to the article, the court noted that the Patriot Act gives the government wide powers to acquire all types of private records on Americans as long as they are “relevant” to an investigation.  But the government is going too far when it comes to acquiring, via a subpoena, the metadata of every telephone call made to and from the United States. The legal authority allowing the NSA to collect telephone metadata expires on 1st June 2015 and will need renewing by Congress if it is to continue.  It is not clear how the ruling […]

US Court Rules NSA Phone Metadata Collection is Illegal


2
The Law Gazette reports that professional bodies representing lawyers and other legal professionals are calling for statutory protection for professional privilege. It follows a landmark ruling by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) ordering the intelligence agency GCHQ to destroy illegally intercepted communications between Libyans subjected to renditions and their lawyers in the UK. However, despite the ruling both the Law Society and the bar have said the ruling does not sufficiently protect lawyer-client communications.  Andrew Caplen, president of the Law Society commenting on the current situation said: ‘The current legislative framework remains unsuitable and we hope that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act will be amended or replaced to include explicit protection of legal professional privilege.’

Legal bodies call for statutory protection for professional privilege following ...



6
Gareth Corfield reports on the Register website that a Supreme court ruling has effectively given carte blanche to police forces to retain personal data they have collected for virtually any purpose and hold it as long as they like – even when the people targeted are not violent and have committed no crime. The case involved John Catt from Brighton who had lodged a legal claim against the police for keeping records about his attendance at various political protests going back a decade.  In 2013 the Court of Appeal ruled that it was illegal for the Police to retain such records; however, the police appealed to the Supreme court. A particular concern highlighted in the article with the judgment, is the argument put forward by the court that the retention of data for “police purposes” is inherently lawful, albeit with the proviso that it is “regularly reviewed” for deletion (although […]

UK Supreme Court waves through indiscriminate police surveillance


Shaun Nichols reports on the Register website that California State Senator Mark Leno of San Francisco, has put forward a bill that would make police searches of electronic devices subject to the same controls as filing cabinets, drawers and other physical objects. The bill would require the authorities to obtain a search warrant before they can pull information off computers, Smartphone or other electronic devices. In introducing his bill Leno said, “The personal files in your desk drawer at home cannot be seized without a warrant, but the digital files on your Smartphone and tablet, no matter how sensitive, do not have the same protection.  This bill strikes the right balance between safeguarding Californians against improper government intrusion of their electronic data and protecting the right of law enforcement to use technology when it is needed to protect public safety.” If the law is passed, California will join a list of […]

California considers a new law to require a warrant for ...


Kevin Rawlinson reports on the BBC news website that an attempt by four peers to include clauses from the defunct Communications Data Bill (the Snoopers’ Charter) in the Counter Terrorism Bill, has been aborted following a lack of support from other peers. The attempt by the peers to sneak in the clauses was widely condemned by privacy groups and the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA). However, BBC news understands they will try again next week, unless the Home Office publishes a government redraft of the bill.

“Snoopers’ charter” revival on hold



2
Patrick Wintour reports in the Guardian that a cross-party alliance of lords are attempting to force a revised version of the so called “Snoopers’ Charter” into law via an amendment to Counter Terrorism Bill. The amendment introduces into the Counter Terrorism Bill clauses lifted from the now defunct Communications Data Bill, which was abandoned by the Coalition Government in 2013 following a campaign by privacy groups and the refusal of the Liberal Democrat’s to support it. The amendment has been proposed by a group that includes a former Conservative defence secretary, a former Metropolitan police commissioner, a former Labour defence minister and a Liberal Democrat peer.  Surprisingly, they did not discuss the amendment with the government beforehand.  If passed the amendment will give the Home Secretary new powers to require internet service providers to retain their customer’s web data and disclose it to public authorities on request. The amendment to […]

Lords attempt to revive the ”Snoopers’ Charter”


An article on the Conservative Home website written by Andrew Bower is extremely critical of David Cameron’s recently announced plan to ban strong encryption. In the article, Bower criticises the policy as yielding no security benefits while leaving Britain open to cyber attack and David Cameron’s vision of a Digital Britain in tatters.  He points out that technically it is almost impossible to implement, as encryption algorithms will still exist and can be re-implemented by programmers on all sorts of devices including legacy computers from the 80s. At the end of the article Bower said: “This proposal is totally unworkable and cannot survive serious scrutiny.  It will inevitably have to be dropped, so it would be better to drop it now and limit the damage to the reputation of our country and our party”. Up to the date of this post, the article had received 57 comments with the vast […]

Conservative party grass-roots not impressed by David Cameron’s plan to ...


Cory Doctorow the well known technology blogger, journalist and Science fiction author, has written a detailed review highlighting the huge technical challenges David Cameron’s recently proposed plan to ban encryption would face. Questioning if David Cameron understands the technology, Doctorow points out that for Cameron’s plan will require a huge series of restrictions on companies, individuals, open source software and the internet to be effective, because anything less would have no material effect on the ability of criminals to carry on secret conversations. If implemented, electronic communications of British citizen’s and industry will be open to foreign spies and criminals.

Cory Doctorow – David Cameron’s encryption ban would endanger every ...



Following on from David Cameron’s recent announced policy of banning strong encryption, it has been revealed that in 1997 the Government of the day had a plan to restrict encryption. The revelation comes in a long forgotten Public Consultation Paper issued in March 1997, which proposed that the use of encryption should be restricted to Trusted Third Parties (TTPs) who would be licensed and regulated by the Government.  These TTPs would provide a range of encrypted communication services to businesses for e-commerce purposes, while allowing the Government a back-door into such communications. It is clear from the document that by 1997 politicians had realised that electronic commerce was dependent upon secure communication.  However, as is the still very much the case today, they were paranoid that encryption would interfere with the ability of Government bodies such as the security services to monitor communications.  The document provides an interesting historical insight […]

Previous UK attempt to restrict encryption revealed


2
Nigel Morris writes in the Independent that the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has condemned calls for the revival of the Communications Data Bill, otherwise known as the Snoopers’ Charter, following the terrorist attacks in Paris. It puts him at odds with David Cameron who has promised to give the intelligence services extra surveillance powers if he wins the general election later this year. Nick Clegg said: “The snoopers’ charter is not targeted, it is not proportionate, it’s not harmless. It would be a new and dramatic shift in the relationship between the state and the individual.” Separately, Simon Huges the Liberal Democrat Justice Minister has warned in a press release that introducing the Snoopers’ Charter is a step too far in tackling terrorism.

Nick Clegg condemns calls for revival of the ‘Snoopers’ Charter’


4
Andrew Griffin reports in the Independent that David Cameron has said he would ban the use of encryption that cannot be broken by UK security services. However, such a move could mean that many social media applications such as WhatsApp, Apple’s iMessage and FaceTime could be banned, as  they all encrypt user data. The Prime Minister made the statement while giving a pledge to revive the Snoopers’ Charter, to give the security services greater powers to monitor internet activity following the terrorist attacks in Paris. Many social media companies such as WhatsApp are committed to keeping their services encrypted and unable to be read by authorities, following Edward Snowden’s revelations on NSA surveillance.

WhatsApp and iMessage could be banned under new surveillance plans