Feeds

UK.gov closes wiretap loopholes after Phorm row

Race to avoid millions in fines

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

The Home Office is scrambling to close loopholes in wiretapping law, revealed by the Phorm affair, ahead of a potentially costly court case against the European Commission.

It is proposing new powers that would punish even unintentional illegal interception by communications providers.

Officials in Brussels are suing the government following public complaints about BT's secret trials of Phorm's web interception and profiling technology, and about the failure of British authorities to take any action against either firm.

The government has now issued a consultation document proposing changes to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) that will mean customer consent for interception of their communications must be "freely given, specific and informed", in line with European law. RIPA currently allows interception where there is only "reasonable grounds for believing" consent is given.

The Commission's attention focused on this loophole after City of London Police declined to investigate the trials in 2008, saying "there would have been a level of implied consent from BT's customers in relation to the tests, as the aim was to enhance their products".

Despite police uninterest, the Crown Prosecution Service is considering criminal charges, following a private complaint. Legal experts, including from the Foundation for Information Policy Research, disputed the police claim there was "implied consent", particularly given internal BT documents obtained by The Register referred to the trials as "stealth" activity.

Further, informal advice written for BT by a Home Office official after the trials said user consent was required to make the system legal under RIPA. The CPS is due to report its decision on prosecution this month.

The European Commission's case against the government is however also based on the requirement under RIPA that for an offence to be committed, interception must be "intentional".

"EU law requires Members States to prohibit and to ensure sanctions against any unlawful interception regardless of whether committed intentionally or not," it said in September. There is no doubt the interception carried out by Phorm and BT was intentional, but the resulting controversy led Brussels to investigate related failings in UK privacy law.

The Home Office consultation proposes to create a new civil sanction against unintentional interception. The Interception of Communications Commissioner (IoCC), a former High Court judge who currently only regulates wiretapping by the intelligence agencies, would get new powers to act against ISPs and telephone operators.

Under the proposed regime, the IoCC would be able to fine firms guilty of unintentional wiretapping up to £10,000 and serve enforcement notices on them to stop.

Officials considered making all unauthorised interception a criminal offence, but rejected this option on grounds it would place a burden on the criminal justice system.

"This has significant advantages: it means that the process for dealing with the more minor cases of unintentional unlawful interception by providers can be allocated to a specialist body with statutory responsibility for oversight of this area," they wrote.

"This should make the enforcement process more streamlined and reduce the administrative burden on the police, the CPS and courts."

Intentional unlawful interception will remain a criminal offence under the proposed amendments to RIPA, punishable by a prison sentence of up to two years. This is the offence that prosecutors are considering charges under with respect to BT and Phorm's secret trials.

The Home Office document is available here. The unusually short consultation closes 7 December.

The haste is understandable. If the European Commission's case goes to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, and the government loses, the British taxpayer would face fines of millions of pounds per day until the legal loopholes are closed. ®

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
Mighty Blighty broadbanders beg: Let us lay cable in BT's, er, ducts
Complain to Ofcom that telco has 'effective monopoly'
Download alert: Nearly ALL top 100 Android, iOS paid apps hacked
Attack of the Clones? Yeah, but much, much scarier – report
Broadband sellers in the UK are UP TO no good, says Which?
Speedy network claims only apply to 10% of customers
Yahoo! blames! MONSTER! email! OUTAGE! on! CUT! CABLE! bungle!
Weekend woe for BT as telco struggles to restore service
Fujitsu CTO: We'll be 3D-printing tech execs in 15 years
Fleshy techie disses network neutrality, helmet-less motorcyclists
Facebook, working on Facebook at Work, works on Facebook. At Work
You don't want your cat or drunk pics at the office
Soz, web devs: Google snatches its Wallet off the table
Killing off web service in 3 months... but app-happy bonkers are fine
prev story

Whitepapers

Why and how to choose the right cloud vendor
The benefits of cloud-based storage in your processes. Eliminate onsite, disk-based backup and archiving in favor of cloud-based data protection.
Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Designing and building an open ITOA architecture
Learn about a new IT data taxonomy defined by the four data sources of IT visibility: wire, machine, agent, and synthetic data sets.
How to determine if cloud backup is right for your servers
Two key factors, technical feasibility and TCO economics, that backup and IT operations managers should consider when assessing cloud backup.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?