General Category > Blog

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

<< < (2/3) > >>

ratty redemption [RIP]:
is that good news for us internet users?

kat:
In the general spirit of the proposed law, yes, because it's actually set up to mitigate over-reach of exactly the kind of goal-post moving Ms May is suggesting, it has nothing to do with 'small crime' (cyber-bullying and online trolling etc.), it, in fact, expressly disallows data gathered under the auspices of the Investigatory Powers Bill (IPB) to be re-purposed for anything other than that datas intended (ordered) purpose - data can only be collected from Service Providers for a specific Court Ordered purpose, similarly data pertaining to Individuals can only be gathered once a specific Court Order has been issued - no-where does the bill grant a blanket authority to simply collect/access/use/[insert suitable adjective here] data simply because it can be. What it does do is make a requirement that Service Providers hold on to data for 12 months (they are already obligated to hold data for 6 months under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 or voluntarily for 12 months under Data Retention and Investigation Powers Act 2014).

To be frank, it's a complete mystery as to why the Home Secretary would even be saying the things she is given the fact that the Home Office is the Office from which IPB Orders are to be issued... if she doesn't know what the draft entails she should be removed from that Post forthwith - it has nothing to do with cyber-bullies or trolling no matter the number of articles published by the press calling people that engage in that type of activity 'terrorists' (their conflating the two is profoundly ignorant and fundamentally disrespectful to the individuals that have lost their lives, willingly and unwillingly, as a consequence of fighting real terrorism in the World). There are better and more immediate ways to deal with the former (cyber-bullies and trolls) that don't necessitate the use of a 50 tonne Steam-roller to crack open a sesame seed.

ratty redemption [RIP]:
interesting and agreed.

kat:
The Investigatory Power Bill has passed and is, at time of writing, awaiting Royal Assent (signing into force). Bill documents.

kat:
News coverage on this that's more than a little misleading. For example; Revealed: "The 48 organisations that can see your entire online browsing history, even if you delete it" (DailyMail), "A list of everyone who can see your entire internet browsing history"  (Indy100/Independent). The headlines imply the agencies named are able to actively monitor anyone's communications. They have access to, but are not permitted to simple monitor communications without the authority to do so.

As mentioned in the OP authorised agency's are able to access communications using a special and specific investigatory warrant that's  authorised by a Court and The Office of the Home Secretary. This requires access requests be reasonably articulated (by British Law standards there has to be a "articulable reasonable suspicion/justification" for a request to be made).

The broader purpose of the Bill isn't the investigatory aspect however, it's the shifting of onus onto Service Providers with respect to data collection and management, obligating them by law to properly complying with requirements of the legislation, rather than the authorities having to do so. In other words, although access can be granted to anyone (subject to Home Office authorisation), it still has to be justified and articulated.

With that said, it is still a gross over-extension of 'snooping'.

--- Quote ---"If there's nothing to hide, there's nothing to fear there's no reason to look."
--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page