“What don’t we want?”
“RIPA”
“What do we need?”
“A RIPA review to fight
RIPA abuse”
As the temperature soars
this summer, the usual suspects are making the usual noises about the way law
enforcement bodies acquire private communications data.
On the one hand,
something must be done about the current RIPA regime, as the legislation really
does need updating to make it more easily cover today’s communications technologies.
Thirteen years is a very long time in terms
of technological innovation, and the legislation, passed by Parliament back in
2000, was rather technology specific.
But on the other hand, there
is some disagreement over what should replace it. Parliamentarians who have had
the usual briefings will be aware of a range of measures that could be introduced
relatively quickly to improve the way the current process operates, without
needing to concern themselves too much about re defining the range of categories
of communications information that ought to fall within the remit of RIPA.
Many pressure groups are
concerned that a revised RIPA will give Parliament the opportunity to extend
the range to data types to cover many not currently on the radar. However, such
a review might also give Parliamentarians the opportunity to narrow the range
of data types that are currently available. A couple of pressure groups just appear
want to kill RIPA completely, without offering suggestions as to what ought
replace it.
I expect the pleas for
further investigations into the rules around accessing private communications
will continue, especially since Parliament’s Intelligence and Security
Committee has just confirmed that it was unable to find any evidence of rule
breaking when reviewing the way GCHQ acted in seeking information from the US
Prism programme.
I’m sure that some will
have deep suspicions of an establishment cover-up – and will disregard the view
that, actually, the Brits involved in such operations do behave frightfully
well.
The cynic in me suggests
that “issues” like this are just what special interest groups within the
privacy community need anyway – as it’s a great way to engage with supporters and fly the flag for personal freedoms, etc. Especially when the
foe, aka the Home Office, does not appear to respond to the critics. Anyway, in
a crisis, it’s more likely that said supporters will donate much needed
campaign funds. So I expect many commentators to call this a “crisis” for some
time to come.
But many campaigners do
hold genuine concerns about the adequacy of the existing safeguards, and refuse
to accept that a lack of disciplinary action by the Surveillance Commissioner
and the Information Commissioner and the Interception of Communications
Commissioner is purely due to a lack of poor behaviour by law enforcers.
So, where ought we go
from here?
Well, I doubt that a
review will really change the opinion of those who have their hearts and minds
set against the State needing to access private information for law enforcement
purposes. Although relatively few in number, they are capable of creating a significant
media splash.
Perhaps the Home Office
will counter with more examples of occasions when official access to communications
data was both necessary and helpful. Perhaps more opinion formers will publish
articles supporting the concept of state intrusion into people’s private lives.
Perhaps another wholly unwelcome terrorist spectacular (which could have been prevented
had our boys in blue acted faster) will change the public debate.
Or perhaps new voices
will emerge, such as those of the current Interception of Communications
Commissioner, engaging more frequently on public platforms to convince the
doubters of the robustness of his oversight powers. Perhaps the public need to
be assured (if they are that bothered in the first place) by the sound of new
players on the scene.
I do hope some new voices
will emerge.
Just as I hope that Parliament
will shortly do something rather than do nothing, to address the communications
capability “gap” that was evidently so important when the Home Office laid its
case for action before Parliament last year.
If there really is a significant
gap, then when is it going to be filled?
Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10184964/Britains-spies-did-not-use-secret-US-snooping-programme-watchdog-finds.html
Image credit:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-northerner/2013/mar/08/conservatives-edjacobs-eastleigh-north-edballs-davidcameron
.
Posts
