General Category > Blog

Draft Investigatory Powers Bill (as passed "Investigatory Powers Act 2016")

(1/3) > >>

kat:


The "Draft Investigatory Powers Bill" passed into law Nov 2016 as the "Investigatory Powers Act 2016".

[...]
The UK Government released a draft (Oct/Nov 2015) of the "Investigatory Powers Bill" [alt source] that will (apparently) shake up online law enforcement, with specific emphasis on prosecuting "cyber bullies and trolls". Apparently that needs 200 pages of legislation (see below).


--- Quote ---- Interception involves making available the content of a communication to someone other than the sender or intended recipient during the course of its transmission.  In practice that means listening to a phone call or reading an email. 

- Interception can only be undertaken by a limited number of agencies, in limited circumstances, when a warrant is in place. It is a vital tool
for law enforcement and the intelligence agencies to protect the public and prevent or detect serious crime.

- Interception warrants will be subject to a ‘double-lock’ authorisation process of Secretary of State issued warrants approved by a Judicial Commissioner before coming into force.

- Only  nine  agencies  can  apply  for  an  interception  warrant.  These  include  the  Security  and  Intelligence Agencies, five Law Enforcement Agencies and the armed forces (GCHQ, SIS, MI5, the Ministry of Defence, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency, the Police Service Northern Ireland, Police Scotland and the Metropolitan Police Service).

- As  is  currently  the  case,  the  Bill  makes  clear  that  targeted  interception  warrants  can  be  served  on Communications Service Providers (CSPs) who offer services to customers in the UK irrespective of where they are based in the world.  CSPs have a duty to give effect to a warrant
if required to do so [source]
--- End quote ---

The remit of the proposed legislation has nothing to do with keeping the individual from harm, cyber bullying and trolling has nothing to do with the stated purposes of the Bill, in it's own langauge (assuming one isn't claiming cyber-bullying and trolling to be in the interests of National Security, is a "serious crime", or has anything that could be considered a significant threat to the "economic well-being on the UK").


--- Quote ---What can it do?
For three specific purposes: in the interest of national security, for the prevention or detection of serious crime; safeguarding the economic well-being of the UK (for national security).[source]
--- End quote ---

In effect what the legislation appears to be doing is setting up a framework that facilitates "retroactive justice" - by requiring Service Providers keep Customer records for extended periods instead of Government doing that, there are no legal ramification on Government for the unlawful collection and use of data (Government cannot collect data without specific, articulated reason - this is part of our right to go about our daily business unmolested). In other words, the warrants issued against an individuals data traffic is not actually that, i.e. to 'collect' their traffic, rather they are search warrants to inspect data third-parties are mandated to collect on behalf of the Government.

Additional Reading
Draft Investigatory Powers Bill: overarching documents

ratty redemption [RIP]:
have you read all of that? can you summarize key points for us?

kat:
The post above will be modified as the information is parsed, there's a lot of it to get through (300 pages including ancillary materials).

ratty redemption [RIP]:
understood and good luck.

kat:
OK... the crux of the matter is this; the Home Secretary (Ms. May) apparently wrote in a letter to MP James Cartlidge (context unknown/unclear) that indicated the upcoming Investigative Powers Bill would "support the effort of police to tackle cyber-bullying and trolling" (what the DM and others are reporting) because Service Providers would be required to collect "interconnection records" to comply with the IPB.

Unfortunately for Ms May, that statement is an obfuscation at best, an outright lie at worst as the language and context of the IPB specifically deals with issues of National Security, data collection and use there-in. Period. There are NO allowances within the proposed law for collected data to be used OTHER THAN AS EXPLICITLY STATED, i.e. contextually that it should be done so; 1) in the interest of national security, 2) for the prevention or detection of serious crime and 3) safeguarding the economic well-being of the UK. There are NO allowances for data to be collected OR used without specific reason passed and authorised by a judge (an order from the (Office of the) Home Secretary signed off by a judge).

In other words, what the Home Secretary is suggesting is colossal over-reach, one the proposed legislation does not grant the Office of HS the authority or support to do - the bill in fact even goes so far as to strengthen an over-sight committee to ensure operation complies to the letter of the (proposed) law - cyber-bullying and trolling has no business being conflated with issues of serious crime (fraud etc.) or National Security.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page