Feeds

UK.gov closes wiretap loopholes after Phorm row

Race to avoid millions in fines

Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile

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. ®

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

More from The Register

next story
Of COURSE Stephen Elop's to blame for Nokia woes, says author
'Google did have some unique propositions for Nokia'
FCC, Google cast eye over millimetre wireless
The smaller the wave, the bigger 5G's chances of success
It's even GRIMMER up North after MEGA SKY BROADBAND OUTAGE
By 'eck! Eccles cake production thrown into jeopardy
Mobile coverage on trains really is pants
You thought it was just *insert your provider here*, but now we have numbers
Don't mess with Texas ('cos it's getting Google Fiber and you're not)
A bit late, but company says 1Gbps Austin network almost ready to compete with AT&T
prev story

Whitepapers

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.
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.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.