Government begins RIPA review
Peeking at snooping laws
What you need to know about cloud backup
The Government will review the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), the law that governs state tapping of phone, email and internet use. The law will be looked at as part of a wider review of counter-terrorism laws.
Civil liberties campaigners criticised several anti-terrorism laws introduced by the last Labour Government as being restrictive of individual freedoms. The current Conservative and Liberal Democrat coaltion Government will review those laws, claiming its aim is to restore some lost rights.
"The review will look at what counter-terrorism powers and measures could be rolled back in order to restore the balance of civil liberties and counter-terrorism powers," said a Home Office statement on the review.
"National security is the first duty of government but we are also committed to reversing the substantial erosion of civil liberties," said Home Secretary Theresa May. "I want a counter-terrorism regime that is proportionate, focused and transparent. We must ensure that in protecting public safety, the powers which we need to deal with terrorism are in keeping with Britain’s traditions of freedom and fairness."
RIPA powers to monitor citizens' activities could be used not just by police and state security services but also by local authorities to monitor compliance with various laws. Civil liberties campaigners criticised the use of RIPA to monitor residents' compliance with dog fouling or refuse recycling laws.
Security minister Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones told ZDNet UK last week that some local authority uses of RIPA were not acceptable.
"We will reduce the powers of local authorities," she said. "It's a question of how many bodies have powers and what powers they have. We want to create a situation which is less intrusive on the part of local authorities into the lives of ordinary citizens."
The Government review could also examine existing rules that force telecoms companies and ISPs to store records of individuals’ use of their systems on behalf of the authorities.
The Home Office said that its review would examine "the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) by local authorities, and access to communications data more generally".
The review will be overseen by Liberal Democrat peer and former director of public prosecutions Lord Ken Macdonald.
"We will look at the evidence presented to us and where it is clear that legislation needs to be amended or powers need to be rolled back, we will do," said May.
Copyright © 2010, OUT-LAW.com
OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.
COMMENTS
The point you're missing...
... is that, as with many other New Labour laws, the RIPA is vague and ill-defined and pretty much as soon as it was brought in, started experiencing major function creep as, for instance Local Councils etc suddenly realised that "hey, we can spy on people to check they live in the right place to send their kid to this school, the law says we can!".
The aim of the review is to ensure that Investigatory Powers are *properly* regulated and targetted to where they are needed, rather than to where they are wanted.
Maybe I won't need to emigrate after all
I've never objected to a government agency that thinks I'm a security risk taking the time to break into my house, insert key loggers, cameras and other bugs in my computer equipment, and monitor what I'm doing. The reason I don't object to this is that it's time-consuming and expensive, and it's hard to end up with an oppressive police state if you have to do this one person at a time.
I object to any act that allows a government agency - with their well-known 100% accuracy rate - to say "decrypt this file from 1993 for us, or we'll lock you up; we'll also lock you up if you tell anyone we asked". I still have back-up CDs with content from the 1990s on, and I doubt I can remember every password I used. If you think I'm a security risk, bug my computer. If you think I'm one of millions of people who *might* be a security risk, I'm sorry, but I'm not happy with any monitoring that's intrusive to lots of people. Recent authorities may be more bumbling than vindictive, but I don't like a legal system being in place which supports malicious overlords should they get into power - we had enough of that last century.
It's right for the police to keep asking for more surveillance powers - it's their job to spot every threat to society, because they'll get it in the neck when something slips through. But it's also reasonable for someone to draw the line when this surveillance is itself a threat.
It's not difficult
>It's a question of how many bodies have powers
You don't need more than the IQ of an amoeba to realise that the real security services need certain powers, the police need less and local authorities do not need any.
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
