Official text of the RIP Act 2000 (and as single HTML file)  "Propaganda is needed" Charles Clarke , Hansard Col 1209, 26/7/00

Human Rights Resources Black-Boxes/Carnivore Cybercrime News - 1000 stories FIPR releases/briefings History
email to be added to our mailing list for press releases and news bulletins.

"the most pernicious invasion of privacy ever imposed by a democratic state" Anthony Barnett (Charter 88)

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Information Centre

paste the URL non-streaming files into the Location box of Real Player

NEW John Abbott (NCIS) Bob Packam(NCS) + Akerman(ACPO) 20/2/01
BBC Radio 4 'Today' (propaganda gone awry?) 23/1/01
Perri 6, Simon Moores, Chris Bailey on 8/12/00
Roger Gaspar, John Wadham on R4 Today 4m 57s 4/12/00
Observer's Political Editor, Kamal Ahmed on National Traffic Data Warehouse streaming 5m 2s 3/12/00
BBC TV on workplace surveillance streaming   24/10/00
Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger on RIP streaming   18/9/00
BBC Radio 4 - Law in Action 5m 48s 29/6/00
BBC1 TV News 1m 46s streaming   19/6/00
BBC Radio 4 - Today 6m 3s 12/6/00
BBC Radio 4 - World Tonight 4m 24s 5/6/00
KABC Los Angeles 14m 4s and BBC1 TV News  streaming 5/6/00
C4 News - Tom King MP and Simon Davies streaming   24/5/00
BBC Radio 5 Nicky Campbell 2m 52s 8/5/00
BBC Radio 4 - Broadcasting House 6m 57s streaming 7/5/00
BBC Radio 4 - You and Yours 7m 43s 26/4/00
BBC Radio 4 - PM  5m 13s 24/3/00
BBC Radio 5 interview with Nicholas Bohm 26/2/00

What's New

NEW 4/4/01 Government says yes/maybe then Home Office says no to regulation watchdog's call for INDEPENDENT review of RIP (14/12/00)

NEW 29/3/01 Official spy watchdog says Investigatory Powers Tribunal  "quite incapable of carrying out its job"

NEW 29/3/01 Home Office takes powers to license IT security contractors and NTAC head  announced - Asst. Chief Constable Ian Humphreys

NEW 22/3/01 EU data commissioners issue devastating critique of Cybercrime treaty

19/3/01 PQ: ISP reading e-mail Subject lines for virus checking NOT illegal

19/3/01 Protests over new proposals for HONG KONG  decryption powers

14/3/01 Attempt to increase RIP penalty for failure-to-decrypt to 10 years - only for material seized under Protection of Children Act (as if evidence that the material was child pornography)

NEW 2/01 State surveillance in the age of information and rights, Y.Akdeniz, N. Taylor, C.Walker, Criminal Law Review, (Feb 2001)

22/1/01 Home office refuses to publish, after Hewitt rejects 13/12/00, leaked NCIS submission to Home Office on Communications Data Retention Law 21/8/00 and Observer scoop 3/12/00 ("a scandalous proposal") 

23/11/00 Clarke denies ever any problem with burden of proof - "I don't actually myself think that the amendment made any significant difference at all."

1/11/00 Membership of RIP Tribunal announced and rules (28/9/00) that give no right to hear or cross-examine evidence even via a special advocate

14/7/00 Lord Bassam confirms new kind of warrant allows GCHQ to trawl domestic Internet 7/7/00 and explanation of new "over-ride" certificates  

10/7/00 Home Office Press Office is at it again  

Editorials on RIP
"....the best way of dealing with this misconceived piece of legislation would still be to scrap it....The danger is that the only criminals caught by the new RIP powers will be stupid and technologically illiterate...The RIP bill will make the UK the sole G8 economy to allow state access to decryption keys." 14/7/00

"It is time for the prime minister to get his home secretary back on message" 15/6/00

"scrap this ill-considered bill in its entirety" 6/6/00

"Loath as governments are to accept it, the Net has signalled the end of an era for eavesdropping...and law enforcers need to look to the future not the past. It's better for the British government to abandon its bill and start afresh than to alienate business and the public with inappropriate, ineffective laws" 17/6/00

  Reply from Charles Clarke 7/10/00 and reader's letters 28/10/00


" misguided as to be practically unamendable. It would be better for 'the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom' to throw it out" 12/6/00

"The government will look to get royal assent for the bill before the summer recess. But tinkering at the edges is not enough. Instead it should nail down the coffin on RIP" 23/7/00

Guardian Unlimited "...(FIPR) relentlessly stalked the government. It won major revisions to key parts of the bill, including the assumption that people claiming to have lost their encryption codes are innocent until proved guilty...But it still remains a draconian bill" 27/7/00

"Meanwhile a Labour government is seeking to introduce a law - the RIP bill - which allows for the interception, surveillance and disclosure of journalistic material without prior judicial authorisation. As it stands, a source may be identified and compromised or action taken to prevent the flow of information without a newspaper even being aware of it, still less being able to challenge any applications for authorisation." 22/7/00

"the tone adopted this week by Mr Straw and his henchman Charles Clarke... is not far short of hysterical...The Home Office is saying: trust us . Why should we? Look at the disposition to coerce shown by its pursuit of the press...On display there is the same mind-set... in this repugnant bid to extend government power over the internet." 17/6/00

"People and industry are only just waking up to the enormity of what is proposed and their lordships would do us all a favour if they used their delaying powers to throw this disgraceful bill back to the Commons for a complete rewrite." 12/7/00

"The Government's crass attempt to claim draconian powers to monitor electronic communications, the (RIP)  Bill, would stifle the development of e-business, e-government or e-anything in the UK. " 13/6/00
The Daily Telegraph "As Home Secretary, Mr Straw has shown himself to be an unpleasant mixture of weakness and ... He has been ruthless, too, in seeking the power to examine any private e-mail. Weakness and posturing are a nasty combination. The Home Secretary's grip on his job is looking very shaky." 22/7/00

(the RIP Bill) "..still needs a good deal more investigation before it is fit for the Statute Book. This is the second time the paranoiacs in the Home Office have tried to hammer e-commerce with draconian surveillance powers, and the second retreat in the face of general outrage" City 28/6/00

"it is not worth the widescale intrusion into the privacy of computer users that the legislation will inevitably bring.... The legislation as it stands would allow someone to be dragged off in the middle of the night without being able to tell his wife or child why" 27/6/00

"It is bad enough that this Government does not seem able willingly to relinquish the powers that the internet is passing back to the individual. It is intolerable when, seeking to enact regressive legislation, it postures as a force of progressivism acting 'to protect our kids'" 9/3/00 "The problem lies with the RIP Act itself. It will damage the UK as an e-business destination and undermine confidence in confidential data. It should be scrapped" 7/12/00

"the best thing the House of Lords could do for UK e-commerce in the next few days is to torpedo the Bill completely and ask Jack Straw to start again" 8/6/00

The "tipping-off" offence is useless. Why ? SECRECY REQUIREMENT: PLEASE READ PARAGRAPH 7 IMMEDIATELY  

First glimpse of what a GAK Notice will look like


12/7/00 Daily Telegraph

We wish to express our opposition to the UK government's Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) bill.

We agree that the government has a duty to protect public safety, but the RIP bill is neither an acceptable nor a responsible means of achieving this goal. We are deeply concerned that the bill will inhibit the development of the Internet and e-commerce, while creating a range of onerous and unfair impositions on individuals, organisations and companies.

The bill substantially increases the power of law enforcement and security agencies, and yet provides wholly inadequate measures for authorisation and oversight. The ability of Government to demand decryption keys creates a dangerous precedent which will affect the rights of all computer users.

Surveillance of website visits will undermine confidence in the Internet as a means of communication.

We urge the government to withdraw the bill. Any subsequent legislation should, at the very least, provide stringent limitations and oversight to ensure that it does not violate the rights to liberty, fair trial, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and privacy.

13/7/00 Telegraph: Reply from Charles Clarke - " all the serious commentators with whom we have engaged..."


1. Privacy International
2. Amnesty International
3. Telecommunications Managers Association
4. John Wadham, director, Liberty
5. Professor J Stuart Horner, University of Central Lancashire
6. Index on Censorship
7. Countryside Alliance
8. Professor Ian Angell, London School of Economics
9. Tony Bunyan, Editor, Statewatch
10. Prof.Michael Pidd, Operational Research Society
11. Manufacturing, Science & Finance Union
12. Prof. Michael Pringle, Royal College of General Practitioners
13. Esther Dyson, chairman, EDventure Holdings
14. Helen Bamber, Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture
15. Professor George Alberti
16. Claire Rayner, Patients Association
17. Richard Blair (son of George Orwell)
18. Feminists Against Censorship
19. Consumers International
20. Caspar Bowden, Foundation for Information Policy Research
21. Campaign Against Censorship of the Internet in Britain
22. Christine Hancock, General Secretary, Royal College of Nursing
23. UK UNIX Users Group
24. Dr Margaret Jones, Brook Advisory Centres
25. Dr Fleur Fisher, Chairman, BMA Foundation for AIDS
26. Frances D'Souza CMG
27. Poptel
29. Dr Brian Gladman
30. First Tuesday
31. Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK)
32. Frances Blunden, Prevention of Professional Abuse Network
33. GreenNet
34. National Union of Journalists
35. Article 19
36. Relatives for Justice, Northern Ireland
37. Campaign Against the Arms Trade
38. Society of Editors
39. Simon Moores, Chairman, The Research Group
40. Charter 88
42. Mark Thomas, Vera Productions
43. Internet Society (England)
44. Future Trust
45. Peter Tatchell, OutRage!
46. Mike Slocombe, urban75
47. Campaign for Freedom of Information
48. Duncan Campbell
49. Roger Goss, Director, Patient Concern


Human Rights

24/1/01 Human Rights and RIP - ECLIP Workshop on Interception of Computer Crime

Reversal of the Burden-of-proof: Who said what ? - I shall make no concessions Charles Clarke MP, Minister of State at the Home Office 

According to EPIC's International Survey of Encryption Policy 2000  the only countries with laws explicitly coercing disclosure of keys are India and Singapore (however neither appears to have reversed the burden of proof). [Encryption is otherwise banned or restricted in Belarus, Brunei, China, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Myanmar (Burma), Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam]. See also the Crypto Law Survey by Bert-Jaap Koops

13/6/00 Open Letter from Amnesty International to House of Lords - "(RIP) could undermine... defending human rights and victims of human rights violations throughout the world"

7/6/00 Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation Eighteenth Report - "The Committee considers that no other amendment is necessary either to the delegated powers in the bill or to the parliamentary control provided for these powers." (a watchdog that didn't bark - but no JUSTICE submission on Pt.III ?)

19/4/00 Home Office refuses Open Government request - "You also ask about the Encryption and Law Enforcement report published in May 1999 by the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) of the Cabinet Office.... The Home Office understands that the task force did not take legal advice before making its recommendations." 

26/3/00 Open Government request from FIPR to Home Office to publish Legal Advice (on Human Rights Act compatibility of RIP Part.III) - "Please could you enumerate the opinions Mr.Clarke was referring to...When did the Government first seek external independent legal advice on Part.III (either of draft E-Comms Bill or RIP)? Will you publish advice you have received?" - FIPR

24/3/00 Financial Times: Legal fears over e-mail tapping by Jean Eaglesham

..."As these are significant breaches, we expect the Home Office to engage in open debate on how far this bill will fail to be human rights compliant," said Madeleine Colvin, legal policy director at Justice, the civil liberties group that commissioned the opinion...

...Charles Clarke, the Home Office minister responsible for the bill, said there were a "large number of legal opinions floating around", and insisted the bill could withstand legal challenges...

...The Foundation for Information Policy Research attacked this approach. "The question of the reversal of proof has been festering for eight months," said Caspar Bowden, the foundation's director. "It is time for the Home Office to give a reasoned explanation of how an innocent person who has forgotten their key can be expected to prove this."

22/3/00 PRESS RELEASE: DECRYPTION POWERS FAIL HUMAN RIGHTS AUDIT AGAIN (and as MS-Word .doc) - "to avoid unjustified suspicion and possible wrongful conviction...good practice to...use steganographic file systems...not to admit to ever having had a key"

20/3/00 LEGAL OPINION: FIPR/JUSTICE Updated Human Rights Audit of RIP Decryption Powers (and as MS-Word)

20/1/00 Government replies to T&I Sel. Ctee request to "publish detailed analysis to substantiate its confidence" that decryption powers are ECHR compliant: "...very happy to explain why it believes the provisions to be ECHR compatible when faced with specific argument to the contrary..." 

26/10/99 Trade &Industry Select Committee 14th Report: Human Rights : "Justice and the Foundation for Information Policy Research commissioned a human rights audit of part III of the draft Bill which reported serious concerns that the draft Bill would, if enacted, contravene articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR.....Having certified that legislation does not contravene the European Convention on Human Rights, Ministers must be able to demonstrate, when challenged, that this is indeed the case. We recommend that the Government publish a detailed analysis to substantiate its confidence that part III of the draft Bill does not contravene the European Convention on Human Rights, dealing with the points made to the contrary.

25/10/99 PRESS RELEASE: DTI draft E-Comms Bill decryption powers fail human rights audit  

7/10/99 LEGAL OPINION: FIPR/JUSTICE original Human Rights Audit of Draft E-Comms Bill decryption powers by Tim Eicke and Prof. Jack Beatson QC




3/11/00 see also Intelligence And Security Committee Annual Report 1999-2000

20/4/00 Technical and cost issues associated with interception of communications at certain Communication Service Providers (.pdf)

Report commissioned by the Home Office from the  Smith Group

For an idea of what off-the-shelf kit can do visit Applied Signals Technologies, Xanalys, and TextFinder

25/4/00 FIPR RELEASE: £30 million (or more) to tap the Internet in the UK


United States: CARNIVORE "DCS1000"

NEW IDG 9/3/01: Despite New Name, Carnivore Still Bites

Computerworld 12/2/01: FBI's Carnivore Gets a Name Change

3/12/00 Comments on the Carnivore System Technical ReviewSteven M Bellovin, David Farber, Peter Neumann, Eugene Spafford

21/11/00 EPIC Statement : Carnivore Report Provides No Reassurance On Monitoring System's Potential For Abuse

21/11/00 Draft Report: Independent Technical Review of the Carnivore System (and as .pdf)

ZDNet 4/10/00: FBI releases first Carnivore data - ...more than half of the 750 pages were blacked out and hundreds more were withheld. The Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) filed suit in June under the Freedom of Information Act seeking the release of the Carnivore source code, other technical details and legal arguments addressing the potential privacy implications of the technology.

Computerworld 16/8/00: Bob Barr - Carnivore is why new laws are needed for new technology

Wired 14/8/00: These Wires Were Made for Tapping

Wired 4/8/00: Will Crypto Feast on Carnivore?

WSWS 2/8/00: Clinton administration plan for FBI spying on email

BBC Online 25/7/00: Congress fears FBI internet tap tool - The FBI's Assistant Director Donald Kerr said the programme did not search through every message looking for words such as "bomb" and "drugs". Instead, it worked on certain strict criteria, such as looking at messages from a particular account. "We don't have the right or the authority to just go fishing"

ZDNet UK 25/7/00: Congress isn't swallowing Carnivore

14/7/00 ACLU Seeks FBI Computer Code On "Carnivore" and Other Cybersnoop Programs

Robert X. Cringely 13/7/00: The FBI's Plan for Digital Wiretaps Raises More Questions Than It Answers

BBC Online 13/7/00: Carnivore upsets privacy groups - "Nobody knows how it works and how it can be targeted. It's a black box" James Dempsey, CDT

11/7/00 FBI 'Carnivore' system that can scan "millions of e-mails per second" - Word of the Carnivore system has disturbed many in the Internet industry because, when deployed, it must be hooked directly into Internet service providers' computer networks. That would give the government, at least theoretically, the ability to eavesdrop on all customers' digital communications, from e-mail to online banking and Web surfing. The system also troubles some Internet service providers, who are loath to see outside software plugged into their systems. In many cases, the FBI keeps the secret Carnivore computer system in a locked cage on the provider's premises, with agents making daily visits to retrieve the data captured from the provider's network



1/12/00 - Fax Your MP For Free !

STAND's campaign against the RIP Bill, detailed Guide to RIP (in need of updating !)

UK Online Public Discussion forums (10 Downing St. website forum on Internet Policy closed 4/12/00)

Call for an Open Europe campaign by the European Federation of Journalists and Statewatch

RIP Resources - links, briefings, press releases, and analyses

(Lindsay Hoyle MP): 93. Can you comment on the suggestion made by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, GCHQ and all the other spooks which are around, that companies should keep all their communications for seven years. Would you agree with those comments? 

(Ms Hewitt): I do not agree with the proposals. I saw them in the press, I think, ten days ago. I have not had formal communications with the Home Office, I have discussed it informally with Charles Clarke and I understand it is his view as well that that proposal should not be implemented.

The Government's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill is now before Parliament.   A paper setting out our views on the draft legislation has been prepared for parliamentarians.  Broadly we are concerned that warrants for interception of communications and other forms of surveillance are available through administrative rather than judicial procedures and that forms of surveillance which are equally intrusive are treated differently.  In this context, we are particularly concerned that the Bill appears to allow access to encrypted electronic information without a warrant, simply on the basis of a notice issued by a specified law enforcement authority.  We contend that this notice should only be served where a judge or another independent authority has ruled that there are grounds for approving its issue.  Our concerns about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill are linked to our concerns about various international initiatives to combat cybercrime (see Chapter 8).

Is it really the intention to provide Inland Revenue or VAT inspectors or DTI Company investigators with these powers?  Even the car park attendant at the Home Office seems to have them under current drafting!

Individuals in multi-national businesses may find themselves placed in an invidious position through the operation of this Bill.  If an employee is served with an order to release highly sensitive encryption keys, they are likely also to be served with a ‘gagging order’

the drafting is littered with “is likely to” references such as “information likely to come into possession …”.  These lead to substantial doubt as to the level of exposure to cost, risk and disruption for business..

If full decryption (as opposed to our preferred option of session) keys are demanded using as Section 46 notice with an associated ‘tipping-off’ order, individuals working for multi-national companies may be placed in a perilous position...A much higher level of judicial authorisation should be required for demands to access general decryption keys

"..questions the distinction made in the Bill between the requirements for gaining access to data contained within an intercepted communication and those for gaining access to other communications data such as traffic and billing information.  Both sets of data provide insight into the private lives of individuals and should therefore be subject to equivalent controls and safeguards"

"...unlikely that individuals will be informed where the integrity of their private keys has been jeopardised and they may continue to use these keys without being aware that their security has been compromised.  Third parties whose personal data forms part of any protected electronic information may also be unaware of the risks posed to their data"

"..judicial warrant should be the general standard for authorisation.  Unlawful interception of communications, unlawful surveillance and unlawful access to encrypted data should all be subject to criminal penalty"






FIPR Releases and Briefings

Press Release:  Official spy watchdog excoriates RIP complaints Tribunal NEW 3/4/01
Consultation Response:  DPC - On the use of personal data in employer/employee relationships 5/1/01
Consultation Response: on Home Office draft Code of Practice on Interception  18/11/00 
Report: RIP countermeasures  (and as MS-Word or .pdf)  (see also Hansard Col 1185 26/7/00)  26/7/00 
Press Release:  RIP turns Zombie 20/7/00
Press Release:  Crunch RIP amendment to limit GAK defeated by one vote 13/7/00
Press Release:  FIPR on Codes of Practice and amendments for Lords' Report Stage (and as MS-Word) 11/7/00
RIP permits GCHQ trawling of domestic Internet 

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have enjoyed listening to the contributions from the Opposition Front Benches. Both noble Lords seemed to be striving extremely hard to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and to find some way in which what is written plainly and clearly in the Bill should not be true. It is absolutely obvious what is in the Bill--at least it is to me--and that is, yes, trawling becomes legal. The Home Secretary has to renew the warrant every three months, but he can trawl on grounds of economic well-being and serious crime, as well as terrorism, to any extent that he wishes. (12/7/00)

Certificated & Overlapping Warrants, S.15.3 "safeguards" and domestic mass-surveillance 12/6/00

Lord Phillips' questions in Committee 19/6/00

Lord Bassam's written reply 4/7/00

Explanation of "over-ride" certificates 14/7/00

(N.B. FIPR does not want these documents to be "looked into" by the Intelligence and Security Committee, oh no.)

Release: Why the "tipping-off" offence might seem like a necessary power, but is actually useless 7/7/00
Release/Briefing: Effect of Govt. amendments for Lords Committee Stage 3rd day (also as MS-Word) 28/6/00
Press Release: on House of Lords Second Reading debate Lords Flay "Mass-Surveillance" Bill   26/5/00
Briefing: Four Fallacies - House of Lords Second Reading - also as MS-Word 25/5/00
Press Release : Home Office RETRACTS! - volte-face on mens rea described as "slight mis-brief" 1/6/00
Press Release:  BIG BROWSER WILL BE WATCHING YOU House of Commons Third Reading 8/5/00
Press Release: on Smith Report £30 million (or more) to tap the Internet in the UK 25/4/00
Briefing: HoC Standing Committee on Part.III - What's it reasonable to expect from from Investigative Decryption? 4/4/00
Three exchanges of letters between FIPR and Charles Clarke MP 30/3/00
Scrambling for Safety 2000 conference Keynote Speech by Charles Clarke MP 22/3/00
Press Release: DECRYPTION POWERS FAIL HUMAN RIGHTS AUDIT AGAIN (and as MS-Word .doc) 22/3/00
Legal Opinion: FIPR/JUSTICE Updated Human Rights Audit of RIP Pt.III (and as MS-Word)   20/3/00
Briefing: House of Commons Second Reading. Also available in pdf. 6/3/00
Press Release: FIPR on Gladman Report - Provisions for Government Access to Keys 28/2/00
Press Release: FIPR on publication of RIP Bill   10/2/00
Unprecedented Safeguards For Unprecedented Capabilities, FIPR paper presented at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, National Security Forum Conference, "International Cooperation to Combat Cyber Attacks",  (PDF file format also available) 7/12/99
Press Release: DTI draft E-Comms Bill decryption powers fail human rights audit   25/10/99
Speech: The Public Voice - OECD Forum on Electronic Commerce   11/10/99
Legal Opinion: FIPR/JUSTICE Human Rights Audit of Draft E-Comms Bill decryption powers   7/10/99
Open Letter from FIPR to Home Office (no reply received) 3/8/99



... a strong message that a fair balance must be struck between anti cyber crime efforts and the fundamental rights to privacy and personal data protection of individuals

... regrets that no provision is made on the incrimination of violation of data protection rules.

requirement of dual criminality (another very important safeguard) can only be invoked in limited cases

irrespective of national or wider concepts on safeguards and conditions, ... may not pass the test of necessity, appropriateness and proportionality as required by Human Rights ..

... not sufficient to fully safeguard the fundamental rights to privacy and personal data protection. Citizens may not be able to foresee when and how their fundamental rights are to be restricted

provisions ... concerning traffic data raise serious concerns: ... do not provide for the possibility for the requested party to refuse such assistance for data protection reasons

obligations that stored computer data and traffic data are to be preserved upon request for at least 60 days... present a considerable burden on business... Similar concerns apply to Article 20 which obliges service providers to collect ... traffic data in real-time.

Council of Europe... needs to pay particular attention to the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, especially the right to privacy and personal data protection.

the right to privacy and data protection, may not have been sufficiently evaluated by the committee of experts .... (PC-CY).

wording is often too vague and confusing and may not qualify as a sufficient basis for relevant laws and mandatory measures that are intended to lawfully limit fundamental rights and freedoms. Explanations in the explanatory memorandum cannot replace legal clarity of the text itself.

welcomes that, contrary to previous drafts, the current version ... does not include anymore a general surveillance obligation consisting in the routine retention of all traffic data....[this] position... should in no way be revised.

regrets the very late release of relevant documents.... considers it highly desirable that the public debate be prolonged involving all parties concerned (human rights organisations, industry etc.) before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe debates and decides.

a large number of the deficiencies highlighted ... apparently result from the fact that the Council of Europe has not made the best possible use of the available expertise in data protection matters.... invites [CoE & Member States]  to consult their data protection experts before finalising their position 

"The [cybercrime] treaty was written by government bureaucrats for government bureaucrats," says [Stewart] Baker... "The process was entirely dominated by one viewpoint-criminal enforcement."

...Nations would have to be able to issue "retention orders" that would "freeze" data on any computer. Governments would also need the ability to capture in real time the time and origin of all traffic on a networks, including telephone networks. For serious crimes, they would be required to intercept the actual content of the communications.

...nations would have to cooperate with other nations in sharing electronic evidence across borders. And this cooperation requirement would apply to all crimes. They don't have to be the cybercrimes laid out in the first section of the treaty...

Council of Europe Convention on Cyber-crime

18/10/00 GILC Open Letter to Council of Europe on Cyber-crime Convention  

  • provisions ... require Internet Service Providers to retain records regarding the activities of their customers... pose a significant risk to the privacy and human rights of Internet users and are at odds with... the Data Protection Directive of the European Union... incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR and with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.
  • "Illegal Devices"...concept lacks sufficient specificity to ensure that it will not become an all-purpose basis to investigate individuals engaged in computer-related activity that is completely lawful.
  • ...dramatic extension of copyright crimes...that allow for mutual assistance without dual-criminality.
  • criminal provisions of Articles 9 and 11 could lead to a chilling effect on the free flow of information and ideas...Imposing liability on Internet Service Providers for third party content...
  • ...requirements for search and seizure of stored computer data lacks necessary procedural safeguards to safeguard the rights of the individual and to ensure due process of law...
  • Articles 14 and 15 could establish a requirement for government access to encryption keys...
  • ...Police agencies and powerful private interests... have sought to use a closed process to establish rules that will have the effect of binding legislation. We believe this process violates requirements of transparency and is at odds with democratic decisionmaking.


RIP News Archive contributions appreciated: (and

  Privacy tools  

(no FIPR endorsement implied) Groove, Freedom, Junkbusters, PGP, ScramDisk, GNU Privacy Guard, Freeswan, Rubberhose, Steganographic File System, CyberRights.Net, MOOT!, HushMail, SecuriPhone, Nautilus, Speak Freely, PGPphone, LokMail, PrivacyX, ZixMail, FreeNet, SafeWeb, The Cloak, GILC Anonymous remailer, ANON.XG.NU, MessageRx, Anonymizer, Jack B. Nymble, Evidence Eliminator, ZipLip, Privada,  and more here
For most of these you may want to upgrade your browser with, for example, IE High Encryption Pack  or Netscape 128-bit

Support FIPR

  1. Register 18/4/01: Cybercops are go! - critics of the government's policies were not invited and/or were banned
  2. NO MENTION OF RIP Sky News 18/4/2001War On Cyber Crime - claimed to be a bigger threat to Britain than terrorism.
  3. NO MENTION OF RIP ITN 18/4/01: New cybercrime squad launched
  4. NO MENTION OF RIP BBC 18/4/01: New force to tackle cybercrime
  5. VNU 18/4/01:Government unleashes hi-tech super sleuths
  6. Guardian Online 18/4/01: Government launches cyber-crime unit
  7. ZDNet UK 17/4/01: Tories pledge to boost broadband and e-commerce
  8. Sunday Times 15/4/01: No Hiding Place - Bryan Appleyard - "[RIP is] the most pernicious invasion of privacy ever imposed by a democratic state" Anthony Barnett (founding director of Charter 88)
  9. CW360 11/4/01: IT user groups unite to take Government to task
  10. Financial Times 10/4/01: Push to level the playing field
  11. VNUnet 9/4/0: Are your staff surfing safely? - ...the Home Office has promised to publish a code of practice covering RIP [wrong - not about this], its publication has been delayed....George Gardiner, senior partner at solicitors Buchanan Ingersol...called on the Home Office [??!!] to delay publication of the code no longer than is strictly necessary.
  12. Internet Magazine 6/4/01: Stallman supports Internet Campaign
  13. Register 6/4/01: Free software would have prevented foot and mouth, BSE, Hatfield rail crash - RMS - Pausing only for the obligatory swipe at the UK Government, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Private Security Industry Bill (and tipping his hat to FIPR's Caspar Bowden, also in the audience) Stallman went on a gentle meander through the history of copyright, ending at the present day when the media companies own most copyrights and also (he alleges) own the politicians who make the laws that maintain the system.
  14. Financial Times 5/4/01: Snooping code delay until end of the year - Iain Bourne, strategic policy manager at the Information Commission, said: "We got a lot of very detailed submissions, some of which were longer than the code itself. The code was supposed to colour in the skeletal outline of the law. Some thought it went beyond that." The commission will now take expert advice before publishing the final version of the code, "hopefully by the end of the year," Mr Bourne added.....The delay risks leaving both employers and staff in legal limbo. Sarah Veale, senior policy officer at the Trades Union Congress, said: "A lot of us were relying on the code to clarify when the right to privacy protects the employee . . . we need it to help employers, as much as employees. If we're not going to have a code (this year), then if someone is unfairly treated it means we may have to go to court. That's got to be the inevitable consequence." The Confederation of British Industry said it hoped the delay reflected a "fundamental rethink" of the code. "Our response (to the commission) contained a number of very serious objections to the code. We said it was too complicated and too long and that some parts, such as e-mail, were unworkable," said Rod Armitage, head of legal affairs.
  15. ZDNet UK 4/4/01: Government backtracks on encryption enquiry - Despite accepting its own taskforce recommendation two weeks ago, the Home Office now says there will be no independent enquiry into the effects of the controversial RIP Act...."The impact of the Act should be looked at by an independent panel to see if the government has got it right or not, rather than whether or not the industry is happy" Yaman Akdeniz CRCL
  16. 4/4/2001: 'Shunned' industry scuppers European cybercrime treaty
  17. Guardian 3/4/01: Cyber terror threatens UK's biggest companies - The CMA asked172 of its senior personnel ... Thirty-two per cent admitted being the victim of cyber-terrorism.
  18. Register 3/4/01: Spooks cock snooks at RIP oversight - The RIP Tribunal - citizens defence against abuses of the Act - has been criticised for being poorly staffed, so underfunded that the ISC reported in December, that it was unable to open mail, let alone process complaints. The Tribunal has confers  no right of cross-examination. But the ISC meekly notes only that progress needs to be monitored by the next committee. Without an effective RIP Tribunal, it is impossible for UK citizens to invoke the European Convention of Human Rights, the only legal recourse available.
  19. ZDNet 3/4/01: Watchdog warns Net policing will go unchecked - "The official parliamentary watchdog has exposed the [RIP] complaints mechanism as a sham, and a senior member has highlighted its inadequacy under the European Convention of Human Rights" Caspar Bowden, FIPR
  20. IndyMedia 2/4/01: Commons debate: Mayday, MI5, subversion, and the internet"
  21. Iternet Magazine 4/01: A Manifesto for the Internet - Repeal the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act immediately ... consult widely on new legislation which will allow police and other agencies the legal power they need to investigate crime without damaging the security of the Net and without trampling over the civil liberties of every one of us.
  22. Scotsman 30/3/01: Thriving communications pose new legal implications
  23. Financial Times 29/3/00: IMRG opinion - Spam - E-mail's foot-and-mouth
  24. (RIP-related ??) NTK 30/3/01: Registering the troublemakers
    1. CW360 17/4/01: CBI counters threat to license consultants
    2. ITWeek 9/4/01: Security staff face licensing
    3. ITWeek 9/4/01: LEADER - there a need for laws to regulate IT security staff? Licensing would lead to more legislation and red tape, but it is unlikely to help IT managers find the best staff for IT security, especially given the current skills shortage... also most IT staff are involved in security in some way - will they all have to be licensed? And if a body is set up to award licenses, will it also be able to revoke them? Is so under what circumstances?
    4. VNUnet 3/4/01: IT security firms face prevention or regulation
    5. VNUnet 2/4/01: IT security professionals may be licensed
    6. Computer Weekly: 2/4/01: Government may license IT security consultants
    7. 30/3/01: You're not getting in - not with data like that
    8. Register 30/3/01: SysAdmins to need a licence from Home Office? 

      The idea of the Bill is to bring in a licensing scheme for bouncers, private investigators and wheelclampers but its current wording clearly includes IT security consultants and even plain old systems admin folk. Since this really can't be the intention of the legislation - it would, after all, be completely unworkable - you have to ask why the Home Office has written it as such?

      ..."In 1999 the government wanted 'key-escrow' - a copy of everyone's encryption keys. The RIP Act 2000 allows seizure of anyone's encryption keys. Do they now want to ban anyone from working with encryption without a license?" Caspar Bowden, FIPR


    9. 30/3/01: IT pros may need licences to work- "This looks like a tactic to keep the government's options open. Unless there are the same cast iron exemptions for programmers, sysadmins and IT consultants that have been granted to other professions, the government can introduce licensing by order at any time." Caspar Bowden, FIPR
    10. Home Office 30/3/01: 'unofficial'  Release 
    11. FIPR Release 29/3/01: Govt. stalls on licensing of computer consultants
  25. Register 30/3/01: US company defeats Brit RIP Act

    SafeWeb's proxy servers encrypt all data transmitted between an individual's computer and the Web sites visited, once they've logged on to the service. Thus the only information one's ISP can record, hence cough up to nosey Feds, is the fact that one accessed the SafeWeb site...

    The company also has an application called Triangle Boy, which adds an extra layer of security for the truly paranoid and further obstacles and frustrations for investigators and censors....

    Because the T'Boy boxes are distributed randomly, it is virtually impossible for any government authority to defeat the scheme with filtering, firewalls or surveillance hardware -- meaning that Netizens in notoriously authoritarian countries like China, Afghanistan and Britain, say, will be able to access whatever they please on the Web and leave no trace of their comings and goings.


  26. Register 19/03/01: Hong Kong ISPs slam encryption demands (see Hong Kong section for details ) - The concerns are similar to those raised last year over the UK's government's Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill
  27. NTK 16/3/01 - TOTALISE vs Motley Fool...So British law now says UK Websites can be sued for libel (because they are publishers) and be compelled to hand over personal details (because they aren't). Nice... as UKCRYPTO regular Donald Ramsbottom noted, if the courts have this much power to compel disclosure: why did they ever need  RIP in the first place?
  28. KableNet 15/3/01: Privacy schooltime - ...what the PIU (when it eventually reports) must not do is recommend attempts to legislate the privacy issue away. When the government attempted to move in this direction with its RIP Act, it was rightly slammed by civil rights groups Ian Kearns, IPPR
  29. 14/3/01: British Law Lets Government Monitor The Net
  30. VNU 12/3/01: Cybercop slams EU law - Britain's leading cybercop has slammed European Union data processing legislation which he says makes it impossible for police to smash online crime rings.
  31. ZDNet Uk 9/3/01: Ignorance of email snooping law rife
  32. Guardian 8/3/01: Hush push for secure privacy - Last year, Hush paired with the UK privacy advocates Cyber Rights and Cyber Liberties to offer Britons free encrypted email that bypassed the restrictions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act. (Asked if Hush might consider moving its office to Britain post-RIP, Hush's Dublin-based chief executive Jon Matonis laughed. "No. Absolutely, we would not. It would be too restrictive.")
  33. Guardian 8/3/01: Hackers: the political heroes of cyberspace
  34. 8/3/01: Bewildered IT directors struggle with email laws
  35. VNUnet 7/3/01: Cybercrimes treaty edges closer
  36. Industry Standard 7/3/01: The wrong arm of the law
  37. Irish Times 6/3/01: Myths that hinder Internet expansion
  38. New Media Age 6/3/01: Enormous burdens
  39. ZDnet UK 6/3/01: Government regulations stifle e-business
  40. 2/3/01: 'Unworkable' Snooping laws delayed for third time
  41. Guardian 1/3/01: In sight of the law
  42. Financial Times 1/3/01: Richard Woods ISP public affairs adviser
  43. Guardian 1/3/01: Spot the difference
  44. Prospect  3/01: LETTER from FIPR in reply to Microsoft's Money - Others can judge whether, in calling RIP's opponents "libertarian", Mr.Carr told us more than he intended about his own beliefs.
  45. Scotsman 26/2/01: BCC boss warns of red tape threat
  46. Computing 26/2/01: Philip Virgo - Whatever happened to broadband?
  47. Scotland on Sunday 25/2/01: Watch out for the dangers of a wired world
  48. Irish Times 23/2/01: Pretty good encryption man joins Hush team
  49. NTK 23/2/01: To the GOVERNMENT GATEWAY Website: ... a system run by Viacode, with "key recovery" built in. You get to generate your signature key. Your encryption key, though, is created by Viacode - and they keep backups. So if you use it for communicating securely, someone, somewhere, could  silently obtain your key from Viacode and monitor you....the ChamberSign FAQ: "while ...a ChamberSign digital signature will stand up in a court of law, the PGP digital signature is unlikely to". PGP: perfectly legal, just not supported under this government.
  50. Industry Standard 21/2/01: Is Blair's net full of holes?  - John Kampfner

    Party strategists are piqued by the reluctance of dotcom glitterati to join rock stars and other celebrities in spreading the New Labour message in an openly partisan way. For its part, the Internet industry is becoming disenchanted with Labour, not least because of the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which many view as clumsy and authoritarian....

    Lord Haskins [in the recent report from his Better Regulation Task Force...] also pointed to the damage that could be done by RIPA, arguing that, if other countries did not introduce similar legislation, "Net operators might relocate". But no ground will be given here. One government aide commented: "The Net arose from anarchic origins; it has an anarchic ethos. We need to do what we can to ensure it's channelled carefully." Internet entrepreneurs have yet to achieve anything like the political clout of the captains of the old economy – a price they may be paying in part for their reluctance to be New Labour cheerleaders.


  51. 20/2/01: Underneath the RIP Act - Pia Heikkila interviews John Abbott (NCIS), Bob Packam (NCS), Neil Barrett (IRM)
  52. Guardian 19/2/01: MoD inquiry into 'privacy breach' - Ministry of Defence police have ordered an internal inquiry into allegations that its officers extracted private information stored on a mobile phone of an anti-nuclear protester... to determine whether the information was taken in accordance with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
  53. 15/2/01: Kournikova filters could be illegal
  54. Register 14/2/01: Pedos volunteered system passwords to cop - A spokesman for the Home Office told El Reg: "The thinking behind RIP obviously predates operation Cathedral, but when putting together legislation the government consults all relevant parties for expert opinion. " He said that a case like Operation Cathedral would not have been the only reason for the law to be drafted, but he would not rule out the possibility that it formed part of the debate. He said "It is a good example of what the RIP Act is trying to do."
  55. Times 14/2/01: FYI
  56. BBC Online 13/2/01:Tackling online child pornography
  57. ComputerWeekly 9/2/01: Privacy, what privacy?
  58. NTK 9/2/01: Rubberhose thwarts this by allowing a large number of encrypted messages to be stored on the same drive, each encoded with a different password. The total number of levels is unknown, so when Commandante Plodista requests your passphrase, you can happily give him the password to the lowest level (or three), confident that noone can ever prove that this isn't *all* the data you have on the drive.
  59. ZDNet UK 8/2/01: ISPA awards: Boos for BT and criticism for ISPs - ...Pinder took the opportunity to criticise ISPs for their failure to get involved in the current consultation process about the RIP (Regulation of Investigatory Powers) Act. According to Pinder the response has been "disappointing", and in an interview with ZDNet News Pinder accused ISPs of immaturity. "It is all very well to moan and make a fuss about these things but you've got to be grown up about it as well," he said.
  60. 8/2/01: BT cast as Internet villain at ISP awards - Tim Berners-Lee was named Internet Hero, while BT chief executive, Sir Peter Bonfield scooped the Internet Villain award for holding back unmetered and broadband Internet access....The UK's new e-envoy, Andrew Pinder opened the awards. He urged the industry to work more closely with government and criticised the audience for not making their cases loudly enough: "You've got to help me in the representation of the issues that I have to take to government, but you have to make yourselves heard." Pinder said there has been a disappointing number of nominations for the technical advisory board to watch over the implementation of the RIP Bill - a problem which he said must be addressed
  61. Register 7/2/01: Police urge business to report hi-tech crimes
  62. Network News 7/2/01: Industry figures see red over RIP Act grey areas
  63. Network News 7/2/01: Did they or didn't they - the UUnet RIP case continues
  64. BBC Online 6/2/01:  Cybercrime - does it put you off using the internet?
  65. NO MENTION OF RIP BBC Online 2/01: Life of Crime - Cybercrime
  66. Register 2/2/01: 'Cyber Sweeney' host hi-tech crime meet - The National Crime Squad is holding its first ever conference on hi-tech crime and electronic extortion via the Internet. The conference, to be held between February 14 and 15 at the International Convention Centre, Birmingham, will include delegates from over 20 European countries and will feature speakers from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Crime Squad.
  67. ZDNet UK 2/2/01: Firms say data laws lack clarity 

    Richard Riley, the head of the RIP Act implementation team, told a seminar organised by law firm Russell Jones & Walker that the portrayal of the act as "an Orwellian nightmare of mass surveillance is a load of rubbish". Riley said that the concept that a permanent intercept capability, with so-called black boxes, would be installed in every communication service provider (CSP) is a fallacy. "[It] will not apply to all CSPs in the UK - the authorities do not have the resources," commented Riley...

    The eminent human rights lawyer, Michael Birnbaum QC, said that the failure of the government to introduce a single piece of legislation that covered all surveillance and interception had left a confusing mixture of powers. He said that there is confusion because of the number of statutes that would need to be considered before a warrant could be issued. "Some of the protections that the RIP Act provides against abuse are inadequate, while others make the task of investigation so complicated that they discourage use of the Act."


  68. Guardian 1/2/01: Dr Jekyll, Mr Straw - If Howard had done all this, the media and the people would be up in arms. We might even have taken to the streets to call for his dismissal. But because the author of these attacks on our liberty is the softly spoken, plausibly hesitant Jack, we have let these things pass, all the while being distracted by Labour's rhythmic beat about hospitals and schools. The interesting part of the government's attacks on freedom is that it reveals an innate suspicion of the public. The measures to retain DNA samples, for instance, classify each one of us as a potential criminal, whether guilty of a crime or not. In the case of RIPA, everyone's privacy has been compromised by the black boxes which the government insists certain internet providers install. Henry Porter
  69. Guardian 1/2/01: It's official: I'm a menace to society - All over the world, governments are trying to stamp out peaceful protest and dissent. In Britain, the new terrorism and investigatory powers acts enable the security services both to characterise protesters as terrorists and to ransack their communications without a warrant. George Monbiot
  70. CW360 1/2/2001: Breaking down the mind barriers
  71. Australian Radio National 1/2/01: Phillip Adams interviews Caspar Bo
  72. wden on RIP
  73. Prospect  2/01: LETTER in reply to Microsoft's Money - Those who sought to stop the RIP Bill did so because we believed the dangers that it was designed to cure, though real, did not justify the dangers it would cause. Michael Catty, Stevenage, Herts
  74. Observer 28/1/01: Crackdown on web baby sites faces instant log-off - Note that Hutton is not just calling for UK-based child-brokering sites (if such exist) to be shut down by the ISPs which carry them. He is instructing ISPs to desist from 'relaying material' from such sites, no matter where they are located. If this is really what he has in mind, he is either certifiable or entirely ignorant of how the internet works, because the only way of achieving it would be to monitor the clickstreams of every single UK user of the net - and not even Jack Straw believes he can do that.
  75. Tribune 26/1/01: LETTER from Caspar Bowden
  76. ZDNet UK 24/1/01: Dutch government acknowledges Echelon spy network
  77. NetworkNews 24/1/01: UUNet falls foul of RIP Act
  78. NetworkNews 24/1/01: ISPs stage debate over Government's frustrating RIP Act
  79. NetworkNews 24/1/01: Will the thorn in the side of the online industry ever RIP
  80. IndyMedia 23/1/01: Police snooping increases as NCIS recruits cyber cops
  81. Wired 23/1/01: Privacy Battle Brews in England - The new Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which began what is expected to be its long journey through British legal and political channels on Friday, is being promoted as a defense against "yob culture."...But the bill covers more than quality-of-life crimes. It also allows the police to expand their DNA database by permitting all legally acquired DNA samples to be stored indefinitely -- even if those samples belong to people who were later acquitted or not even charged with a crime. Section 49 of the bill gives British police officers and customs guards the power to copy the disk of any computer device found during a legal search in order to be able to carefully examine the contents at a later time...Locking the files down with password protection or encryption won't help, under Britain's recently passed Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIP), the police are allowed to demand decryption keys or passwords. Not providing it can land you in jail for up to two years.
  82. BBC Radio 4 'Today' 23/1/01: "...the  Demon Internet founder tells his old company that a threat to move overseas doesn't make sense" 06:14 (intro confounding interception and data retention follows)
  83. Financial Times 23/1/01: Criminal intelligence body backs down on seven-year data records - The National Criminal Intelligence Service has retreated from its controversial recommendation to government that telecoms and internet companies should be forced to keep records for seven years of every call, e-mail and website visit made using their systems. The law enforcement agency has now suggested three years is the maximum period it could justify recommending and that only certain data need be held. But even this revised proposal will be fiercely resisted by the internet industry.
  84. Irish Times 23/1/01: Flanagan pushes ahead with plan for police reform
  85. Times 22/1/01: Heroes and villains  

    ...The bookies’ favourite for the title is Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, who, according to many Interface readers, meets all the criteria for the award: “Grrr factor; universal offence; internet ignoramus and unrepentant”. Other readers’ opinions include: “He makes me grit my teeth every time I see him on TV”, “He doesn’t have a clue about the internet” and “He annoys everyone”. The reason for his unpopularity is his promotion of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill, which critics say will impose far greater restraints on the internet than on any other communications medium. They say it will force ISPs to install monitoring equipment, which telecoms companies are not required to do, and invade personal and business privacy

    ....As well as choosing the “man we love to hate” for the first time, the ISPA award judges will again be naming a hero...Joining Berners-Lee on the shortlist are Richard Clayton of Thus and Roland Perry of the London Internet Exchange (LINX). Both have played significant roles in lobbying for changes to the RIP Bill and are eloquent spokesmen for the internet industry.


  86. Times 22/1/01: The Internet Oscars
  87. Times 22/1/01: RIP - death of privacy on the internet - In June 1999, buried among all the sound and fury of the internet boom, the Government released a consultation paper entitled Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom. This paper marked the first stage in what is now widely considered to be one of the most controversial acts of legislation so far introduced by the present Government, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill or RIP. Widely condemned as “misconceived”, “inappropriate” and even “hysterical”, the legislation has been the target of a large number of attacks from both inside and outside the computer industry, including Amnesty International, the National Union of Journalists and Professor Ian Angell of the LSE. 
  88. Independent 21/1/01: Demon sees devil in the detail of RIP Act
  89. Newsbytes 21/1/01: New Zealand Politicians Protest E-Mail Snooping Bill
  90. Wired 19/1/01: ISPs 'RIP' Into British Police
  91. 19/1/01: Snooping bill ignored en mass
  92. 18/1/01: ISPA labels police 'inept' in privacy row
  93. Computer Weekly 18/1/01: John Riley column - Ship your secure financial transaction systems over to the Isle of Man if you want to ensure the government doesn't snoop on your customers. The same goes if you are an ISP. That independent island, with the oldest Parliament in the world, has rejected the dog's breakfast of an RIP Bill, bulldozed so cavalierly through the UK Parliament by Jack Straw last autumn.
  94. ZDNet UK 17/1/01: ISPs blast police ignorance - The proposals sparked fears that law enforcers might build profiles of Internet users by trawling through records of Internet browsing. "We have no intention of doing that," said Gaspar when challenged on the issue at the meeting. Gaspar, however, said that only three years storage could be justified on the grounds of carrying out an investigation and said the figure of seven years had been based on the needs of the Criminal Cases Review Commission
  95. Financial Times 17/1/01: Internet companies hit at police ignorance of e-mail
  96. Register 17/1/01: RIP not a problem thanks to police stupidity
  97. VNUnet 17/1/2001: ISPs draw up 'say and pay' list for police
  98. ZDNet UK 17/1/01: One in five employers snoop on staff email
  99. NetworkNews 17/1/01: LETTER - Secret Spyware
  100. BBC Online 17/1/01: Ford workers 'accessed porn'
  101. Industry Standard 16/1/01: 40% of UK government services now online - However, civil liberties groups are concerned that the development of the government gateway will threaten citizen's privacy because the only system of authentication on offer for individuals embodies "key recovery" originally designed for corporate users. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 gives the state powers to requisition keys covertly from third-parties, exposing supposedly secret communication to eavesdropping. Campaigners say mass-deployment by government could tilt the rest of the market.
  102. New Scientist 13/1/01: Review of Crypto by Steven Levy
  103. Register 12/01/01: The solution to RIP, email sackings and Big Brother
  104. ZDNet UK 12/1/01: Cybercrime treaty may conflict with UN declaration
  105. Business 2.0 11/1/01: Surf away from the snoopers
  106. BBC Online 11/1/01: 'Lewd' e-mailers keep jobs
  107. Economist 11/1/01: Stop signs on the web
  108. Telegraph 11/1/01: Employees fight back after 'porn' crackdown
  109. Independent 10/1/01: Save e-mail from the snoopers
  110. NetworkNews 10/1/01: Password hijackers risk job
  111. Guardian 9/1/01: Unions concerned about BBC email policy
  112. Observer 7/1/01: Beware - you've got mail
  113. Guardian 6/1/01: TUC claims firms overreact by sacking staff for lewd office emails
  114. Newsnight 5/1/01: Smut in the Office - no mention of the RIP Act  - " October the government gave new powers to employers to help them trace cyber-slackers..." - but plenty of puffs for spyware
  115. Channel 4 News 5/1/01: Big Brother in the office streaming  
  116. BBC Online 5/1/01: Big Brother warning after e-mail sackings
  117. Net Imperative 4/1/01: 2001 - Odyssey or non-event Part III
  118. Telegraph 4/1/01: Personal view: Ben Rooney
  119. Guardian 2/1/01: Net tightens around the hacktivists
  120. Prospect  1/01: Microsoft's Money John Carr 

    OLD 26/1/98  briefing to Barbara Roche 

    (DTI Minister for "Secure E-Commerce Bill") 

    • Establish an Advisory Committee on the Regulation of Encryption - a standing committee of experts fairly reflecting the views of industry, academia, and civil liberties NGOs. ACRE would consult with law enforcement officials, advise the regulator, and report to a parliamentary scrutiny committee 

    Caspar Bowden

    The Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR), one of the main bodies to draw together internet activists, was at the centre of the campaign against the bill.

    In a major part of its activities, briefing the media, the FIPR succeeded brilliantly, persuading many journalists to parrot its libertarian anti-RIP line. The FIPR, with an advisory council boasting many of the most prominent internet cheerleaders and the leading lawyers in the field, was ready and waiting when the RIP debate began...

    The French government has recently established a new national forum, made up of representatives of the internet industry and French civil society, to discuss the direction the internet is taking...We need something similar in Britain. [more John Carr here]


  121. Independent 31/12/00: Email spies 'in breach of' human rights
  122. Observer 31/12/00: Winners and losers
  123. Information Security Bulletin 12/00: Letter from Caspar Bowden
  124. Sunday Times 31/12/00: Peer reviewer - Caspar Bowden
  125. ZDNet 30/12/00: 2000 Roundup: Privacy under attack
  126. 23/12/00: A year in review: The 'Snooping' Bill
  127. 22/12/00: Cybercrime manifesto stalled by European Commission
  128. BBC Online 21/12/00: Smutty e-mailers keep their jobs
  129. 20/12/00: Sexy e-mail explodes into controversy
  130. BBC Online 19/12/00: Should your e-mails stay private?
  131. BBC Online 18/12/00: Cybercrime treaty draws fire from campaigners - In all, 23 organisations have signed a letter warning that the treaty will do serious damage to civil liberties under the guise of helping law enforcers catch computer criminals... one of the most worrying aspects of the treaty was the fact that it had been drafted behind closed doors and gave no forum to organisations keen to contribute...the treaty rides rough shod over privacy concerns by giving law enforcement agencies wide-ranging snooping powers they can use without getting the permissions required when domestic surveillance is carried out.
  132. ZDNet UK 18/12/00: EU plans for e-crime laws
  133. ZDNet Australia 18/12/00: Is national security threatening our privacy?
  134. Sunday Times 17/12/00: Yum yum: the saucy e-mail that wrecked Claire's life
  135. Financial Times 15/12/00: Ministers urged to look again at powers to intercept e-mails - Lord Haskins, the government's chief adviser on regulation, has urged ministers to review controversial powers to intercept e-mails...the act could prompt some businesses to relocate outside Britain...His comments will embarrass Home Office ministers, who resisted strong pressure for changes to the act
  136. BBC Online 15/12/00: Press send to censor
  137. Financial Times 14/12/00: The danger of overburdening the web : Lord Haskins - The impact of the more controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act should also be reviewed within a year of its implementation. There is concern that this hastily proposed legislation will put British businesses at a disadvantage internationally and may force some e-commerce traders to locate offshore (see  Regulating Cyberspace report) 
  138. ComputerWeekly 14/12/00: Hire an e-envoy with conviction
  139. ComputerWeekly 14/12/00: Users voice cybertap fears (2) "It is difficult to see how the proposals would not breach UK data protection and privacy legislation and the Human Rights Act. The proposals significantly under-estimate the true costs and resources in retaining such data - it would be extremely difficult for companies to comply with such legislation" - Vodafone.
  140. ZDNet UK 11/12/00: Programmers fight government with M-o-o-t OS
  141. 8/12/00: German officials warn of Net 'Big Brother'
  142. 8/12/00: UK cybercrime crackdown in breach of human rights - Simon Moores: "we live in a society that has all the apparatus of a police state, but none of the benefits. While the database is not available yet, I suspect if the government wins the next election it could become a very real threat", and Chris Bailey, Perri 6 streaming  
  143. Information Security Bulletin 11/00: Geert Kampschoer (CEO !!) on RIP and "PKI" - ...from Wellance works via a private key infrastructure which is extremely difficult to break because the key is held by the individual (!) and not awarded by the ISP (?), as is the case with the public key infrastructure (??)....For example, for the Government to view documents being managed by a service of this type requires the securing of a warrant to approach the sender and/or recipient for access. This is not the case with straightforward PKI, where ISP's can still intercept and hand over content without the knowledge or consent of the 'owner'. (???!!?)
  144. ComputerWeekly 7/12/00: LEADER - Cybercops should resist the seven year-itch - The problem lies with the RIP Act itself. It will damage the UK as an e-business destination and undermine confidence in confidential data. It should be scrapped
  145. ComputerWeekly 7/12/00: Users voice cybertap fears
  146. ComputerWeekly 7/12/00: Encryption experts to make RIP obselete
  147. ComputerWeekly 7/12/00: The eyes don't have it - in three Acts
  148. ComputerWeekly 7/12/00: Dealing  with staff Internet abuse
  149. ComputerWeekly 7/12/2000: Legislate ISPs to aid police hunts, says NCIS
  150. ComputerWeekly 7/12/00: Industry anger at super-snoop plan
  151. Register 7/12/00: Encryption tears holes in RIP
  152. VNUnet 6/12/00: Privacy group throws book at Amazon
  153. 5/12/00: Dutch ISPs groan at the cost of wiretapping
  154. Register 5/12/00: Govt ministers distance themselves from email spy plan - Roland Perry, CEO of the London Internet Exchange, Linx, surprised us by saying he had had a copy of the report for several months...BT, for some reason, keeps billing records and logs for five years, whereas nearly all other telecoms companies delete them several months or so down the line, as the data costs more than its intrinsic value to store. The long storage period was seen as a classic example of BT's lack of business sense. BT is happy however - so we were reliably informed - to allow the security services full access to this data when requested.
  155. KableNet 5/12/00: Big Brother behind the NHS's screen - Where else do you find Tory Home affairs shadow Lord Cope of Berkeley gamely accepting an award from former MI5 officer David Shayler? It has to be the Privacy International's annual Big Brother awards...
  156. 5/12/00: Tory peer picks up surprise privacy award
  157. Financial Times 5/12/00: Ministers shun call for new snooping powers - Ministers are thought to be against endorsing the proposals to allow such data to be held by the state for up to seven years. They fear the opposition from politicians and civil rights experts that such a move would provoke in the run-up to the next general election. "They (the agencies) may be flying a kite, but this is not something we are going to be rushed into," said a Whitehall official yesterday...."It raises huge data protection questions," said David Smith, assistant data protection commissioner. "We recognise there may be a case for short term retention (of data records) - that is a matter for parliament (since such retention is currently illegal) - but there is not a case for holding the records for seven years."
  158. 5/12/00: Snooping proposals branded 'impossible' - NCIS say this is just a proposal and it expects debate on it. "What we're proposing is not something that contravenes existing legislation (!!)," a spokeswoman added. However, for the proposal to be adopted, it is likely new legislation would need to be passed by Parliament.
  159. Guardian 5/12/00: Omagh bombing cited by agencies demanding access to all phone calls - "It is not just the current communications data that is needed," says Mr Gaspar. "Identification of users (particularly with anonymous pre-paid mobiles) is invariably dependent upon research through older data and analysis of links with other callers and locations. This kind of research is used so frequently that at least two major software programmes exist for the analysis of this data. All law enforcement agencies use these programmes."...."It is clear the police want the ability to track every citizen as they go about their business," said John Wadham, director of Liberty.
  160. ComputerWeekly 5/12/00: Telcos in a flap over cybertap law. Blanket approach to evidence revealed - telcos are already storing digital evidence for up to five years - a practice that ACPO admits will not now stand up to legal scrutiny.
  161. ComputerWeekly 5/12/00: Leaked ACPO document reveals cybercops' seven year itch - The report considers two options for a national data storage facility: one run by the government, which raises concerns over civil liberties, or one run by contractors under a PFI scheme - which will raise the concern due to Whitehall's poor record of managing such contracts
  162. E-Commerce Times 5/12/00: Cybersnoop Proposal Roils UK
  163. Hindustan Times 5/12/00: Spies want total e-access
  164. Financial Times 5/12/00: Ancient idea helps to hide modern messages - These days, steganography, from the Greek for "covered writing", has fallen from fashion somewhat. The limelight has been stolen by encryption, where messages are scrambled so they cannot be understood. Indeed, debate on privacy and government legislation, such as the much criticised Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in the UK, has concentrated entirely on encryption as the main tool in the modern security arsenal. Yet measures to help governments read scrambled messages are pointless if the authorities do not know that a message is being sent.
  165. Times 4/12/00: Big Brother software under scrutiny - “... We don’t then stop that person looking at that site, the software simply warns them they are likely to be breaking company rules and they should click on an offered button to close the site down. They have the chance to proceed, but then their action will be logged to their network manager...I freely admit that it’s very Big Brother and it is essentially a wire tap on the net, but somebody has to enable companies to keep an eye on what staff are doing online because ultimately it is the directors of those companies that will take the rap.” Karl Fielder on 'DataCop'
  166. Register 4/12/00: Politicians line up against Euro email snooping laws
  167. Newsbytes 4/12/00: New British Govt Cybersnoop Plans Stun Privacy Professionals
  168. Metro 4/12/00: 'Stop MI5 snooping on e-mail'
  169. Glasgow Herald 4/12/00: LEADER: The threat from prying eyes
  170. Glasgow Herald 4/12/00: Anger at M15 plan to bug all calls
  171. ZDNet UK 4/12/00: Civil liberties groups condemn Big Brother proposals
  172. BBC Online 4/12/00: E-mail spy powers 'necessary'
  173. Register 4/12/00: Police request right to spy on every UK phone call and email - Since the Home Office - and Jack Straw in particular - has made it clear it is sympathetic to increased surveillance of UK residents, the security services have clearly seen an opportunity to get self-serving recommendations into law. This report - which, incidentally, contains no mention of any safeguards to prevent abuse of the system - is a stark indication of how totalitarian the government has become
  174. 4/12/00: Government wants seven-year record of all communications
  175. ZDNet UK 4/12/00: Police big brother plan is illegal says Liberty
  176. YouGov 4/12/00: Spy chiefs demand powers to monitor emails and internet hits [and VOTE whether records of all phone calls, emails and websites browsed should be stored on a police database for 7 years? NO - 86% 5/12/00]
  177. ThisIsLondon 4/12/00: 'Stop MI5 snooping on e-mails'
  178. BBC R4 'Today' 4/12/00: Roger Gaspar, John Wadham streaming
  179. Guardian 4/12/00: Spies seek access to all phone, email and net links
  180. BBC R5 3/12/00: Paul Boateng (Home Office) and Kamal Ahmed (Observer) streaming  
  181. BBC Online 3/12/00: Spy plans 'threat to human rights'
  182. Sky News 3/12/00: 'Big Brother' fears over new spy powers
  183. Observer 3/12/00: LEADER -  Spied on from cradle to grave - ...It is a scandalous proposal. British common law makes no presumption that the individual has the right to privacy and this has generated an extraordinary culture in British officialdom which presumes a right to investigate. As usual, there are no proposals for serious safeguards, such as requiring investigating authorities to apply to a court for the right to gain access to such information.
  184. Observer 3/12/00: Secret plan to spy on all British phone calls - Britain's intelligence services are seeking powers to seize all records of telephone calls, emails and internet connections made by every person living in this country. A document circulated to Home Office officials and obtained by The Observer reveals that MI5, MI6 and the police are demanding new legislation to log every phone call made in this country and store the information for seven years at a vast government-run 'data warehouse', a super computer that will hold the information...
  185. Guardian 2/12/00: Why that joke email could get you the sack - One multinational company in Germany - where the rules governing spying on employees personal emails are much stricter - is understood to have already taken advantage of the more relaxed laws in the UK by sending all the emails sent and received by staff from its offices in Germany to London where they are monitored.
  186. NTK 1/12/00:  ....for those of you who continue to pester about the lack of updates to STAND post-RIP, allow us to invite you to the pre-launch of FAXYOURMP.COM....
  187. ZDNet UK 30/11/00: Jack Straw tipped for top cybersnoop award
  188. ComputerWeekly 30/11/00: No ban on hacking tools
  189. ZDNet UK 29/11/00: Cable company sacks six for email 'misuse'
  190. Scotsman 28/11/00: Internet secrets and how to keep them
  191. ZDNet UK 28/11/00: Could employers ban personal email?
  192. Register 28/11/00: Email snooping row kicks off again
  193. Independent 27/11/00: This woman's watching you, Big Brother profile of Elizabeth France - What does she think the next problem area will be? "I think, technically, it will be on convergence issues relating to communications and location data." This is where the individual's movements can be tracked when they use technology such as mobile phones. "There is the whole issue of who should have access to the data and for how long and what use it is put to," she says.
  194. ZDNet UK 27/11/2000: TUC advises on snooping - In a new report, Surveillance at Work: Sensible Solutions, the TUC advises companies to work with employees to produce guidelines on good business practice and the safeguarding of privacy.
  195. Financial Times 27/11/00: Draft snooping code 'facing few changes' - Elizabeth France, the data protection commissioner, said she "could not imagine" the commission's controversial draft code on workplace surveillance and other data processing would "change in its essence" when the final version appears next spring...The commission's tough approach could also force employers to change their e-mail systems so that - unlike now - deleted messages cannot be retrieved from the hard disc...
  196. Independent 26/11/00: Three killers trapped by bug in prison cell
  197. Guardian 25/11/00: Email? You've got the elbow - "An employer could use instances of alleged misuse of the e-mail system to build up a case of gross misconduct."
  198. Guardian 25/11/00: Swamped with anomalies - The legal situation governing what is allowed and what isn't has the clarity of a Mississippi swamp
  199. Scotsman 24/11/00: Big Brother needs watching
  200. NTK 24/11/00: RIPA Tribunal...formed in October - The technical-oversight-committee-in-exile of the Ukcrypto mailing list swiftly scanned the released list of members, and spotted the only one to publicly comment on previous proposals, one Mr William Carmichael...we see Charles Clarke is busy changing the history books too
  201. ComputerWeekly 23/11/00: RIP Act nominated for Big Brother awards
  202. YouGov 23/11/00: Charles Clarke defends Labour's record on civil liberties [and VOTE whether RIP infringes]  68% AGREE

    He denied that there was ever a problem in the RIP Act - covering the Government's email snooping powers - with the so-called reversal of the burden of proof, even though an amendment was made in the Lords which effectively corrected the reversal

    When asked why the amendment was made if there was never any problem with the Bill, Mr Clarke blamed the Lib Dems "who argue for the lawyer position as they always do".

    "Parliamentary arithmetic," Mr Clarke said, was the reason for an amendment to a Bill with which he "didn't accept there was a problem in the first place." - interview by Ben Farey

    The Times 28th June: Letter from FIPR

    ...Mr Straw correctly says that the prosecution must prove past possession of the key, but that is cold comfort because the defence must prove non-possession at the present time. Moreover, since there is no evidence when someone forgets something, criminals will always be able to plead a bad memory, discrediting the defence for the innocent.

    ...RIP targets criminals as accurately as a sawn-off shotgun pointed at a crowd, and puts Kafka on the statute book. A law which replaces the presumption of innocence by an ordeal without evidence, with two years' jail if one is not believed, is not a question of "balance". It is simply wrong.

    YouGov: So there’s never been a problem with the reversal of the burden of proof?

    Charles Clarke: No, I don't think there has.

    YG: Why then was an amendment tabled in June in the Lords, which effectively, as some people have seen it, reversed the reversal of the burden of proof?

    CC: Well, I know that's what's argued... we felt it was necessary to come to an agreement with the Lib Dems in particular, to get an agreement in the Lords, so we did. I don't actually myself think that the amendment made any significant difference at all, it wouldn't have been the case otherwise. But the Lib Dems did: fine.


    Committee Stage 28th Jun 2000 : Column 1009

    Amendment 167C

    For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if--
    (a) sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
    (b) the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt

    Lord Bassam [Lab] - The real issue created by the second limb of the offence is what burden is placed on the defendant where the prosecution has only been able to prove prior possession of the key. We have tabled an amendment making it clear that where the prosecution has been able to prove previous possession, that alone cannot lead to a conviction if the defendant raises some doubt as to whether or not he still has the key....

    ...Lord Phillips [LibDem] - "Sufficient evidence", I assume and hope, in this context means prima facie evidence and does not mean a balance of probabilities. We are content with the arrangements proposed under this amendment to throw the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt back on to the prosecution but only if the evidence--the sufficient evidence that has to be produced by the accused--is prima facie evidence. Subject to those points, we are content with the amendments tabled by the Government

    ...Lord Cope [Conservative] - I am glad that the Government have moved on the question of burden of proof. It was important that they should do so. 

    ...Lord Bassam [Lab] - Lord Phillips...said that he would [NOT !] be satisfied if the test was made on the balance of probabilities. So far as concerns the Government, it would not have to extend even as far as that; a weaker version of it would be acceptable. I hope that helps the noble Lord.

    YG: But, if there were no problem initially, presumably there would have been no need for an amendment.

    CC: Yes, precisely (????), we thought there was a need (????) for an amendment because of the parliamentary arithmetic in the Lords. But, we didn't accept there was a problem in the first place.

    YG: You didn't accept there was a problem?

    CC: No, not with the burden of proof. No.

    YG: So why was there an amendment then?

    CC: Because of the parliamentary arithmetic in the Lords.


    YG: What about the conflicts with the Human Rights Act?

    CC: Well, there is no conflict.

    YG: None at all?

    CC: No. One of the parts of the Human Rights Act is that the Secretary of State for whatever Bill has to sign on the face of the Bill as to whether the Bill does or does not conform with the Human Rights Act.

    He can't (can !) sign if it doesn't conform with the Human Rights Act, that's perfectly legal and the Commons and Parliament can pass the legislation despite that statement. And one can imagine circumstances in which nothing can be done. That's never happened so far. However, in the case of the RIP Bill, it was compatible with the HRA. He didn’t do that as a kind of wish, a Utopian wish, he did on the basis of considered advice as to what the situation was. And the advice he had that added to his conclusion was that the Bill was consistent with the European Convention of Human and the Human Right Act.

    YG: But business does not seem particularly happy about it?

    CC: Well, it depends on who you speak to in business. I saw a piece in Computer Weekly the other day that said it very positive. There were concerns in business about various aspects of it.

    Some parts of business were worried about some aspects of it. Other parts of business were worried about other parts of it and we discussed it with business and we made amendments to try to reassure them about the various points that were made, which I think were reassuring. Obviously the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but I think business generally is relatively satisfied with where we are at the moment. Our intention is to work very closely with business throughout.

    YG: There is talk about a growth in personal privacy tools which will circumvent these decryption notices, rendering RIP pretty useless anyway. What do you have to say about that?

    CC: Well, you have to take a decision whether you're opposed to it. Whether you're happy for paedophiles to operate on the net unaddressed, whether you're happy for drug gangs to operate on the net unaffected, whether you're happy for people to be trafficked in that way or not.

    There's no doubt that the development of Internet technology and all the things that go with it has strengthened the hand of the criminal, but it's ridiculous to try to stand in the way of progress in that way, but we have to develop what weapons we can to contest them.

    And the crimes which are committed via the Internet are important crimes and have to be contested.

    YG: But you can understand people's concerns that it affects their privacy and their civil liberties?

    CC: Well, I understand it up to a point. I understand the concerns of people who believe what they have read in the papers and are therefore frightened about this, that and the other. But, as you yourself said, there's a lot of misleading information in the papers on false information.

    YG: But, the whole act is very complex. A lot of people are confused because it's fragmented, bits are being phased in after a certain amount of time. Do you think that this has led to some of the confusion?

    CC: To some extent. But it's partly because the Bill is trying to deal with the whole issue of surveillance. Now there are all different kinds of surveillance. A policeman sitting across the room looking at us, a bug in the salt pot, they're all different levels.

    Now, for the first time - and the Government hasn't got sufficient credit for this - we've put all the forms of Government surveillance onto a consistent basis that has to be properly and legally approved. That has not been the case in the past. There were a lot of agencies that could do these things without any scrutiny whatsoever on what they were doing. And I think the Bill is a step forward from that point of view, an important step forward.

    If people are worried about their situation, which they are entitled to be, the issue runs right across the whole way in which then technologies of surveillance are now so much better developed than they were 20 years ago (?????)

    The question facing that is do you want to regulate it or not. Our position is to regulate it. Other people are saying (????!!?!?!), 'no, let's not regulate it (????!!?!?!), let it go on,' and deal with it in that way'. Fine. But I think that that’s turning your back on what's really going on.


  203. VNUNet 23/11/00: The importance of patience and politics
  204. Telepolis 22/11/00: Nicky Hager - International co-operation in internet surveillance 

    ....Like the British RIP Act, this is to be achieved by amending the Crimes Act to make it illegal to intercept electronic communications or hack into computers - and then exempting all the intelligence and law enforcement agencies (police, customs etc) from the new law. Police interception warrants will then cover all kinds of communications (not just telephones) and search warrants will permit covert access to computers from a remote terminal. According to the Police briefing papers to the incoming Minister last year, they are also seeking powers to oblige people "to assist the police to access computerised material when executing a search warrant"; forcing people to hand over passwords and encryption keys.

    ...The other half of the plan is changes to the Telecommunications Act, again mirroring the RIP Act. The intelligence agencies and police want amendments that require Internet service providers and telephone companies to install equipment and software to make their systems "interceptable". (Sources say that Telecom New Zealand has already been paid to make its network "interception capable".) A controversial side-issue is whether the government or the telecommunications companies should pay for the changes. In Australia's similar 1997 legislation, it is the Internet and phone companies that pay.

    ...While there is equipment available that could target a single e-mail user, other countries introducing similar new laws have required an "interception interface" to be built into every Internet and phone company's system. For e-mail, this involves specialised software being installed by Internet service providers that can be remotely controlled by intelligence and police agencies. This provides capabilities that Moechel describes as "spooks' heaven". This is what the New Zealand legislation will permit. This would not yet mean electronic "trawling" of all e-mail traffic, as the GCSB does. But, as the British Statewatch organisation wrote (about the RIP Bill), "Over the past ten years secret and clandestine methods of gathering 'intelligence' previously employed in the days of the Cold War by internal security agencies have been permeating policing practice."


  205. ZDNet 22/11/00: Carnivore cleared by Department of Justice - However, the system is a tool without safeguards to prevent misuse, according to the report. The system does not keep track of who accessed it and when. Every operator has the same user name -- "administrator" -- and there is no feature for confirming that the wiretap has been ordered by a court. In addition, the report warned that misuse of the system could result in significant privacy violations, confirming the accusations of many privacy advocates.
  206. Ananova 22/11/00: Report on FBI e-mail surveillance tool plays down privacy fears - A high-speed computer scanning system that enables law enforcers to intercept e-mails of suspected criminals has been backed in a report commissioned by the US Department of Justice  (and as .pdf)
  207. New Zealand Herald 21/11/00: Snoopers' charter - do we need it?
  208. Register 20/11/00: Echelon discoverer gives masterclass in paranoia
  209. 21/11/00: Council of Europe calls for global internet crime squads - French political lobby group (!!!) the Council of Europe plans to set up a series of global cyber crime units to improve international co-operation among police forces
  210. Observer 19/11/00: Don't read all about it: The creeping erosion of press freedom goes hand in hand with the erosion of our personal liberty - Mary Riddell  Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, we can be snooped on by bosses eager to track us on CCTV cameras, monitor emails and ascertain how much work time we spend booking holidays, shopping at Tesco On-Line or (in the case of 45 sacked Orange employees) allegedly downloading pornography from the internet....The RIP Act gives the state vast powers to spy on email traffic between journalists and contacts...
  211. Register 17/11/00: TUC gets arsey about RIP email laws
  212. 17/11/00: TUC calls for email guidelines
  213. ZDNet UK 17/11/00: Unions call for email agreement
  214. BBC Online 17/11/00: Firms 'should allow personal e-mails' - "...instead of reacting by banning the personal use of e-mail at work, it makes more sense for employers to consult with their workforce and draw up guidance which protects and reassures everyone." John Monks, TUC
  215. Wired 16/11/00: Kiwi Tech Laws Taking Hard Turn
  216. Register 14/11/00: RIP just got scarier
  217. Times 15/11/00: Send the wrong e-mail and you could be fired on the spot
  218. VNUnet 14/11/00: Home Office rapped over cybercrime plans
  219. Financial Times 14/11/00: Labour to create network of cybercrime police - ...the cost to the state of the RIP Act had increased "roughly a hundredfold". "The initial regulatory assessment put the cost at £750,000," said Caspar Bowden, the foundation's director. But the Home Office this summer agreed to contribute up to £20m towards the industry costs of installing the "black boxes" needed for the interception. In addition to the £25m announced yesterday, the government is spending £25m on a National Technical Assistance Centre...
  220. Independent 14/11/00: Pandora on Big Brother Awards 2000 - the Home Office is front-runner in the chase for "Most Heinous Government Organisation", and its suitably double-think Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (which allows e-mail snooping) is going for "Most Appalling Project". While Black Jack is, according to inside sources, a virtual dead-cert for the "Lifetime Menace Award". So there you go, Jack. Who says nobody loves you?
  221. BBC Online 13/11/00: 'Cyber cops' plan unveiled (rehashed Home Office Press Release !!!)
  222. Register 13/11/00: Look out! Here come the cybercops
  223. Independent 13/11/00: Digital detectives to combat cybercrime (ditto)
  224. InfoSecurity Magazine 11/00:  Jack the RIPA - There were also some ridiculous clauses in the original bill. The most famous is probably the 'reversal' of the burden-of-proof. The idea was that if a warrant was issued to access my encrypted data, and I claim to have forgotten or never to have had the key, I end up in prison for two years. Clearly this was daft, and it has subsequently been changed
  225. Observer 12/11/00: The e-envoy is dead; long live the e-envoy - One of the sadder sights of the past year has been that of Allan having to stand idly by while Jack Straw and his goons forced the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill through Parliament - in the process alienating those ISPs and e-commerce companies whose co-operation the envoy desperately needed in order to achieve his objectives on the e-business front. As a civil servant, Allan cannot be blamed for the RIP catastrophe: he could do nothing to stop it. It would have required a senior Minister to take on the Home Office on its home territory. As it happens, there is a Minister responsible for e-business, one Patricia Hewitt, but she uttered not a peep of protest about what the Bill would do to her bailiwick. Why not?
  226. Sunday Times 12/11/00: Cybercops squad to fight crime with computers - Jack Straw is expanding his press office operation at a cost of £400,000 to the taxpayer. At a time when police forces are complaining of low numbers, Straw has advertised for an extra 10 spin doctors
  227. VNUnet 10/11/00: Freedom of expression internet style - in the wake of the... (RIP) Act... it may make Chinese diplomats sitting across the table from their UK counterparts less inclined to listen to lectures on human rights and freedom of information...The UK authorities may dream that the country will become a European ecommerce hub, but it is Germany that appears to be putting in place a legal framework to make this happen. The German government is currently debating what, in effect, amounts to an anti-RIP bill, giving staff the right not to have their e-mails monitored.
  228. 10/11/2000: Jack Straw and Ann Widdecombe tipped to win Big Brother
  229. Irish Times 10/11/00: Republic targeted for sale of 'unhackable' system
  230. NetworkNews 8/11/00: RIP black box supersnooping leaves me shaken and stirred
  231. NetworkNews 8/11/00: 'Open source' secret service
  232. Guardian 8/11/2000: How asterisks speak louder than words - Francis Wheen Is it a surrealist manifesto? Is it a postmodernist joke? No, it's the annual report of parliament's intelligence and security committee (ISC), published last Thursday...Tom King [streaming begins 5m 9s], the absurd chairman of this preposterous committee, was asked if the blizzard of asterisks suggest that the secret state is becoming even more secretive. Not at all, he replied cheerfully: it just goes to show how much more information we are being given.
  233. Times 7/11/00: New law is not a snoopers' charter - So employers must tread carefully to avoid breaching the law. The key is proportionality. “If you suspect someone is bringing in drugs, you don’t set up a CCTV in the loo to film everyone,” says Clarke. “Listening to every telephone call, intercepting e-mails stored in a ‘personal’ folder, opening mail marked ‘strictly private and confidential’ could all raise the prospect of a clash between the RIP Act, the regulations and the Human Rights Act.”...Barry Clarke, employment partner at Russell Jones & Walker
  234. 7/11/00: Hague promises to overhaul IR35 and ecommerce acts
  235. Financial Post (Canada) 6/11/00: FBI issues hack-attack alerts: Strike 'probable'
  236. Industry Standard Europe 6/11/00: France strikes a blow for Net privacy
  237. Independent 5/11/00: Net spy Act may be illegal
  238. INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE 3/11/00: Annual Report 1999-2000 - We were also briefed on the establishment of the National Technical Assistance Centre (NTAC). The NTAC will be a twenty-four hour centre operated on behalf of all the law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies, providing a central facility for the complex processing needed to derive intelligence material from lawfully intercepted computer-to-computer communications and from lawfully seized computer data, which are being increasingly encrypted. The NTAC will also support the technical infrastructure for the lawful interception of communications services including Internet Services. We noted that the NTAC will be located in Thames House, but that it will be operated by the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) on behalf of the Home Office. The three Agencies will provide the NTAC with both some staff and fund part of its activity. They will also be fully engaged in its operation and will be customers of its product.
  239. Register 3/11/00: Net dad Vint Cerf slams RIP
  240. NTK 3/11/00: OK, so Bowden isn't a spook - at least as far as we know...
  241. ComputerWeekly 2/11/00: Living with RIP - Chris Sundt
  242. Guardian 2/11/00: Every click you make - Bill Thompson - Web-based email services such as HotMail may seem secure because your messages are stored on their computers and sent over their connections, but the web pages you are looking at still have to come into (and go out of) your work network and this means they can be monitored
  243. Ananova 2/11/00: Group offers answer to cyber surveillance
  244. Register 1/11/00: Cyber Rights Hush up new RIP powers
  245. ZDNet UK 1/11/00: Hushmail backs UK anti-snooping effort
  246. NetworkNews 1/11/00:  MI5's 'black box' signals RIP to server privacy - Brian Gladman, former technical director at Nato, said the content of the box should be made public. "We ought to know what is in the box," he said. "If it was built by MI5, there is little chance."  
  247. PC Magazine 12/00: Guy Kewney - would you let all your personal data reside on a BT server? - remember BT is also full of people with military rank--the 'shadow' positions of the armed forces, who form part of the country's Intelligence service and are there in case of an armed emergency. And if the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill is enforced, and I'm deemed to be a threat, the Government can simply examine all my data
  248. 31/10/00: Microsoft hack update - hacker 'won't be caught' - Aled Miles, managing director of Symantec Northern Europe, ...added that despite its unpopularity, the UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill...does give law enforcement agencies a chance to catch such criminals.
  249. ZDNet UK 31/10/00: Government claims Net laws do not need modernising
  250. NZ Stuff 30/10/00: Hager reads too many spy books - Swain
  251. NZ PA 30/10/00: 'Secret plan' denied
  252. NZ Sunday Star Times 29/10/00: Sweeping powers for spy agencies
  253. New Scientist 28/10/00: Indelible evidence
  254. New Scientist 28/10/00: LETTERS - Tapping the Net Before anyone gives too much credence to Charles Clarke's rambling apologia for the government's pernicious and paranoid proposals for poking around everyone's e-mails (7 October, p 55) and his protestation that the government is technically up to scratch, they might like to consider...
  255. ZDNet UK 27/10/00: New eavesdropping law is good news for IT directors - The law makes it legal for management to ask for the information and so the IT department cannot be charged with being management's lackeys -- they are simply upholding Her Majesty's Statutes (????) - Andy Redfern
  256. Diana Wallis MEP 27/10/00: RIP Act May Break EU Law
  257. ZDNet UK 27/10/00: Snooping laws in confusion
  258. Register 27/10/00: Europe to investigate legality of RIP
  259. BBC Radio 2 Jimmy Young  27/10/00: Lord Phillips of Sudbury on RIP workplace surveillance
  260. 27/10/00: Snooping Bill could be ruled illegal
  261. Telegraph 26/10/00: The death of privacy?
  262. Guardian 26/10/00: Hi honey, I'm on the computer
  263. ComputerWeekly 26/10/00: RIP Act extends culpability
  264. ComputerWeekly 26/10/00: Employers snoop rights in doubt
  265. YouGov 25/10/00: Is it a case of RIP for privacy at work? - vote whether you agree or disagree [82% 1/11/00] that the Government should have the power to demand your encryption key 
  266. Industry Standard Europe 24/10/00: You can call me, Al - The government here just lost its e-envoy, and it's crippled business and infuriated the privacy lobby with some crazy spying legislation called RIP
  267. BBC 24/10/00: World Tonight on workplace surveillance
  268. ZDNet UK 24/10/00: Employers can read your email from today
  269. BBC Online 24/10/00: Cautious welcome for e-snoop law
  270. BlackNet 24/10/00: Employers gain e-snoop powers
  271. NetImperative 24/10/00: 'E-snooping' Bill takes effect today
  272. Guardian 24/10/00: US praises Blair for hi-tech successes - The government's controversial regulation of investigatory powers (Rip) bill, which relates to computer communications, was deemed so draconian that companies such as Nokia and Yahoo! warned they might move from British shores.
  273. Guardian 24/10/00: The RIP Act (unchecked, out of date, inaccurate)
  274. ComputerWeekly 24/10/00: E-snooping regulations go live in Britain
  275. BBC1 24/10/00: Julie Etchingham reports on RIP workplace surveillance streaming  
  276. BBC Online 24/10/00: Employers gain e-snoop powers
  277. ThisIsLondon 24/10/00: 'Snooper's charter' faces test
  278. Ananova 24/10/00: Employers gain licence to snoop on e-mails
    3/10/00 DTI Response to consultation ...small number of consultation responses suggested that the Regulations should include a proportionality test...The Government is not convinced (!?)
  279. Financial Times 23/10/00: UK e-snooping rules conflict - "Any monitoring must be proportionate (!?) and related to business needs...." the DTI added...
  280. ZDNet UK 23/10/00: Britain braces for battle on workplace surveillance
  281. BBC  Radio 4 'You and Yours' 23/10/00: Nigel Hickson and Malcolm Hutty on workplace surveillance
  282. Ananova 23/10/00: 'Snooper's charter' could face human rights challenge
  283. NTK 20/10/00: COE fscked up its 'Cybercrime Convention' a *second* time....
  284. Irish Times 20/10/00: EU draft cyber crime treaty spells trouble - As it now stands, the draft Convention on Cyber Crime introduces many of the elements of Britain's notoriously oppressive Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill.
  285. Scotsman 19/10/00: One click of the mouse and they're monitoring your house
  286. ZDNetUK 19/10/00: Computer crime treaty threatens human rights
  287. ComputerWeekly 19/10/00: Forum unites to stop cyber crime - Government ministers, police forces, security services and business executives are to meet in Edinburgh next year, in a drive to influence international policy on cyber crime. The Global Forum for Law Enforcement and National Security will bring representatives of up to 190 countries together to try put the risks posed by new technology on the political agenda.
  288. Times 19/10/00: Who is reading your e-mail?
  289. ComputerWeekly 19/10/00: Staff unclear over e-mail snooping
  290. Financial Times 19/10/00: Crime wave has websites rushing to fill the breach
  291. 18/10/00: Front-runner pulls out of e-envoy race - "The UK needs someone who can stand up and be counted (!!!) when party policy runs counter to the country's best interests - for example in the first drafting of the RIP bill." Richard Barrington, Industry Director, office of the e-Envoy
  292. BBC Online 18/10/00: Big Brother or friendly helper? - "It is essential that it is not marketed (!) as a Big Brother," James Tipple, head of location-based services at BT Cellnet.
  293. ISPworld 18/10/00: RIP the UK Net Economy?
  294. Register 17/10/00: Bosses join email snooping scrum - Just a small note about modern news management lunacy. The CBI put out a press release on 13 October, saying that on the 16 October it would attack the DPC's code on email snooping. We called up to find out if anything not in the press release had been said yesterday. No, because no one said it. The CBI doesn't even appear to have told the DTI and DPC direct. It was a press release about a press release that didn't exist.
  295. NetImperative 17/10/00: Data Protection Commission stiffs RIP - According to the CBI, the DPC draft could outlaw random monitoring of email and phone conversations: “This draft causes confusion and uncertainty,” said Nigel Hickson, head of e-business group, CBI. “We’ve been working with the DTI since August to establish a fair compromise on the RIP Act. This just takes us back a step.”
  296. ZDNetUK 16/10/00: Digital crime plans come under attack
  297. Telepolis (from German) 16/10/00: Private Internet use at work to be permitted - Contents checks can be criminally pursued as violation of the post office and communications secrecy, if " a serious suspicion on abusive use " is not present
  298. Financial Times 16/10/00: CBI attacks code banning snooping on staff e-mails
  299. IT Week 16/10/00: Neil Barrett - It is better to forget
  300. New Statesman 16/10/00: Writers -  guilty until found innocent - Tony Geraghty
  301. VNUnet 12/10/00: At what cost human rights?
  302. BBC Monitoring 12/10/00: Governments seek to regulate the Internet - New Internet regulations announced by the Chinese authorities at the beginning of October include holding online companies responsible for any material that party officials might consider "subversive"...In the United Kingdom, meanwhile, there is concern that parts of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) act - a new surveillance bill granting the government sweeping powers to access e-mail and other encrypted Internet communications - may be in conflict with the European Human Rights Act.
  303. Independent 11/10/00: Watchdog limits electronic surveillance at work - Government plans to allow companies to snoop on staff e-mails and phone calls were thrown into chaos yesterday after its own privacy watchdog issued proposals to restrict hi-tech workplace surveillance... is one of the first attempts to rein back the Big Brother trend for bosses to snoop on their staff.
  304. Financial Times 10/10/00: New rules for checking staff 'very complex'
  305. ZDNet UK 9/10/00: Watchers must watch out
  306. SecurityFocus 8/10/00: Cybercrime Treaty: Take Two Dave Banisar (EPIC)
  307. New Scientist 7/10/00: LETTER from Charles Clarke replying to LEADER 17/6/00 

    It cannot be right for criminals to abuse new communications technologies with impunity...You castigate the government for being supposedly ignorant of technological developments. I do not accept this...And RIPA provides (!) for the establishment of a Technical Advisory Board ...We are aware of the technical challenges put forward by some commentators on RIPA, and others besides...The harsh reality...RIPA is an important measure

  308. Industry Standard 6/10/00: Can the EU Preserve Web Privacy in England?
  309. ZDNet UK 5/10/00: Government okays snooping on staff
  310. 5/10/00: U.K. snoop law may conflict with EU Human Rights Act - "We can't see how the two laws don't come into conflict. We think it is quite likely a union will instigate a court challenge soon" said Trades Union Congress (TUC) Spokeswoman Sarah Veale...The DTI acknowledged that the draft regulations had included clauses demanding caller consent for e-mail and phone tapping (except in cases concerning criminal investigations, or the monitoring of activities such as downloading pornography), but the clause was pulled when businesses complained.
  311. BBC Online 5/10/00: Protecting privacy and monitoring e-mail
  312. ZDNet UK 5/10/00: Can you expect human rights online?
  313. Telegraph 5/10/00: Tony Blair seeks e-envoy
  314. ComputerWeekly 5/10/00: Farewell to the e-envoy
  315. ComputerWeekly 5/10/00: Voice your RIP Act concerns
  316. Guardian 5/10/00: Feedback - Letter from Avedon Carol
  317. ZDNet 4/10/00: FBI releases first Carnivore data - ...more than half of the 750 pages were blacked out and hundreds more were withheld. The Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) filed suit in June under the Freedom of Information Act seeking the release of the Carnivore source code, other technical details and legal arguments addressing the potential privacy implications of the technology.
  318. 4/10/00: U.K. employers win powers to snoop on workers
  319. TechWeb 4/10/00: U.K. Bosses Get Access To Staff E-mail - "By allowing employers disproportionate powers of surveillance over employees, these regulations fly in the face of the protection afforded by the Human Rights Act" Caspar Bowden, FIPR
  320. VNUnet 4/10/00: Fresh confusion over email monitoring
  321. Guardian Online 4/10/00: Licensed to snoop - Picture the scene: suddenly you get a boss who has got it in for you but can't fault you for any of your work. So he starts looking at all the back emails you have made, and all the websites you've visited...Remember what Richelieu said - give me ten lines written by the most honest man and I will find something in them to hang him for. Patricia Hewitt, the minister for e-commerce - believed to be the same Patricia Hewitt who used to be an outstanding champion of civil liberties - denies that business is being given a licence to snoop because there are limits companies can't go over, such as "intercepting personal calls for unjustified scurrilous interest". But who's to judge?...
  322. BBC Online 4/10/00: Snooping laws 'to face court challenge'
  323. Financial Times 4/10/00: Companies free to snoop on staff - The TUC said an early union-backed legal challenge to the new rules was likely, on the basis that they breached employees' new right to privacy under the Human Rights Act.
  324. Times 4/10/00: Bosses given right to spy on e-mails
  325. Telepolis 3/10/00: On-Line Privacy Battles Highlited
  326. VNUnet 3/10/00: Ms Hewitt's real opinion of the RIP Bill was clear from her opening remarks, when she said: "We shouldn't kid ourselves that this will solve hardcore crime on the internet, but we shouldn't just throw up our hands."
  327. VNUnet 2/10/00: Firms warned over email interception
  328. ZDNet UK 2/10/00: RIPA and Human Rights Act conflict
  329. Guardian 3/10/00: New computer bill that probes too much - "There is a very real risk of the UK business environment turning into a state of information paranoia" Richard Latham, CEO Bluewave
  330. Independent 3/10/00: LETTER - Rights and Wrongs - "Is the UK Government which paid for the full-page advertisement on human rights in The Independent (2 October) in any way connected to the UK Government which is, among other things, eroding the right to trial by jury, pressing ahead with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and inflicting the voucher system on asylum seekers?" ALAN STREET, Sudbury, Suffolk
  331. 1/10/00: E-Mail by Demand
  332. NTK 29/9/00: - ...Jack Straw ducks out of an online chat at the last minute; the Lib-Dems call for a RIP repeal next government; Patricia Hewitt suddenly starts putting the "RIP saves us from pedophiles" mantra into heavy rotation. Has the government finally clocked what a hasty civil rights nightmare they've wrought?
  333. ZDNet UK 29/9/00: Ex-cracker slams UK cybercrime law
  334. The Journalist (NUJ) 10/00: R.I.P – Privacy and Sources
  335. PC Magazine 10/00: ISPs may move offshore to protect privacy
  336. Independent 28/9/00: Lords to defeat Bill limiting jury trials
  337. VNUnet 27/9/00: E-minister defends snooping law - "We shouldn't kid ourselves that this will solve hardcore crime on the internet, but we shouldn't just throw up our hands. I'm not prepared as a parent and a civil libertarian (!) to do that..." - Patricia Hewitt
  338. Network News 27/9/00: US spy software could devour RIP
  339. Computing 27/9/00: No longer for your eyes only
  340. 25/9/00: Controversial Eavesdropping Order Ruled Unlawful
  341. ZDNet UK 25/9/00: Nations struggling to fight cybercrime - European and U.S. officials are moving toward a final draft of the world's first international treaty on cybercrime, a broad effort that high-tech industry groups and privacy advocates fear could intrude on personal privacy and hamper e-commerce..."When the US government cannot get a controversial policy adopted domestically, they pressure an international group to adopt it, and then bring it back to the US as an international treaty -- which obliges Congress to enact it"- David Banisar (EPIC)
  342. Observer 24/9/00: Another fuel blockade? Don't worry - Straw's spies are out - All of which makes Straw smile that sinister smile of his. Clearly the folks who are glibly promising to blockade fuel depots 50 days hence are not familiar with the terms of the RIP Act, which expressly allows the Home Secretary or his agents to intercept email under a number of circumstances. One such is if he believes the UK's economic well-being is threatened.
  343. Scotland on Sunday 24/9/00: Companies have human rights too you know
  344. Computing 21/9/00: A year in the life of an e-minister

    Just fancy that ! 

    "The new Bill isn't giving the police extra's modernizing police powers...and I think everyone would think that is reasonable....We are not reversing the burden of proof...

    Patricia Hewitt BBC Radio 26/4/00: You and Yours 

    "...I don't think we got everything right in the first version of the RIP Bill. I do think it's a greatly improved Act as a result of very extensive parliamentary debate (!)...I don't think it's a problem, or anything we should apologise for..." Patricia Hewitt


  345. ComputerWeekly 21/9/00: Should Big Brother control the Net? - Real Time Club debate : "This house believes that Control of the Internet by governments is imperative for the well being of society" - DEFEATED 45 to 14 (Speakers for: Prof. Harold Thimbleby, Brian Paterson [Home Office Encryption Co-ordination Unit] against: Tricia Drakes, Christine Maxwell)
  346. ZDNet 21/9/00: Carnivore clone goes open source
  347. Computing 21/9/00: Promises, promises: who will make your vote count ?
  348. ComputerWeekly 21/9/00: LEADER - Back Blair's buzz
  349. ThisIsLondon 21/9/00: Big Brother at the LSE
  350. Guardian 20/9/00: Email spy law 'costly and undemocratic'
  351. Financial Times 20/9/00: Personal freedom is central policy
  352. BBC Online 20/9/00: Software targets porn sneaks
  353. Register 20/9/00: Lib Dems go against RIP bill
  354. VNUnet 20/9/00: Watch how you go! - part two
  355. Times 19/9/00: If you feel that you are being watched ... you probably are
  356. BBC Online 18/9/00: Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger on RIP streaming (starts 25m)

    Tony Hall* (Director, BBC News): A lot of concern about privacy, what’s your judgement, will privacy be possible in this new online world ?

    * Many people have contacted FIPR to ask why RIP had almost no coverage on TV. BBC television did not even mention the name of the bill (let alone provide any analysis or reporting) until 8th May, three months after it was published and six months after the Queen's Speech.

    We wrote to Tony Hall (Director BBC News) on 27th April, but did not receive a reply. It required five unreturned telephone calls and a follow-up letter, contrasting the BBC's "blackout" with pieces from four American TV networks and C4News to obtain a four-line fob-off from his deputy Mark Damazer (on 7th June). 

    After months of prodding, Newsnight eventually ran a short piece on 19th June, spending several minutes on a rugged North Sea helicopter ride but only thirty seconds explaining the bill, before badly bungling a studio interview with Mr.Clarke (FIPR had been bumped three hours before transmission). Panorama were completely uninterested despite repeated detailed briefings. Clarke also ducked appearances on 'Today' (6th March) and C4News (24th May) when he learned of FIPR participation.

    Alan Rusbridger (Editor, The Guardian): I think it is a huge issue that people have not really begun to grapple with at all yet. People who log onto the Internet have only a very hazy idea of what information is being captured when they log on. A lot of commercial sites now base their commercial model on being able to capture information about you, and plot that, maintain it over a period of years, and maybe even sell it on to commercial advertisers and so forth, and that’s how they think they are going to make revenue. Knowing that really makes people feel uneasy, and government doing it makes people thoroughly uneasy. I think it’s especially disturbing in a country like the UK, which has just passed what I think is an extraordinary measure, this RIP Bill, which allows the government to intercept any e-mail at all, and you have to hand over the encryption codes, and nobody knows whether their e-mail is going to be monitored or not. There’s a £25m centre being built in order to do this, and I don’t know if this is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Both commercially and governmentally the privacy issue is fundamental, because ultimately people won’t use the Net if they feel they are being spied on.

    Phil Noble (Politics Online): …I totally agree with you about the British Government policy on reading e-mails. That's the sort of thing that ten years from now people may look back and say “that was Marie Antoinette saying ‘let them eat cake’” - that was the policy that started the revolution …privacy on the Net is going to be THAT big an issue.

  357. InfoWorld 18/9/00: Letter -  Propaganda needed - I WAS STRUCK by this line in the article on the RIP  act in the U.K. in which [Home Office Minister Charles Clarke] "stressed that 'propaganda is needed' to re-educate the public about the bill and asked the Commons to help promote 'the interests of this country's businesses when the time comes.' " I think it's heartwarming to see that the political philosophies of the U.S.S.R. have survived the breakup of that Communist state. Lloyd Flanagan, Richmond, Va.
  358. Telegraph 18/9/00: Economic view: Patrick Minford
  359. Financial Times 17/9/00: Unions in call for guidelines on use of internet
  360. New Scientist 16/9/00: Tam Dalyell MP - Westminster Diary

    ...I was taken aback by public anger at a controversial new law that went through Parliament recently. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act extends the telephone-tapping powers of government departments to cover electronic communications. And it's not just the usual suspects among civil liberty groups who are complaining. Now people in industry are up in arms that the RIP act gives the Government Communications Headquarters at Cheltenham the right to spy on domestic and international electronic communications. As Britain will be the only country giving such powers to its government, will it scupper our chances of becoming a world leader in e-commerce? Patricia Hewitt, the minister for small business and e-commerce, has sent me a long, thoughtful letter that the House of Commons Library or I will make available to any interested parties.

    Hewitt says that the same technologies which allow businesses to communicate in private can also prevent the law-enforcement agencies from accessing communications between criminals and terrorists. There is a need to update the powers of the agencies to deal with the challenges of the new technologies. The RIP Act brings surveillance activities into a more structured framework than ever before. She adds that, unfortunately, this is a case where the powers on the face of a bill can appear more stark and threatening than they are in practice. Clearly, the debates about Internet interception and access to the keys controlling encryption technologies have not been good adverts for e-business in Britain.

    The challenge for Home Office minister Charles Clarke, with whom Hewitt will work closely, is to consult with business in a way that will show that any secondary legislation will be both fair to Internet service providers and have a minimal impact on the activities of legitimate businesses. "This way," says the minister, "I hope we will turn round the present perception and show that Britain is a good and safe place to do e-business."


  361. VNUnet 15/9/00: Email snooping debate is over
  362. VNUnet 15/9/00: Blair's new Jerusalem
  363. Computing 14/9/00: Peter Branton - Hague's IT vision is just the beer talking - "industry has collectively argued [the RIP Act] is unworkable and should be scrapped. So is Hague going to listen to those in the know? Well, maybe, but once again he will commit only to 'reviewing' it"
  364. ComputerWeekly 14/9/00: Blair slams 'alarmist' criticism over lack of e-business trust - Blair defended the RIP Act. "When information is being exchanged, the Home Office is perfectly sensible to look at what the potential difficulties are in terms of international crime and terrorism...This is being faced by all countries around the globe. A lot of the concerns expressed over RIP are hugely alarmist over what the Government was intending to do with it, and I think we have taken care of most of the difficulties that people have"
  365. ComputerWeekly 14/9/00: Tories will reform RIP and IR35, says Hague
  366. ComputerWeekly 14/9/00: Who'd be an e-envoy now?
  367. ComputerWeekly 14/9/00: LEADER: What the check list doesn't tell
  368. NetworkNews 13/9/00: RIP deadline slips as dialogue continues
  369. Times 12/9/00: Point, click, lose your job
  370. Times 12/9/00: Musicians caught in a Gorgon's Web - "[the RIP Act] has prompted some Internet service providers to consider relocating, and the threat of litigation could prompt a Napster-style service to do likewise...A solution could be borrowed from the broadcasting industry, which has sought to take action against the unauthorised decoder...The criminal law could be imposed in much the same way against file-sharing websites. Although controversial, criminalising the distribution of the software that facilitates unauthorised file-sharing is likely to be far more effective than the RIAA's actions."
  371. 11/9/00: Steve Rawlinson of ClaraNet - Is RIP forcing ISPs out of Britain? streaming 
  372. Guardian 11/9/00: New Media Diary
  373. Guardian 11/9/00: All-seeing society - On July 28, while many of us were settling down with a bag of crisps to see whether Nasty Nick had been rumbled, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act was passed..."a superbly effective machine for keeping tabs on law abiding citizens [such as journalists, who, for example, might find it very difficult to investigate a public authority and protect their sources] and of no use against criminals who can easily circumvent the proceedures."
  374. Telegraph 7/9/00: Blair hopes to click with Net access for all
  375. ComputerWeekly 7/9/00: Government scores two out of five for e-business
  376. ComputerWeekly 7/9/00: Spare the spin on the e-economy
  377. BBC Online 7/9/00: Could YOU be the new internet tsar?
  378. VNUnet 6/9/00: Is the government helping your career?
  379. Financial Times 6/9/00: Tories launch their mini-manifesto
  380. VNUnet 5/9/00: "US users bite back at snooping law - Steven Mathieson 

    For example, 86 per cent of internet users want opt-in privacy - in other words, website organisers must keep their data secret until the user says otherwise, according to research released by charity the Pew Internet & American Life project. That's the opposite, incidentally, of a policy just negotiated by the US government with internet advertisers, under which websites can track user activity unless they have taken steps to opt out of monitoring...

    ..."What bothers me is the damned box. Why would the FBI need a box? You don't need a sealed box to do any of these tasks, most of which are already being done right inside of the router at every ISP," says Cringely...

    ...In addition, attorney general Janet Reno has pledged that a university will carry out an independent review of Carnivore by the start of December. Will the UK government follow the US's line? Perhaps - if the British public become as vociferous in defence of their privacy as the Americans.

  381. Financial Times 5/9/00: Plans to control e-mail dropped
  382. BBC Online 5/9/00: Hague's 17 new policies
  383. KableNet 5/9/00: UK e-envoy quits
  384. USA Today 5/9/00: 'Carnivore' unlikely to be validated
  385. Financial Times 4/9/00: Tories and Liberals prepare manifesto launches - The Tories would review the new regulation of investigatory powers act that governs surveillance of e-mails and telephones. Business claims the legislation is impractical and impossible to comply with.
  386. Times 4/9/00: Hague promises 'strong and free' Britain
  387. Guardian 4/9/00: The RIP Act and your rights - ...the draft regulations would go a step further, to authorise monitoring or recording of emails and phone calls without consent for specific reasons, such as a suspicion of "unauthorised use". Industry pressure groups argue that they should be able to monitor employees' emails without consent. Civil liberty groups and unions disagree, and say that staff should have the right to privacy at work.
  388. Sunday Times 3/9/00: Mobile phones to locate callers
  389. ZDNet UK 1/9/00: ISPs debate offshore email to evade RIPA
  390. Scotsman 1/9/00: Is this RIP for UK hopes in E-Commerce ?
  391. ComputerWeekly 31/8/00: Cancel the oppressive RIP Act, says Redwood - "Why stay here and face the cost and hassle of interception and surveillance if you can go elsewhere and avoid it? The Government should cool down and cancel this piece of legislation. It should study what other competitor countries are doing more thoroughly. It should not wish to lead the world in offering the most oppressive regime for e-business." Former Conservative minister John Redwood
  392. ComputerWeekly 31/8/00: LEADER- Memo to TB: Get an e-grip!
  393. ComputerWeekly 31/8/00: A well-intentioned act that only hits the good guys
  394. ComputerWeekly 31/8/00: DTI extends RIP deadline to September
  395. 30/8/00: No escape from the email spooks
  396. 29/8/00: Privacy Furor Over British Cyber-Snooping Law
  397. Independent 28/8/00: "After Demon Eyes, Tories portray Blair as Big Brother" - " is in e-commerce especially that Blair has proved he is the Bigger Brother. The Government's bill is effectively a snooper's charter, allowing the state to read all our e-mails. George Orwell wrote fiction but this is fact." John Redwood, Conservative's Parliamentary Campaigns Unit
  398. Independent 27/8/00: Law makers lose the plot on internet crime - "...a government that is either unaware of the implications of what it is doing (which is hard to believe, given the adverse press it has received) or just plain incompetent – that will result in the baby being thrown out along with the bath water. Sure, the UK will be a great place to do e-business; it's just such a shame that there will be nobody left to do business with." Jyoti Banerjee,  chair of e-commerce committee, Better Regulation TaskForce
  399. Newsbytes 25/8/00: British E-mail Snooper Law Delayed
  400. Economist 25/8/00: Being watched (not online)
  401. VNUnet 25/8/00: RIP Bill hit by delay over email rules
  402. Financial Times 25/8/00: British e-mail law shelved
  403. Telegraph 24/8/00: Wendy Grossman - Why we want the snooping law to RIP - the Electronic Privacy Information Centre won a court ruling that the FBI's Carnivore, a system that can be installed by an ISP to filter out a specific user's e-mail, is illegal...
  404. Computing 24/8/00: RIP interception rules still unclear
  405. ComputerWeekly 24/8/00: UK: the e-commerce pariah? - ...marks the latest stage in one of the sorriest sagas of legislation affecting online users anywhere in the world.
  406. ComputerWeekly 24/8/00: 'We listened to industry on RIP Act' says Straw - You ask for international comparisons. I make no apologies for this Government having taken a lead in tackling the difficult issues involving e-mail interception and encryption. But other countries are now looking at ways to update law enforcement powers to take account of technological advancement. Look at the recent debate about the "Carnivore" e-mail interception system in the US...
  407. Salon 23/8/00: Are British bobbies reading your e-mail? ...For Americans, RIP should serve as a warning. Don't get too comfortable just because Carnivore failed in the courts. The United States and the United Kingdom have traveled in lock step on restricting cryptography and other Net freedoms, and the legislation they try to pass in one place inevitably pops up in the other, though not always in the same form. And they keep trying.
  408. Financial Times 23/8/00: LETTER - "the hypocrisy of the government in this affair is staggering"
  409. IT-Director 22/8/00: Privacy in the UK: R.I.P. - True to form, the Home Office has produced a piece of legislation which ignores the fact that the Internet is global, which is bound to be challenged by civil liberties groups in the EU Courts, which is liable to provoke legal actions in other countries, which is anyway probably technically unworkable, can easily be circumvented by steganography and which virtually guarantees public embarrassment of the UK's "intelligence" services.
  410. Telegraph 22/8/00: LETTER - Who is the traitor ?
  411. Daily Express 22/8/00: Protests grow over Government's repressive Internet legislation
  412. Daily Express 22/8/00: Brian Gladman - Why this Government is harming e-commerce
  413. Daily Express 22/8/00: Ten things you should know about RIP
  414. Guardian 21/8/00: Easy ways to reinvent our industry
  415. Observer 20/8/00: Bosses beat email spying ban
  416. Financial Times 19/8/00: Industry forces climbdown over e-mail intercepts
  417. Micro Computer Mart 17/8/00: Leo Waldock reports on RIP Bill
  419. ComputerWeekly 17/8/00: Glossy and glorious - but out of touch - The RIP legislation promises to be an unmitigated disaster...
  420. ComputerWeekly 17/8/00: This e-mail may be read by MI5
  421. ComputerWeekly 17/8/00: David Taylor's  Open Letter to Jack Straw
  422. Guardian 17/8/00: David Birch - Why should Thomas Paine, a man who died in 1809, be adopted as patron saint of the internet?

    Britain tried to get the colonies to pay for their defence, and they wouldn't, much as business does not want to bear the cost of the RIP Bill

    ...each side over-estimated the goals of the other. British intransigence, when compromise was both sensible and feasible, created rebels where there were none before. Is that so different from the current situation, where netizens suspect Jack Straw of wanting to read their email while the Home Office sees subjects suspicious of the RIP Bill as agents of anarchy?

    ...Economics may be at the core of the discontent but it is when the more emotional and emotive issues of liberty and freedom come into play that the flames are fanned to fire. This is why arguing about the RIP Bill may turn out to have more significance than people may think.

  423. Times 15/8/00: LAW - E-mails from Big Brother
  424. (Carnivore) Wired 14/8/00: These Wires Were Made for Tapping - "If it's (the FBI's) position that the Carnivore technology provides a way to strip out only what they're allowed to get, why don't they give the technology to the ISP, have the ISP control it and have the ISP give the results to the FBI? Why do they have to control it?" David Sobel, EPIC
  425. InternetWeek 14/8/00: Carnivore Takes A Bite Out Of The Fourth Amendment
  426. BBC Online 14/8/00: Spy in your pocket
  427. Independent 11/8/00: Why I am so scared of Paulsgrove Woman  - The internet has become a fantastic resource for child abusers (or "child-lovers" as they style themselves), allowing a trade in images and experiences that effectively "normalise" child abuse for many paedophiles. Those callow twenty-something netniks, who roundly condemn the Government for seeking to monitor the Net, should consider what potential damage is done by allowing such contact to go unchecked...
  428. Financial Times 11/8/00: LETTER - Rules on staff's e-mails must be practical - We were, however, concerned by the reply from Patricia Hewitt, the minister for e-commerce (Letters, August 8). Contrary to that letter, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and the regulations that will underpin it, will certainly place additional burdens on business... (Digby Jones, Director General CBI)
  429. Register 11/8/00: CBI to press for longer RIP discussion
  430. ComputerWeekly 10/8/00: RIP fall-out creates further outcry
  431. Telegraph 10/8/00: INTERVIEW - Elizabeth France - "We certainly thought it would breach the Human Rights Act but it has been improved as it's gone through and we have to wait and see on a case to case basis what happens," she says. ... The commissioner's message to Mr Blair is unambiguous (??): "We're watching" (!)
  432. Scotsman 10/8/00: Difficult Business of International Internet Control
  433. Guardian 10/8/00: (Duncan Campbell): The spy in your server

    ...GCHQ was not normally permitted to encroach on domestic communications. Now the RIP Act says that as many domestic internet communications travel on the same "trunks" as external communications, GCHQ will be allowed to trawl through these messages without restriction.

    Another limitation, which had prevented the direct targeting of people in Britain by GCHQ without specific authorisation has also been dropped. The Home Secretary has been given powers under Section 16 (3 4) of the Act to sign an "overriding" warrant every three months. This will allow general surveillance without the need for individual warrants.

    This will apply to "serious crime", which can include organising demonstrations that may affect public order. The government has offered no justification for its willingness to allow GCHQ to intrude on domestic political and policing matters. The RIP act will also allow any agency nominated by the Home Secretary to tap into the addresses of emails sent and received (though not their content) without a warrant...


  434. Times 8/8/00: How a law-less 'data haven' is using law to protect itself
  435. Net-BC 8/8/00: Der Datenschutz ruhe in Frieden
  436. Daily Yomiuri 8/8/00: John Jerney - Carnivore and its cousins threaten privacy

    Across the pond in Britain, a similar storm is brewing. Over there, the system is known as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers, or RIP...Sounds simple enough to defeat, doesn't it? I mean, anyone concerned need only encrypt their communications, right? Not so fast. The RIP bill also includes provisions for the British Home Office to legally demand the encryption keys to any data communication. The legislation includes a two-year prison sentence for those who choose not to comply. That's bad enough, but here's where it gets really draconian. In the case of a company or other organization, the Home Office can not only insist that a person hand over the encryption keys to the government, but the law also prevents that person from informing anyone else of these actions, including the person's manager, coworker, or employer.

    Interestingly, the provisions in Russia's SORM don't go nearly this far...

    So what's the big deal about systems such as Carnivore, RIP, and SORM? Notwithstanding the hypocrisy in the West of slamming Russia for an activity already under way in the Untied States and soon to be under way in Britain, the real problem is the fundamental encroachment of freedom that, if left unchecked, can cause a slippery descent down an already all-too-well greased slope.

    Recall that during previous "scares" in the United States, including but not limited to the Red Scare, the civil rights initiative, and various peace movements, the government amassed incredible files on both noted and unnoted individuals including Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon and thousands of other suspected "troublemakers." Add to this the modern tendency for both governments and corporations to employ increasingly sophisticated profiling technologies, and the situation becomes potentially serious. Profiles are already used by law enforcement agencies to screen large cash purchases, identify "suspicious" airline travelers, and even to signal which drivers should be stopped for potential drug trafficking.

    Left unchecked, could Carnivore, RIP, or SORM be the first step towards a much broader profiling of our online activities, helping to identify other "suspicious" behavior? Government authorities say no, stressing that Carnivore and its cousins are used simply to catch bad guys.

    Conventional wisdom, on the other hand, recommends that we all stay alert to these potential threats to privacy. Technology, after all, can serve to both liberate and imprison free people. The responsibility is ours to have technology reflect the morals and values by which we choose to live


  437. Financial Times 8/8/00: LETTER from Patricia Hewitt - Your article...(August 3) suggests that the...regulations...will entail a "legal clampdown" on companies' monitoring of electronic communications by "bringing private business under the scope of interception laws for the first time". This is not accurate. The regulations will actually reduce the burden on business by making exceptions to the general rules on interception set out in the regulation of investigatory powers act
  438. ZDNet 7/8/00: Meet Bigger Brother - Curiously, several civil liberties  types in Britain were quoted in a recent New York Times article as defending the bill because it codifies - and fesses up to - surveillance practices already in use. Congress could have used the same defense in 1974 for legislation setting out conditions under which a political party could burglarize an opponent's national committee headquarters.
  439. Electronics Times 7/8/00: U.K. e-mail law draws criticism
  440. Scotsman 7/8/00: Rocky Road ahead for those looking for the truth (search here)
  441. Independent 6/8/00: A.C. Grayling - Veils are for hiding behind– and lifting - On the larger question of governmental and legal invasions of privacy, matters are clear enough. Properly warranted tapping of e-mail messages is, like telephone or mail interception, an unpalatable but necessary weapon in the fight against crime and terrorism. It is a price we pay for security. Your cyber sex with an e-mailer in Oregon will merely amuse an official eavesdropper, but your plan to blow up Parliament deserves to be detected.
  442. Observer 6/8/00: LETTER - Net Losses - ...internet service providers planning to move abroad if the Government's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill becomes law should not worry too much. There will be plenty of home-grown IT expertise to support their operations, thanks to that other draconian piece of legislation known as IR35...
  443. Sunday Times 6/8/00: (Dan O'Brien) Silencing the web's vulnerable voices - I find it worrying that, even as groups such as the baroness's (Thornton) seek to control what our children see, we are preventing the children from giving themselves a voice online. But then whenever a regime sets about restricting free speech, I suppose you're always silencing someone
  444. Sunday Times 6/8/00: (Jeremy Clarkson) Snap away, spy cameras - just get my good side - Obviously, they can't possibly spy on all of us... And that's where, I think, the freedom organisations are getting their knickers in a twist about nothing...Only the guilty have something to fear from Big Brother
  445. Financial Times 5/8/00: Companies caught in a legal web (search here)
  446. Guardian Unlimited 4/8/00: e-Envoy Alex Allan quizzed on RIP  (registration required)
  447. Schnews 4/8/00: The Empire Bytes Back
  448. Register 4/8/00: RIP grants rights to spies who employ us
  449. Wired 4/8/00: "Will Crypto Feast on Carnivore?" - in the aftermath of the FBI's recently revealed Carnivore email surveillance system, email security companies are hoping they can convince average email users to seal their electronic envelopes -- and finally propel email encryption into a broader market.
  450. De Vere Hotel Magazine (July/August) - Yours confidentially
  451. Times 4/8/20: Employers attack 'e-snooping Act' delays
  452. Financial Times 3/8/00: Companies face curbs on snooping
  453. ComputerWeekly 3/8/00: Support the cybercops
  454. ComputerWeekly 3/8/00: No cash for cybercrime
  455. ComputerWeekly 3/8/00: LEADER: One rule for all?
  456. Independent 2/8/00: Andrew Brown - My accidental life as a lesbian pornographer - the "clickstream" that you leave as you move around on the web reveals almost everything about what you read in the course of a working day: the logs of a website don't show unambiguously who has visited, but they do show where each visitor has come from. That is available to the Government under the RIP bill that received royal assent last week
  457. Times 2/8/00: LETTER From Mr Alan Phillips - Sir, If Tony Blair wants to read my e-mails, courtesy of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, why shouldn't I read his memos?
  458. NetworkWorldFusion 2/8/00: IETF faces new wiretap flap
  459. Network News 2/8/00: Oftel welcomes ITC merger
  460. Parliamentary Monitor IT Briefing 8-9/00 - RIP Bill finally Clears Lords
  461. Internet Magazine 1/8/00: Crisis of confidence
  462. ZDNet UK 1/8/00: Outrage at government 'tagging' of citizens
  463. Independent 1/8/00: Greenwich fails to synchronise its e-time with Gates
  464. BBC R4 'Today' 31/7/00: Interview with ClaraNet - move e-mail servers offshore because of RIP ?
  465. PC Magazine 9/00: Peter Jackson - Your right to privacy
  466. WriteTheWeb 31/7/00: UK internet snooping law passed - so now what?
  467. NetImperative 31/7/00: ISPs must RIP by end of 2001
  468. Time 31/7/00: To Each His Own? - This week Britain's House of Commons will consider a controversial government proposal to allow official access to virtually all electronic communications for law-enforcement purposes - a measure that would give U.K. officials far more power than their counterparts in Washington dare ask for.
  469. Telepolis 31/7/00: Dutch Intelligence Suspected of Using Unauthorised Random Interception of Email Traffic
  470. Guardian 31/7/00: Roy Greenslade - 'I arrest you for emailing'

    ...From this day on, without our knowledge, the authorities can intercept our messages. They will know who said what to whom about what well before the information can be published. Indeed, by having that knowledge in advance they may well be able to take measures to prevent its publication. This isn't far-fetched. A good example occurred recently when the renegade MI5 officer David Shayler emailed the Observer and the Guardian. When the police - claiming to be acting in the national interest - tried to compel the papers to hand over the emails, the request was refused. A judge ordered the papers to comply, a ruling that was overturned by the court of appeal in a masterly judgment by Lord Justice Judge which stressed the rights of a free press to investigate matters on behalf of the public without compromising its informants.

    If the RIP Act had been on the statute book at the time, that case would never have reached court because the police would have used the act's powers to obtain the emails secretly regardless of such rights. It wouldn't have helped if the emails had been encrypted. Under the new act, the authorities can demand the key to any encrypted message. In other words, the RIP Act makes all traffic over the internet in Britain available to the state if a body, however flimsy its suspicion, decides to apply for the right to intercept emails.

    ...The passing of the RIP Act denies everyone the freedom, and the privacy, we thought the internet had provided. It robs journalists and their sources - including that most potent and essential of tipsters, the whistle-blower - of their rights and, quite possibly, threatens their liberty...In what appears to have been panic at the growth of the internet and the freedom enjoyed by its users, the British government has accorded itself powers which no other western country has dared to take. 

    Yet this, remember, is the government that came to power crowing about its commitment to end secrecy. Instead its record has been a disgrace. Jack Straw last week finally announced that the Home Office will consult media bodies to ensure that future legislation which does "impact on press and media reporting" does not create "unintended restrictions". What a cheek. The sound of the stable door being closed long after the horses have bolted is deafening.

  471. Observer 30/7/00: Police to track mobile phone users - Privacy campaigners and Opposition peers urged the Government to ensure that the read-outs of physical location produced by the new mobile phones should be made available only after a warrant is obtained from a judge. But the appeals were rebuffed....Under the Act, the only authority overseeing these capabilities will come from an Interception Commissioner, who does not have to be notified pro-actively of their use, or whether tracking data is passed between government departments once acquired.
  472. Observer 30/7/00: Every move you make, every breath you take...  - To civil liberty campaigners, (RIP) represents the most pernicious invasion of privacy ever imposed by a modern democratic state...The State will have powers to snoop, often without a warrant, on the email and internet activities of everyone with an internet connection...also gives the police unparalleled powers to use the new generation of mobile phones to pinpoint the location of any individual. They will act like a homing device planted secretly on the phone's owner without them realising
  473. Observer 30/7/00: Net firms set to flee RIP Bill - Top internet service provider ready to move systems abroad - Blue-chip clients express security fears
  474. Independent 30/7/00: Boffins show how to defy e-snooping bill - The ink of royal assent is barely dry on the Government's e-mail regulation bill, and computer programmers have already produced an idiot's guide explaining how to get round it.
  475. New Zealand Herald 29/7/00: Cyber-cops set bells ringing
  476. ZDNet FR 29/7/00: La Grande-Bretagne autorise " l'écoute" des mails
  477. 29/7/00: Big Browser est légal, mais ridicule
  478. Guardian 29/7/00: LETTER - Bravo Benji - Benji the Binman may or may not be: a strange individual, a grubby mercenary, an idealist ... Stealing household waste may or may not be: illegal, a squalid occupation, the least glamorous branch of espionage. But when the government proposes to read not just my emails but the encryption software protecting my privacy, then I am extremely grateful for the corrective and democratic light he is shining into these murky corners of government
  479. MSNBC (Reuters) 29/7/00: European Union ministers vow cyber crime crackdown - European Union ministers said on Saturday they would seek new laws to crack down on fast-growing crime by Internet fraudsters, computer hackers and child pornographers.
  480. Telegraph 29/7/00: MPs warned of e-snoop failure - THE e-snooping legislation which received Royal Assent yesterday is already out of date because the technology is advancing too fast and the law cannot be enforced, say computer experts.
  481. 28/7/00: U.K. e-mail snooping bill passed
  482. ABC News (AP) 28/7/00: British government's cyber-snooping bill to become law
  483. Telegraph 28/7/00: LETTER - Lost investment - my Hong Kong-based internet company will not now plan a significant British office...This is a direct result of the vote in Parliament approving RIP. It is ironic that the People's Republic of China's Hong Kong Special Administrative Region offers a friendlier internet business environment than Britain.
  484. CNSNews 28/7/00: 'Data Haven' Offers Snooping-Free Internet Service
  485. MacWorld 28/7/00: RIP Bill gets go-ahead - Clarke stressed that "propaganda is needed" to re-educate the public about the provisions of the Bill
  486. NTK 28/7/00: First, the bad news: RIP got Royal Assent...
  487. ZDNet UK 28/7/00: Privacy groups promise 'cold war' over RIP
  488. Guardian 27/7/00: May your privacy RIP - (FIPR) relentlessly stalked the government. It won major revisions to key parts of the bill, including the assumption that people claiming to have lost their encryption codes are innocent until proved guilty...But it still remains a draconian bill....For the first time, GCHQ, Cheltenham, which hitherto has needed a ministerial warrant to intercept domestic communications only if there was suspicion of terrorist activity, will be able to trawl much more easily through domestic mail
  489. MSNBC 27/7/00: Cyber-snooping now legal in Britain
  490. ABC News (Reuters) 27/7/00: British e-mail snooping bill passes into law
  491. 27/7/00: Steven Mathieson - RIP: the final analysis

    It all ended last night, without a vote, in the House of Commons. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill, which sets out powers for tapping Internet traffic, is waiting for the formality of Royal Assent, but will probably get that within the next few days. And the UK's ebusinesses will start deciding on damage limitation exercises to cope with legislation that many think is disastrous...

    Government ministries tend to listen most sympathetically to the organisations on which they have the biggest effect. The DTI bends over backwards to work with business and IT, and this constituency is now up in arms at what the Home Office has produced. The Home Office's main contacts, by contrast, are in the police and security services. The Internet interception clauses, now part of the RIP Bill, were taken over by Charles Clarke, whose media appearances tend to involve him pointing out how important it is that the Government is tough on crime. In other words, it was less likely that the Home Office would be sympathetic to the IT industry in its drafting...

    ...What happens now is unclear. There is no time scale for installing the black boxes, no clear guidelines as to how interception will work - expect a battle over those - and it is anyone's guess how many international firms will move their IT operations. In a somewhat unfortunate turn of phrase, Charles Clarke told the House of Commons last night that there will be a "propaganda" campaign to convince the world that the UK is still a good place to do ecommerce...

  492. eVantage 7-8/00: UK e-commerce - RIP
  493. Register 27/7/00: Blair gets RIP thanks to a few sleepy MPs
  494. VNUnet 27/7/00: Snooping Bill to become law by November - Home Office Minister Charles Clarke rejected a briefing document issued by industry think-tank the Foundation for Information Policy Research which said the technical measures of the Bill could easily be side-stepped by criminals. "I do not accept the comments of the Foundation for Information Policy Research quoted by the honourable Member..."
  495. 27/7/00: Snooping Bill is passed and present
  496. New Scientist 27/7/00: Blind watchmen - Britain is about to waste millions of pounds on an obsolete Internet snooping system
  497. Independent 27/7/00: Minister downplays e-mail snooping Bill
  498. Register 27/7/00: Politicians unite in RIP love-in
  499. CBS News 26/7/00: Parliament Passes E-mail Snooping Bill
  500. 26/7/00: Carnivore, British e-mail, and the Digital Divide - perhaps British citizens are sufficiently oblivious and mild-mannered that they'll put up with such a regulation about encryption keys; but I find it mind-boggling to imagine that the rest of the world would be willing to send sensitive e-mail messages into the UK if they knew that the government effectively had carte blanche authority to scan those messages...And that brings up the second difference between the US and UK: the UK measure would not be approved by judges, who (at least in the US) require a credible argument that a crime has probably been committed before signing a warrant. Instead, warrants for e-mail surveillance would normally be authorized by the Home Secretary; other officials, including high-ranking police officers, would be authorized to approve requests for encryption keys. Not only that, the legislation would allow the British government to snoop on electronic communication for a host of reasons, including to "protect national security", and to "safeguard the country's well-being," in addition to preventing and detecting serious crime.
  501. 26/7/00: Big Browser soulève l'ire du Net
  502. 26/7/00: Security experts publish RIP circumvention paper
  503. BBC Online 26/7/00: 'Snooping Bill is technically inept'
  504. 26/7/00: Once more into the breach for the 'Snooping Bill'
  505. Reuters 26/7/00: Government expects e-mail snooping bill to become law
  506. Financial Times 26/7/00: Business steps up campaign on e-mail codes
  507. Register 26/7/00: How to dodge RIP
  508. ZDNet UK 25/7/00: Report undermines RIP - "RIP will destabilise policy by creating a legitimate demand and market for privacy tools, which both the law-abiding and criminals can use to circumvent the legislation. The government has proved stolidly incapable of anticipating trivial counter-measures" Caspar Bowden, FIPR
  509. Guardian 25/7/00: Hugo Young - The Lords is potent, wise and quite indefensible - Government plans for utilities supplies, big-brother email oversight and freedom of information are among major matters that either have had or will have unwelcome attention from the peers....Many of these interventions show a pattern. They have a lot to do with the rule of law. That's true of the regulation of investigatory powers bill...A doctrine seems to be developing. In place of the Salisbury convention, which debarred the old hereditary chamber from blocking a government's manifesto pledges, comes an anti-Napoleonic convention, which says the Lords have a duty to stop authoritarian diktats from the Commons
  510. (not RIP but...) BBC Online 25/7/00: Congress fears FBI internet tap tool - The FBI's Assistant Director Donald Kerr said the programme did not search through every message looking for words such as "bomb" and "drugs". Instead, it worked on certain strict criteria, such as looking at messages from a particular account. "We don't have the right or the authority to just go fishing"
  511. VNUnet 25/7/00: E-signature law labelled as 'red herring'
  512. (not RIP but...) ZDNet UK 25/7/00: Congress isn't swallowing Carnivore
  513. ZDNet UK 24/7/00: Firms can sue over RIP leaks
  514. Political 23/7/00: RIP Democracy
  515. Express 23/7/00: Snoopers' charter puts ISPs in flap
  516. Independent 23/7/00: Christopher Walker - We could all be losers in the electronic revolution - The revolution could lead to an increase in democratic freedoms - the ability, for example, to access government documents, even those that were meant to be kept secret. But this will only come about if we defend our rights. The recent legislation to snoop on emails and internet activity is just the beginning of government control. The road from Caxton to the Inquisition's book burning was a short one.
  517. Sunday Times 23/7/00: Under threat from state cyber police - WHILE Tony Blair continues to bleat about privacy over the leaking of his off-message messages the government remains determined to foist a bill on the rest of us that many companies fear will turn their leaks into a flood. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill snuck through the Commons like a stealth bomber in fog in February but it has crash-landed in the Lords. The net ignores national boundaries yet the bill would make Britain the only G8 country - apart from Russia - with state access to decryption keys. So far the bill has been a PR disaster for Labour at a time when Britain stands a good chance of establishing itself as Europe's leading e-industry nation. Some companies, albeit small ones, have said they will leave Britain if the RIP bill goes through and some of the world's largest tech firms have also voiced concerns. The government will look to get royal assent for the bill before the summer recess. But tinkering at the edges is not enough. Instead it should nail down the coffin on RIP.
  518. Sunday Times 23/7/00: Danny O'Brien - Fixing the bugs in our democracy  

    Plenty has now been written about this horrendous bill; enough, one would think, to give pause to even the self-referential juggernaut of Labour. But no: despite the loud protests of practically anyone who uses the net, they assumed that, once the government declared its intent, its vast bureaucracy would steamroller over the squeaking objections of a bunch of nerds. Of course, the net users didn't know that...

    Lindsey, naturally, e-mailed these bug reports - together with a series of patches - to the Home Office. One civil servant, in an accidental slip-of-the-click we all make, pressed Reply instead of forwarding the message. His mail went out to a mailing list of concerned net users, together with his own commentary at the top. "A bit sad, really," it said...

    There's something very 21st century about listening to earls and lords lecture the government on packet-switching, datagrams and hard-drive clusters. But, unlike the Commons and unlike, it seems, the civil service, our peers took the time to understand the technology they were legislating against - and turned to the net experts to learn about it. The bill set the gentleman amateurs of the world against the sleekest of career politicos, and in so doing woke up the government...


  519. Observer 23/7/00: Whitehall braced for reform of the Official Secrets Act - From 1997 to the end of the current spending review in 2003 funding for spies and surveillance is planned to increase 34 per cent, or by £248 million. It follows five years of cuts under the Major government. The bulk of the money is believed to be earmarked for the new Government Communications Headquarters in Cheltenham. The building will be the focus of controversial moves to intercept email under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers RIP bill. Government figures released earlier this month revealed that bugging, phone-tapping and letter-opening by the police and security services have risen by 60 per cent since Labour came to power
  520. Sunday Times 23/7/00: Human rights 'revolution' to hit powers of the RUC
  521. NY Times 22/7/00: A Constitutional Challenge for Britain - One more venture by Mr. Straw is a bill to let the state make anyone who uses coded e-mail give officials the key to decode it, so they can intercept and read it as they wish. That proposal has drawn outraged protests from leading technology companies in Britain and elsewhere. Not only Jack Straw but Prime Minister Blair seems to have no concern for civil liberties. What matters, evidently, is pleasing the voters by being tough on law and order.
  522. Telegraph 22/7/00: LEADER - A driven man - As Home Secretary, Mr Straw has shown himself to be an unpleasant mixture of weakness and ... He has been ruthless, too, in seeking the power to examine any private e-mail. Weakness and posturing are a nasty combination. The Home Secretary's grip on his job is looking very shaky.
  523. Guardian 22/7/00: LEADER - Justice done - Meanwhile a Labour government is seeking to introduce a law - the RIP bill - which allows for the interception, surveillance and disclosure of journalistic material without prior judicial authorisation. As it stands, a source may be identified and compromised or action taken to prevent the flow of information without a newspaper even being aware of it, still less being able to challenge any applications for authorisation.
  524. Financial Times 22/7/00: Logjam forces bill concessions (search here)
  525. Reuters 21/7/00: Digital Surveillance? You'll Get Used to It - "I am convinced that covert surveillance is likely to prove the only effective answer to increasingly sophisticated crime," said Lord Justice Murray Stuart-Smith, the former overseer of MI5 and MI6...
  526. Personal Computer World 21/7/00: Dodging Big Brother on the net
  527. American Public Radio 21/7/00 streaming Real Audio (4m 32s)
  528. LinuxUser Jul/Aug 2000: Alan Cox interview on crypto policy - Cox criticizes those who drafted the RIP Bill for failing to listen to the people who really know the area..."Everybody they consulted told them they were idiots, so they stopped consulting people."
  529. PC-Pro 21/7/00: Lords RIP Into Snooping Bill - Again - However, the Bill may be incompatible with the ECHR in other respects ... possible contravention of the right against self-incrimination (by demanding a password that exists only in the suspect's head) ... The Bill will now return to the House of Commons, where Charles "I shall make no concessions" Clarke MP will doubtless assure members once again that the legislation poses no threat to commercial security or personal privacy
  530. Irish Times 21/7/00: Web reaches juncture as users go global - However, it would be hypocritical to criticise China when Britain is planning to trample human rights underfoot in forcing through an e-commerce killer, the RIP (Regulation of Investigatory Powers) Bill
  531. IngeniorenNet 21/7/00: Kritik af britisk net-aflytning
  532. 21/7/00: PSINet joins ISP stampede over 'Snooping Bill' - If the Bill is passed then PSINet will have to seriously reconsider whether the UK is an appropriate place for electronic commerce at all
  533. BBC Online 20/7/00: Peers pass e-mail interception bill - "It's Zombie legislation. Although clinically dead with macabre wounds, it still lumbers on menacing both individual privacy and commercial confidence" Caspar Bowden, FIPR
  534. Register 20/7/00: RIP branded 'zombie legislation' as it passes Lords
  535. ZDNet UK 20/7/00: RIP Bill nearly law, critics say more changes needed
  536. VNUnet 20/7/00: Snooping bill passed by House of Lords
  537. Financial Times 20/7/00: E-mail act set to become law after changes
  538. Telegraph 20/7/00: Whitehall backs down on e-snoops
  539. Guardian 20/7/00: UN report scorns UK human rights record - The wide-ranging report calls for...sweeping changes to the...regulation of investigatory powers bill going through parliament.
  540. ComputerWeekly 20/7/00: E-leaders make RIP Bill threat
  541. Telegraph 20/7/00: Watch out, Big Brother is on a small screen near you
  542. WSWS 19/7/00: British parliament set to adopt law enforcing police access to encrypted email - Why is it that even the threat of a significant transfer of capital abroad has not altered the government's course?...Under conditions of mounting social inequality and the inevitable political discontent this creates, the RIP bill is deemed necessary to maintain the long-term political and class interests of the ruling elite, whatever the immediate costs to the economy.
  543. 19/7/00: ISPs prepare to flee as Lords send off 'Snooping Bill'
  544. New York Times 19/7/00: British Authorities May Get Wide Power to Decode E-Mail 

    measure...would make Britain the only Western democracy where the government could require anyone using the Internet to turn over the keys to decoding e-mails messages and other data

    "What's going to happen is that companies are going to reroute everything away from the U.K. and take their business abroad." Will Roebuck, e-Centre

    "What this does is contravene a large number of fundamental rights in the European convention on human rights and other international standards, which include the right to privacy, the right to liberty, the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of association" Halya Gowan, Amnesty International

    "The British authorities have a history of engaging in activities outside the law which inflict on people's privacy or otherwise affect their liberties, and then suddenly saying that the time has come to bring the law into line with practice" Conor Gearty, professor of human rights law, King's College London.


  545. Guardian 19/7/00: That charter for snoopers (Bassam) admits that "it is not possible to intercept the external communications... without intercepting internal communications as well"....Ministers will be able to issue interception warrants covering broad categories of information without naming specific addresses or individuals...Keys would have to be disclosed if the information was "necessary for the effective performance of any public authority" in carrying out their statutory functions. (The government's original test was even vaguer than that.)
  546. Guardian 19/7/00: Jonathan Freedland - The text that got away - "I think we should ditch this Regulation of Investigatory Powers bill. We'll get a nice headline out of it, too: RIP, RIP. And we can dress it up as an advance for civil liberties and proof that we're a listening government, etc. Such a move won't just delight all the liberal hand-wringers at the Guardian. Half the country uses email these days: they don't much fancy having their steamy one-liners to Sandra in Marketing being pored over by PC Plod either. This is a good example of what could be a liberal, yet populist issue: we can call it Stop the Snoops. I, personally, should be associated with this." - the memo TB should have sent
  547. Guardian 19/7/00: Lords join the left to curb net snoopers - The power has been restricted, but companies cannot be sure their data will be secure. In the Lords last Wednesday business leaders such as Lord Stevenson, the chairman of Pearson, was forced to admit he and "the large companies like the ones I run have not really understood the implications involved. It is my judgment that no one knows what the cost to the economy will be"
  548. VNUnet 18/7/00: Further RIP Bill changes tabled
  549. Guardian 18/7/00: Unsafe texts - Not only is (RIP) one of the most sustained attacks on civil liberties in recent history - allowing for powers of surveillance that Stalin would have been delighted with - the bill will also fail in its aim of tightening computer security.
  550. Wall Street Journal 17/7/00: U.K. Internet Tapping Bill Stays Intact - it would make Britain the only country in the Group of Seven industrial nations with the explicit legal power to demand that companies hand over keys required to decode data encrypted for secrecy
  551. 17/7/00: UK ebusiness threatened as RIP passed by Lords
  552. Time 17/7/00: The Infoanarchist
  553. New Statesman 17/7/00: Click your mouse and vote 
  554. Guardian 17/7/00: No 10's leaked memo reveals faults in RIP bill
  555. Times 17/7/00: RIP Bill to have final Lords reading
  556. Observer 16/7/00: RIP to civil liberties and the e-business revolution - The only thing I care about,' the security manager of a major bank is reported to have said to Clarke in a private meeting, 'is the text of the Act. Which is why my [encryption] keys are going to Switzerland.
  557. Financial Times 15/7/00: Industry's e-mail bill warning - the government offer to pay Pounds 20m towards the cost of installing interception black boxes to capture electronic traffic was described as "at best, puzzling" [CBI & ISPA]. (search here)
  558. Register 14/7/00: Lords do their worst on RIP
  559. NTK 14/7/00: - the one remaining pressure group still supporting the Bill: self-proclaimed protector of the kids, BARONESS THORNTON (wife of anti-RIP [pro-RIP ?? shurely shome mishtake?] rentaquote, John Carr)...RIP critics "would like to have the regime which exists in America, which is protected by the First Amendment and which has no constraints at all." And what could such extremism lead to? "In America, children are kidnapped..."
  560. VNUnet 14/7/00: UK snooping bill key amendment defeated
  561. ZDNet UK 14/7/00: Government power over cryptography dented by Lords - "if the UK becomes the only G7 economy with a Government Access to Keys (GAK) law, companies and their customers will think long and hard before conducting e-commerce in this country" Caspar Bowden
  562. Financial Times 14/7/00: LEADER: RIP, R.I.P.
  563. (not RIP but...) BBC Online 13/7/00: Carnivore upsets privacy groups - "Nobody knows how it works and how it can be targeted. It's a black box" James Dempsey, CDT
  564. VNUnet 14/7/00: Advisory board to monitor RIP enforcement
  565. VNUnet 14/7/00: Peers move to ease RIP cost fears
  566. 14/7/00: 'Snooping Bill' will be law by October says Peer
  567. Telegraph 13/7/00: FBI under attack for spying on email
  568. ComputerWeekly 13/7/00: RIP needs safeguards
  569. BBC Online 13/7/00: Safeguard over e-mail 'snooping' Bill
  570. Telegraph 13/7/00: LETTER - RIP Bill is anti-democratic and totalitarian
  571. Telegraph 13/7/00: LETTER from Charles Clarke - all the serious commentators with whom we have engaged...
  572. Computing 13/7/00: Government bills Rarely Inspire Public
  573. ZDNet UK 13/7/00: Big Brother in the black box Pt II
  574. ZDNet UK 13/7/00: Big Brother in the black box
  575. Independent 13/7/00: Peers defeat moves to let police read e-mail (??) - Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers...backed amendments insisting on a statutory body to oversee setting up an Internet interception system, and a formal commitment for ministers to pay for "black boxes", which would allow authorities to tap the traffic.
  576. Guardian 13/7/00: 36% rise in reports of data misuse
  577. Guardian 13/7/00: Lament of the cheesed-off chiefs - Bob Brace, vice-president of channel marketing for Nokia, said the RIP bill was a waste of time. "Most government officials are not IT literate and do not understand what the bill actually means," he said,... organised criminals would find ways of circumventing the snoopers. "We cannot implement this sort of policy and expect international business to have confidence to invest in the UK"
  578. 13/7/00: ICL pleads for two-month 'Snooping Bill' re-think
  579. ComputerWeekly 13/7/00: ISP threatens departure over government Web-snooping bill
  580. Contractor UK 12/7/00: RIP Bill may force businesses overseas
  581. BBC Online 12/7/00: E-mail Bill 'threatens human rights' - Data Protection Commissioner Elizabeth France...said: "We are particularly concerned that the Bill appears to allow access to encrypted electronic information without a warrant simply on the basis of a notice issued by a specified law enforcement agency"....Her report said, "It is the view of the Working Party on Police that the routine long-term preservation of data by ISPs for law enforcement purposes would be disproportionate general surveillance of communications"
  582. Register 12/7/00: Minister slams RIP objections as 'ill founded'
  583. Ananova 12/7/00: Anti-crime e-mail snooping 'could breach human rights'
  584. Ananova 12/7/00: RIP Bill faces crunch Lords debate
  585. Telepolis 12/7/00: UK: RIP-Gesetz einstampfen
  586. ZDNet UK 12/7/00: Economic concerns as ISPs flee snooping bill
  587. BBC Online 12/7/00: 'Snooping' bill protests stepped up
  588. The451 12/7/00: Lawyers, minister's letter uphold e-spying claim (registration required) - Lawyers have backed the claim that Britain's controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers bill contains a loophole that would allow mass domestic surveillance of telephone and Internet traffic by the country's international listening center, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)...The contention is that with the combination of powers granted under two different parts of the bill – one of which is carried over from the existing Interception of Communications Act and governs external traffic – protection from GCHQ trawling British residents' traffic can be overridden
  589. Wall Street Journal 12/7/00: Blair's Internet-Police Bill Threatens to Cool Britannia
  590. Financial Times 12/7/00: Tinkering tailors a bill for spies - A powerful alliance between Jack Straw and Sir Richard Wilson, the cabinet secretary, overcame the Department of Trade and Industry's objections to the contentious legislation allowing the interception of private e-mails....One Blair ally said: "All prime ministers are impressed by spies and Tony is no exception. They were Jack's trump card." Furthermore Mr Blair was unwilling to overrule his home secretary twice...One DTI insider said: "With hindsight we should have realised that we were surrendering our voice in this. It's hardly a surprise that a Home Office bill is tailored to spies rather than businessmen."
  591. Financial Times 12/7/00: Uunet/Nokia attack e-mail plan - NOKIA and UUNET join campaign against controversial government powers to intercept data  - "It would be tragic if by imposing a new requirement on ISPs, the UK were to make itself uncompetitive in the provision of internet services. We would ask the government to step back and re-think the whole bill," Uunet said
  592. Financial Times 12/7/00: Discontent in group talking about digital revolution (search here)
  593. Telegraph 12/7/00: Peers block e-snooping Bill
  594. Telegraph 12/7/00: LETTER: Withdraw dangerous Bill (see full list of signatories)
  595. Telegraph 12/7/00: Simon Davies: How your privacy could soon RIP
  596. ZDNet Fr 12/7/00: Londres coincé par son projet de surveillance de l'internet
  597. 12/7/00: Snooping Bill enters last lap as opposition unites
  598. 12/7/00: 'Snooping Bill' won't hurt UK ecommerce, says e-envoy
  599. VNUnet 11/7/00: Alliance wants RIP Bill dead
  600. BBC Online 11/7/00: ISPs RIP warning - net expert Esther Dyson also called for the bill to be scrapped. She said the powers it gave the government were more like those seen in repressive regimes.
  601. NetImperative 11/7/00: Claranet joins overseas threat
  602. Register 11/7/00: ISPs fly to continent to escape RIP
  603. San Jose Mercury News 11/7/00: Draconian cyber-surveillance near in Britain - Everywhere you go in Britain, you see video cameras in public places. Their pervasive presence is testament to the British public's acceptance of surveillance, at least of a certain kind. Why will such people care if their e-mail is pervasively scanned and analyzed, or if their encryption keys are demanded, by government snoops?
  604. (not RIP but...) Wall Street Journal 11/7/00: FBI 'Carnivore' system can scan "millions of e-mails per second"
  605. 11/7/00: Claranet to join UK exodus over 'Snooping Bill'
  606. Financial Times 11/7/00: Codes fail to allay fears over e-mail decryption bill (if FT link expired search here)
  607. 11/7/00: 'Snooping Bill' sends another company into exile
  608. Times 11/7/00: Move to calm fears over e-mail secrets
  609. New Statesman 10/7/00: Alex Allan interview - "...I don't believe the provisions in the bill are a threat to the success of e-commerce in the UK"
    New Statesman 10/7/00: Guide to best official and unofficial websites
  610. New Statesman 10/7/00: The global view
  611. New Statesman 10/7/00: Meet the regulators 
  612. Irish Times 10/7/00: Legislation strong on privacy for Internet users - The Irish approach can be contrasted to that of the UK where the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill is currently before the House of Lords.
  613. 10/7/00: Interview with Mike Lynch of Autonomy

    A fair bit of your work is done for the police. In the context of the current debates about the British Regulation of Investigatory Powers bill, do you worry about the privacy consequences of the kind of profiling and traffic analysis your products enable?

    It's a debate that's sadly a bit sound-bite based at the moment. One of the things we started with at Cambridge Neurodynamics is technology that searches fingerprints. That system has put a series of rapists and serial murderers away, and I don't lose any sleep at all about that. Technology-based evidence actually makes it very hard to convict someone falsely. As long as a test is done correctly, it's incredibly powerful.

    I'm actually very sympathetic to the other point of view, but the issue is not the technology but the kind of society you want to live in. Having a basically honest government is the issue, not the technology.

  614. Telegraph 10/7/00: Concessions offered on RIP Bill
  615. [.TV] 10/7/00: ISPs threaten to leave the UK
  616. VNUnet 10/7/00: ISP considers quitting UK over RIP bill
  617. 10/7/00: Editorial: Will the last one to leave please switch off the server
  618. BusinessZone 10/7/00: ISP poised to move offshore as RIP Bill moves on
  619. SPIN vs. SUBSTANCE - Ask the Home Office Press Office what the RIP Bill actually says - Tim Watkinson - (020) 7273 4610

    5(3)b - "for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime" 

    79(2) & 79(3) "references to serious crime are references to crime conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose." 10/7/00: Snooping Bill drives first ISP abroad - A spokesman for the Home Office said he was disappointed by Poptel's reaction. "The powers of interception are only directed at those suspected of involvement in a threat to national security, a threat to the economic well being of the nation or involvement in serious organised (??) crime...we urge them to examine the face of the Bill (!??!!?!??!) again" 
  620. ZDNet UK 10/7/00: RIP: Government claims no mass surveillance - The definition of serious crime includes the phrase "those gathered for a common purpose" which some civil liberties experts claim would include anyone organising a demonstration or anti-government protest. "That is not the case," reassures the Home Office spokesman. "It means those gathered for a common purpose to commit a serious (??) crime and we are talking serious and organised (??!!)."
  621. ThisIsMoney 9/7/00: Firm's threat over 'net-spying' Bill
  622. Register 9/7/00: ISP RIPs up UK domicile
  623. Telegraph 9/7/00: ISP flees UK to evade e-mail snoops - A spokeswoman for the TUC said: "It would be quite easy for unions to hook up with an internet provider which can guarantee e-mail won't be intercepted." The Transport and General Workers Union said that if the TUC sourced its internet services outside the UK, it would follow. A spokesman said: "We would certainly want to be assured that in legitimate industrial disputes this would not infringe on the civil liberties of members of the union."
  624. Observer 9/7/00: Nick Cohen -  Right is wrong - anti-terrorism Bill, which treats ordinary demonstrators as if they are Carlos the Jackal, and a Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which will make every computer user a legitimate target for unconstrained state surveillance
  625. (not RIP but..) Independent 9/7/00: Revealed - 30 more nations with spy stations
  626. (not RIP but..) Sunday Times 9/7/00: Straw signs five bugging orders a day
  627. Daily Express 8/7/00: Security clamp on order at cyber cafe - Closed-circuit television, proof of identity and a greater emphasis on recording users are options being considered by the National Crime Intelligence Service. Mark Castell, head of the NCIS's hi-tech crime unit, said: "It is obvious the anonymity offered by cyber cafes for criminals. The cafes have to recognise criminal exploits."
  628. (not RIP but..) BBC Online 7/7/00: Crackdown on computer criminals - Some use encryption techniques to scramble data that could be intercepted. Mr Castell cited the example (!!) of David Copeland who anonymously surfed the web for bomb-making instructions from a cyber-café
  629. 7/7/00: UK pressue mounts to kill RIP Bill
  630. VNUnet 7/7/00: Police email snooping powers tamed (wrong)
  631. Financial Times 7/7/00: £20m subsidy likely over e-mail bill
  632. Guardian 7/7/00: Internet spy bill set at £20m
  633. Financial Times 7/7/00: LETTER from Lord Strathclyde - Would the regulation of investigatory powers bill, of which the dire potential effects for civil liberties and the UK as a base for e-business were rightly castigated by the FT, have been rewritten if it had gone to a small committee "upstairs"? I doubt it. It went through the Commons like an e-mail through the ether (if FT link expired search here)
  634. Computing 6/7/00: Concern over RIP Bill continues
  635. BBC Online 6/7/00: Net laws 'still allow snooping' - FIPR has found a loophole in section 15.3 of the bill that lets the security forces obtain a three-month blanket warrant to look for "any referrable factor"
  636. Register 6/7/00: RIP will turn Britain into police state - Clinton Web guru
  637. Times 6/7/00: E-mail snooping will create police state, guru warns - Esther Dyson, who advises President Clinton and heads an international agency charged with setting policy for the Internet, urged ministers to abandon the Regulation of Investigatory Powers an Anglo-American enterprise conference in London attended by Gordon Brown, John Prescott, and Stephen Byers
  638. 6/7/00: Trades Unions call for urgent Snooping Bill clarification
  639. ComputerWeekly 6/7/00: RIP Bill amendments are not far reaching enough
  640. 5/7/00: Roland Perry (LINX regulation officer) streaming 4m 32s
  641. Network News 5/7/00: Lords seek to put another nail in the coffin of the RIP Bill
  642. 5/7/00: Pressure groups and unions hold Snooping Bill summit
  643. ZDNet UK 5/7/00: French kill anti-privacy law
  644. Financial Times 4/7/00: LETTER - Computer-literate criminal is master of disguise (if FT link expired search here)
  645. 3/7/00: RIP bill mocked for passing 'complexity pain barrier'
  646. Federal Computer Week UK 3/7/00: Intercepts - the UK solution
  647. ZDNet UK 3/7/00: Jane Wakefield: These days everybody's playing a spying game...
  648. Financial Times 3/7/00: Business still remains worried (if FT link expired search here)
  649. Independent 2/7/00: Blair pledge on e-mail snooping
  650. Observer 2/7/00: Ken Follett - Blair's blackest art - When this Government stumbles, it is usually over the rock of a moral question: ...The latest example is the Regulation of Investigatory Practices (RIP) Bill, with its breathtaking insouciance toward civil liberties. (Home Office Minister Charles Clarke last week promised a rethink.) In private conversations, Tony says issues don't matter to the average voter...
  651. Observer 2/7/00: Climbdown on e-snooping Bill
  652. Internet Magazine 1/7/00: Locked in the crypt - Bill Thompson
  653. Telegraph 1/7/00: LETTER - on Steganography
  654. NTK 30/6/00: e-Envoy breaks silence on RIP, news from planet Miller
  655. AnaNova 30/6/00: Changes fail to convince civil liberties groups over cyber surveillance bill
  656. Register 30/6/00: Drunks should fear RIP bill
  657. 30/6/00: on Govt. RIP amendments streaming 7m 57s
  658. BBC R4 Law in Action 29/6/00 - Real Audio (5m 48s)
  659. 29/6/00: Straw backs down on RIP Bill, but battle not over yet
  660. Telegraph 29/6/00: LETTER - Bill of wrongs
  661. Telegraph 29/6/00: Lords seek further changes to RIP Bill
  662. Telegraph 29/6/00: Does Straw know what he's taking on?
  663. ZDNet UK 29/6/00: A solution to the RIP bill may lie in a 20 year old technology
  664. ZDNet UK 29/6/00: E-envoy tells government to lay off the Net (...just fancy that!)
  665. Financial Times 29/6/00: LETTER - Decryption will not help fight Crime
  666. Computing 29/6/00: House of Lords slows progress of RIP Bill
  667. Financial Times 29/6/00: E-mail bill concessions mollify opposition peers (if FT link expired search here)
  668. Financial Times 29/6/00: LETTER from Chris Humphries (BCC) (if FT link expired search here)
  669. 29/6/00: Snooping Bill goes back under the Lords' microscope
  670. 29/6/00: Anti-RIP lobby wins changes to Snooping Bill
  671. ComputerWeekly 29/6/00: Tapping law could push work abroad
  672. ComputerWeekly 29/6/00: Government to ease RIP Bill powers
  673. ComputerWeekly 29/6/00: No refuge from RIP Bill
  674. Independent 29/6/00: Ministers limit plan to snoop on e-mail
  675. Financial Times 28/6/00: Changes to e-mail bill fail to satisfy industry (if FT link expired search here)
  676. Telegraph 28/6/00: City Diary: Behind the internet snooper Bill - Nigel Hickson, the CBI's head of on secondment from the DTI..."There is a slight irony, to be on the other side of the fence over a similar Bill"
  677. Telegraph 28/6/00: City Editor comment: Shadow of Straw's dogs remains over the net
  678. AnaNova 28/6/00: Tory chief says e-mail bill is snoopers' charter
  679. ZDNet UK 28/6/00: Snoopers' charter - changes are not enough
  680. Birmingham Post 28/7/00: Tighter Rein For Web Watchers
  681. BBC Online 28/6/00: Net snooping bill 'harms business'
  682. Network News 28/6/00: MP to launch RIP Bill investigation - Select committee chairman to head parliamentary inquiry into RIP weakness
  683. Times 28/6/00: Fears over e-mail Bill prompt climbdown
  684. Times 28/6/00: LETTER from FIPR (sent 14/6/00)
  685. Independent 28/6/00: Government tones down e–mail intercept bill
  686. Wired 27/6/00: Brits Tone Down Email Bill
  687. USA Today 27/6/00: 'Big Browser' would let U.K. spy on Net
  688. Register 27/6/00: Govt bows to pressure on RIP
  689. ZDNet UK 27/6/00: Government backtracks on Internet surveillance
  690. Telegraph 27/6/00: LEADER: An e-unfriendly act
  691. VNUnet 27/6/00: Industry unimpressed by RIP Bill changes
  692. ComputerWeekly 27/6/00: RIP climbdown leaves users wary
  693. ABC News 27/7/00: British govt amends e-mail bill to avoid revolt
  694. BBC Online 27/6/00: Ministers amend e-mail bill
  695. Guardian 27/6/00: RIP bill no match for technology
  696. Guardian 27/6/00: Ministers back down on email 'spy charter'
  697. Financial Times 27/6/00: Ministers to offer concessions on e-mail bill
  698. 26/6/00: U.K. pulls back on cybersnoop bill
  699. Daily Telegraph 26/6/00: Government could back down on 'net snooping'
  700. Independent 25/6/00: Home Office shift on 'black boxes' boosts internet firms
  701. Mail on Sunday 25/6/00: 'Snooping' Bill to be watered down - Straw bows to pressure on bugging of e-mails
  702. Observer 25/6/00: LETTERS - in response to John Carr 18/6/00 - " If (he) really believes the opposition to the RIP Bill is Thatcherite, élitist and anti-democratic, perhaps he should get out more..."
  703. YES Observer 25/6/00: COMMENT - Big browser is watching the web Is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill a licence for state snooping? NO

    Caspar Bowden - director of FIPR

    Type a few words into a web search-engine and you can find information on any subject in seconds. What happens next depends what one is thinking about and one's reaction to that information. RIP's proponents say the internet is like a public space, and just as the police don't need a judge's warrant merely to keep an eye on someone in the street, they must be allowed to track any person's movements as they click from website to website.

    As drafted, RIP gives the police and other government bodies authority to access a person's 'clickstream' - the virtual record of his or her train of thought; no formal investigation need be underway, no warrant is required. Last Monday the Government asked the House of Lords to believe that this was some kind of drafting mistake, but when pressed would not deny that their intention all along was for Big Browser to be Watching You.

    RIP can require internet service providers to install 'black boxes' which see every scrap of data traversing their networks, all under the control of a monitoring centre in the MI5 building. There is obviously a problem of oversight here, but the director of the National Criminal Intelligence Service (who will operate it) last week knocked down the straw man that they 'would or could monitor all emails'. The issue is that nobody will know for sure what the boxes are doing, and RIP is drafted so that their operation is lawful without even serving warrants on the ISP.

    The real trouble with RIP is that it won't work - and the reason is encryption. On an open system like the internet, the only way to keep data safe is to scramble it, so if a fraudster or industrial spy hacks into your system, the data is unintelligible without the right password or 'key'. Encryption will be ubiquitous - it's already built into the fabric of the next technical standard for the internet, and serious e-commerce applications will never be trusted without it.

    RIP proposes to deal with the problem of criminal use of encryption by giving any public authority power to demand any key or password to any data there is some lawful authority to obtain - whether intercepted under warrant, seized in a search, or held by an innocent party. People forget passwords and lose keys all the time, but if you find yourself in this situation you could go to jail for two years. Serious criminals will obviously plead a bad memory, so NCIS wants the sentence to be as long as whatever crime someone is suspected of.

    There is also a secrecy condition that can prohibit someone from disclosing that a key has been divulged - on pain of a further five years. But RIP can be evaded by taking elementary countermeasures, and will plainly be impotent against serious criminals.

    There is an alternative, but the Government refuses to discuss it. Interception is useless if the data is encrypted, but even the strongest code is useless if the key is stolen. All computers have bugs in the software that allow hackers to break in, and developing a battery of such techniques would allow keys to be stolen covertly (under warrant) when required. The police say this is too difficult and unfortunately for us all, it probably is too difficult for the current management.

    The Government's case reduces to a plea without evidence that the powers are 'necessary' and assurances that 'the innocent will not suffer', and Ministers increasingly resort to caricaturing opponents as libertarian absolutists. But RIP won't work, and the danger is that after the 'black boxes' go in and interception has been stymied by encryption, the police will look to compensate through automated mass surveillance of online behaviour. Instead it is time for law enforcement to develop alternatives to interception, and to stop pretending that sweeping executive discretion is a credible way to regulate internet surveillance.

    Meanwhile other countries look on in horrified fascination. In any democracy with a written constitution, a law that locked people up for failing to prove they had forgotten something would not get very far. A leading investment bank, fearful that master-keys could be secretly suborned for economic intelligence gathering, has already moved security operations to Zurich, and Britain can expect to be treated as a pariah once company lawyers savour the possibilities. RIP is both a cock-up and a conspiracy - some intelligence agencies understand the internet well, but Ministers and most senior policy officials don't use the internet, don't understand its technology or economics, and don't think that that matters.

    Charles Clarke MP - Home Office Minister

    The regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill is attacked by some as a 'snooper's charter'. Such epithets may make for snappy headlines. But they do not reflect the reality.

    One of the primary drivers behind this Bill is the protection of an individual's privacy. This Government passed the Human Rights Act 1998, which will shortly incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. This includes a right to privacy. But this, in any democratic society, is not an absolute right. The ECHR permits interference with an individual's privacy but only where it is in accordance with the law and necessary, for example, to prevent crime. These are precisely the sort of strictures the Bill puts in place. We recognise that some of the powers in the Bill are particularly intrusive. That is precisely why they should, as the Bill proposes, be closely regulated.

    Criminals have always been quick to seize on new technologies. We are seeing this now. The internet offers huge legitimate benefits. It is rewriting the rules about how we communicate, how businesses operate and how governments function. But alongside these opportunities come powerful opportunities for criminals to abuse new technologies. So there is a delicate balance to be struck. We need to give due weight to all the interests involved - individual privacy, business expedience and law enforcement. We would be justifiably criticised if we did nothing to prevent the new media becoming tools of drug smugglers, paedophiles or people traffickers.

    Contrary to its critics, the Bill does not usher in an era of mass email interception. There is no intention to routinely monitor communications or fit 'black boxes' to all internet service providers. Some may be required to maintain a capability. Interception now and in the future is reserved for use only in the most serious cases - a threat to national security, the nation's economic well-being, or in pursuit of serious crime - and every warrant must be authorised personally by the Secretary of State. There are, we know, crucial cost and technical issues here for industry and we are discussing these now with the relevant players. We have no intention of imposing unreasonable burdens on anyone - we have every intention of ensuring we can fight crime in the twenty-first century.

    There have been suggestions that the Bill would allow unfettered access to communications data (eg, itemised billing records). In fact, the Bill introduces comprehensive statutory controls for the first time, strictly governing access to such information. Access must be properly authorised, for specified purposes, and subject to independent oversight. Some have suggested that as many as 28 different public authorities will be authorised to access communications data. Not so. The Bill lists six authorities and police forces. And, as we announced last week, we are looking again at whether we have got the definition of communications data in the Bill quite right.

    There is also much hyperbole about the provisions relating to the use of encryption. This technology is vital to the e-commerce revolution, but also a boon to criminals eager to hide their activities. These measures do not give law enforcement agencies any new powers to obtain material - just the ability to understand the contents of material that they can lawfully obtain.

    Again, we are looking to see whether changes can be made which provide reassurance while maintaining the balance we seek.

    The RIP Bill has been described as 'Orwellian' and 'Kafka-esque'. Instead of reaching for the clichéd literary descriptors, some critics may do better to look at what the Bill actually says, and consider the reality. This is an important Bill - and not just for those who know their symmetric from their asymmetric encryption keys. The powers in the Bill, simply put, are essential to help keep the UK a safe place for everyone to live and work.

  704. Daily Express 23/6/00: How can we trust a man who gives promises so freely and then breaks them so shamelessly?
  705. NTK 23/6/00: A defender for RIP!
  706. Scientific American 6/00: Orwell Awards
  707. Financial Times 23/6/00: 'E-snooping' measure pits government against apprehensive business leaders (if FT link expired search here)
  708. Financial Times 23/6/00: LETTER from Richard Stallman - RIP bill is bad for more than business
  709. Times 22/6/00: Anatole Kaletsky - How Blair could turn victory into defeat - millions of voters ... cannot see any difference in principle between a government that demands records of Internet correspondence and one that decrees that the post office should steam open all letters and keep copies in its vaults.
  710. ZDNet UK 22/6/00: Home Office to retreat on cyber-spying bill
  711. VNUnet 22/6/00: Lords say RIP Bill can be defeated
  712. Financial Times 22/6/00: LETTER from Caspar Bowden - The government still maintains that asking an innocent person to prove they have forgotten a password does not amount to a presumption of guilt. However Lord Bassam recently chose to rectify a less severe reverse-burden in the Terrorism bill. Unless he can persuade the Lords next week that there is no inconsistency here, another foundation of RIP will shatter. Real progress will not be made until government recognises that respect for civil liberties is indissoluble from the prosperity of e-commerce.
  713. ComputerWeekly 22/6/00: Government forced to rewrite RIP definitions - The Government admitted this week that its definition of "communications data", which underpins its controversial RIP Bill, is so flawed that it will have to be rewritten...However, despite this last minute climb-down, Lord Bassam refused to say whether the intent of the new definition would exclude search engine requests and logs of individual Web pages from being intercepted without a warrant.
  714. Times 22/6/00: Fury over law on e-mail
  715. Computing 22/6/00: Government 'in retreat' over RIP Bill
  716. ComputerWeekly 22/6/00: Labour fails to grasp e-business
  717. Daily Telegraph 22/6/00: Michael Bywater - We don't expect honesty from governments
  718. 22/6/00: Government hints at 'Snooping Bill' climb-down - A Home Office spokeswoman denied that changes were in the offing..."...we are not drawing up amendments to the Bill."
  719. Daily Telegraph 22/6/00: Charles Clarke - Why only criminals should fear the Bill
  720. Daily Telegraph 22/6/00: What it means to you
  721. Register 22/6/00: Waugh hits out at RIP
  722. Network News 21/6/00: Big Browser need not be watching you
  723. Network News 21/6/00: Government stands firm over RIP Bill - The government's new e-envoy Alex Allen has defended its controversial RIP bill. Speaking at the summer reception of the Associated Parliamentary Internet Group, Allen said the bill's intention was good and its application would be regulated through a code of practice. "You need safeguards, but the concerns of civil rights groups are exaggerated," he said. "They talk about reversed burden of proof, but the prosecution must still prove that network managers had encryption keys to start with."
  724. Register 21/6/00: RIP Bill needs 'a very big knife taking to it'
  725. AFX 21/6/00: "online businesses are pushing for major amendments"(if FT link expired search here)
  726. Financial Times 21/6/00: Ministers preparing retreat on e-mail intercepts (if FT link expired search here)
  727. PC Dealer 21/6/00: City view - keep a close eye on surveillance bill (if FT link expired search here)
  728. Yorkshire Post 21/6/00: E-privacy? You can RIP
  729. Financial Times 21/6/00: Taskforce to serve up unpalatable offering (if FT link expired search here)
  730. BBC Online 20/6/00: Charles Clarke on Net surveillance: Your questions answered
  731. Computer Weekly 20/6/00: Ministers split on RIP?
  732. VNUnet 20/6/00: Net tapping Bill fatally flawed
  733. 20/6/00: Snooping Bill goals slammed by EC powers
  734. Independent 20/6/00: Letter - Offshore E-crime (if FT link expired search here)
  735. InternetWeek 19/6/00: A Haven For Net Lawbreakers?
  736. Steptoe & Johnson E-Commerce Law Week: Will RIP be laid to rest ?
  737. Daily Telegraph 20/6/00: LETTER from Simon Davies, Ian Brown, Gus Hosein
  738. Times 19/6/00: Industry bodies oppose RIP Bill
  739. YouGov 19/6/00: People's Parliament - Vote on RIP
  740. Daily Telegraph 19/6/00: LETTER from Jack Straw
  741. BBC Online 19/6/00: Peers examine email tapping
  742. Financial Times 19/6/00: LETTER from Jack Straw (if FT link expired search here)
  743. BBC2 Newsnight 19/6/00
  744. Daily Telegraph 19/6/00: Web's pointer to privacy
  745. Guardian 19/6/00: Straw braced for defeat over RIP bill
  746. Guardian 19/6/00: The issues explained - the RIP Bill
  747. Observer 18/6/00
    John Carr: 

    it  is a very unattractive opposition whose hallmark is elitist, largely Thatcherite, and contemptuous of the encroachment of 'non-expert' democratic politicians...

    (if key not handed over, guilty if) a court was...convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's failure was deliberate. (?!?)

    So who will speak for civil society in this space? We truly want a 'people's internet'. We start to take charge of an agenda which had been creeping up on us by stealth...


    John Naughton: 

    The Bill is being shepherded through by...Lord Bassam...and...Bach. Neither of them appears to know anything about the technology of the internet, though M'lord Bach seems to rely heavily on the advice of a Baroness Thornton, who in real life is Mrs John Carr, and thus the spouse of a well-known campaigner against child pornography on the internet.

    Net watchdog Bill faces axe - Jack Straw's much criticised Bill to regulate the freedom of the internet is facing disaster in the Lords as critics organise a guerrilla campaign against the Government. More than 48 pages of amendments have been proposed to block the Home Secretary's proposals to increase the powers of the police and MI5 to intercept emails and access personal information kept on computers
    Nick Cohen: 

    The Home Office has a new sneer for those who question its assault on rights...In the past, we have been Old Labour 'dinosaurs' ignorant of the authoritarian necessities of hard times. Without contradiction, we then metamorphosed into 'woolly Hampstead liberals'...Jack Straw has ruled that all who regard him as a public menace will henceforth be known as 'paranoids'. The cause of the linguistic shift is the reaction to the extraordinary Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill..

    New web spy system is not up to the job, say the experts

    "..more worrying is that the Government have yet to tell us exactly how they intend to implement this surveillance system. After several years of discussion, this is ridiculous. This is going to cost a lot more than the Government are currently saying" Tim Pearson, ISPA Council

  748. Independent 18/6/00: Big Browser will watch your every move
  749. New Scientist 17/6/00: LEADER: Spooks out
  750. Guardian 17/6/00: LEADER: A devil at every door - Crime, disorder and libertinism are rife. Unless "the authorities" (a satisfying Home Office term, that) are given vast new powers to eavesdrop, discipline and investigate, chaos will ensue.
  751. Guardian 17/6/00: LETTERS: Liberty RIP
  752. eYada 17/6/00: Johnny Rotten and Chris Bailey on RIP streaming Real Audio (begins 2h 42m)
  753. 16/6/00: Big Brother loge à Big Ben
  754. Times 16/6/00: Big Brother is reading you
  755. NTK 16/6/00: RIP tide turns - Jack Straw took up the shaky defence: the idea of "black boxes" sending data to the new interception centre from ISPs was ridiculous, he wrote to the Times. Hmm. Given that the Home Office's own commissioned report described the nature of these boxes in some detail, what replacement does he have in mind? Encrypted pigeon post? On a second front in the Financial Times, his letter pooh-poohed the British Chamber of Commerce's estimate of up to 46 billion UKP lost by e-commerce skiddadling abroad post-RIP. Nonsense, he said: e-commerce only amounts to 0.6% of GDP: less than five billion. But the Chamber was talking about over five years, Minister; and they were using *your* estimates of a global e-commerce marketplace of 800UKP billion by 2005, with a 5% hold in the UK (2.5% with RIP in place).
  756. Evening Standard: 16/6/00: Cyber-police are watching you - there's absolutely no assurance - beyond a general Home Office promise that the new powers won't be misused - that this Government or a future one won't use MI5's GTAC to monitor anything ... its citizens do
  757. Financial Times 16/6/00: Byers lobbies Straw on e-mail bill fears
  758. Independent 16/6/00: Climbdown on plan for e-mail snooping
  759. VNUnet 16/6/00: DTI says snooping bill should be reviewed
  760. Computing 16/6/00: RIP will 'cost UK economy £46 billion'
  761. Register 16/6/00: Home Office kept busy defending RIP
  762. Financial Times 15/6/00: Straw attacks critics of e-mail intercept bill - In a forceful public intervention, Mr Straw put him self full square behind MI5 the security service, and the police in insisting the bill was strictly a law enforcement issue...He was flanked by John Abbot, and Barry Penrose, the directors of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, who together with MI5 have lobbied strongly for the bill.
  763. Financial Times 15/6/00: LEADER: Straw man - it could in principle give any government official access to the private transactions of any citizen or corporation. That could include bank account details, commercial secrets, and private e-mails. These are powers that Joseph Stalin would have used with relish. Mr Straw protests that he would interpret them narrowly in pursuit of organised crime. But the regulations explaining the government's intentions have not yet been published.
  764. Financial Times 15/6/00: LETTER from Jack Straw: Bill will not cause e-commerce to decamp - "The Government Technical Assistance Centre will handle material intercepted under warrant. It will not be used to access communications data"
  765. Guardian 15/6/00: LETTERS from John Abbott & Charles Clarke - "Conspiracy theorists must not be allowed to get away with the ridiculous notion that law enforcement would or even could monitor all emails. The intelligence agencies have neither the inclination nor the resources, nor the legal ability to monitor the massive amounts of electronic communications that flow through the UK every day. It does not happen with letters or telephones and it will not with emails." - John Abbott, Director general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service
  766. ZDNet UK 15/6/00: Straw enters bitter row over RIP Bill
  767. ZDNet UK 15/6/00: Data protection chief swipes out at spying Bill
  768. Accountancy Age15/6/00: Critics hope snooping Bill will rest in peace
  769. ComputerWeekly 15/6/00: Users voice fears on RIP Bill - Invasion of privacy, breaches of confidentiality and extra costs are all concerns raised by users in response to the imminent RIP Bill
  770. ComputerWeekly 15/6/00: Labour's Net policy crisis
  771. Independent 15/6/00: REPLY from Charles Clarke
  772. Telegraph 15/6/00: Report calls it RIP for RIP bill over human rights law breaches
  773. Telegraph 15/6/00: Privacy battle rages on
  774. Times 14/6/00: LETTER from Jack Straw: Internet regulation
  775. Times 14/6/00: ONLINE: The 'Big Brother' Bill: what do you think?
  776. Ninfomania 14/6/00: Waking up to RIP
  777. 14/6/00: Lords maul 'Snooping Bill'
  778. Guardian 13/6/00: Internet monitoring 'time bomb' for e-commerce - Allowing MI5 to monitor people's internet habits goes further than George Orwell's worst nightmare
  779. Guardian 13/6/00: Lords to fight email tap bill
  780. Irish Independent 13/6/00: IT firms voice fears about UK e-mail bill
  781. Independent 13/6/00: LEADER - The threats to e-commerce that will cost us all dear - "The Government's crass attempt to claim draconian powers to monitor electronic communications, the (RIP)  Bill, would stifle the development of e-business, e-government or e-anything in the UK."
  782. 13/6/00: Concern over U.K. e-mail surveillance bill grows - "It's a good question why this bill passed through the Commons so easily, but perhaps lawyers in the House of Lords can cause enough anxiety for them to send it back to the Commons for better consideration" Tony Benn MP
  783. ZDNet 13/6/00: Jeremy Westbrook: Please let this Bill RIP
  784. Independent 13/6/00: Peers may block e-mail snooping law
  785. BBC Online 13/6/00: Net laws could cost business
  786. Financial Times 13/6/00: UK Bill under increasing fire
  787. Daily Telegraph 13/6/00: Government faces attack on e-code Bill
  788. VNUnet 13/6/00: Snooping bill will cost £46bn, claims report
  789. Daily Mail 13/6/00: Exodus threat over e-snooping
  790. ComputerWeekly 13/6/00:  UK business hits out at Government's Internet surveillance bill
  791. KableNet 13/6/00: DTI's e-commerce man joins industry - ...Nigel Hickson, who is being "loaned" by the Department of Trade and Industry to the Confederation of British Industry, played an unprecedented role in a behind-the-scenes e-mail consultation...
  792. ZDNet UK 13/6/00: Report says snooping bill expensive and useless
  793. Times 12/6/00: LEADER: The Key to E-Commerce - Britain will lose its lead if this Bill passes - " misguided as to be practically unamendable. It would be better for 'the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom' to throw it out."
  794. Guardian 12/6/00: LEADER: Kick out this legislation - "Tony Blair was given a mild drubbing by the Women's Institute last week. But that is nothing to what ought to happen this week as the RIP (regulation of investigatory powers) bill enters its committee stage in the Lords"
  795. Financial Times 12/6/00: Leaders say no to e-snooping - ministers have been told they have "about 10 days" to head off peers' concerns or risk defeat on a number of opposition amendments.
  796. BBC Online 12/6/00: Criticism of net snooping bill grows - Business groups and politicians are queueing up to criticise the RIP bill
  797. ZDNet UK 12/6/00: RIP comes in for roasting from former government adviser
  798. ZDNet UK 12/6/00: Encryption law is one bad spud
  799. ZDNet UK 12/6/00: Report to Lords will show extra cost of snooping bill
  800. BBC Online 12/6/00: Talking Point:Is net surveillance prying or policing?
  801. BBC Radio 4 Today 12/6/00  Real Audio (6m 3s)
  802. The Times 12/6/00: New MI5 unit to crack criminal computer codes
  803. VNUnet 12/6/00: Industry urges rethink on UK snooping Bill
  804. ITDirector 12/6/00: Encryption: Should the RIP bill rest in peace?
  805. Ananova 12/6/00: Cyber surveillance bill faces rough ride in lords
  806. ZDNet UK 12/6/00: Father of the Web lambastes cyber snooping bill
  807. 12/6/00: Snooping Bill - Law faces 229 amendments before Lords
  808. 12/6/00: Snooping Bill - submits "Kill the Bill" plea to Home Office
  809. 12/6/00: Snooping Bill - Critics gain Chamber of Commerce support"
  810. Observer 11/6/00: Father of the web lashes snooping Bill - Tim Berners-Lee, regarded as the father of the world wide web, has launched a blistering attack on government plans to give the security services sweeping powers to intercept emails and monitor traffic on the internet
  811. Independent on Sunday 11/6/200: RIP: computer tapping bill faces death sentence
  812. Observer 11/6/00: Why papers won't say our freedom is in peril
  813. Times 10/12/00: ONLINE: Change RIP Bill before it's buried
  814. Computer Weekly 8/6/00: LEADER: Stop the Bill - "the best thing the House of Lords could do for UK e-commerce in the next few days is to torpedo the Bill completely and ask Jack Straw to start again"
  815. Sky News 8/6/00 Business Report: CB on RIP
  816. Computer Weekly 8/6/00: What stage is the Bill at?
  817. The Journal 8/6/00: RIP Bill has to be killed off, says North Chamber
  818. Computer Weekly 8/6/00: RIP Bill creates legal dilemma for IT chiefs - IT directors will face a choice between breaking the law or breaching commercial confidentiality
  819. Computing 8/6/00: RIP Bill faces a fresh attack
  820. ZDNet UK 7/6/00: Pressure grows on government to scrap snooping bill
  821. Guardian 7/6/00: Cold water poured on Sealand security
  822. FT 6/6/00 LEADER: Online Crime - "the UK government should scrap this ill-considered bill in its entirety"
  823. 6/6/00: 'Kill the Bill' - a campaign
  824. 6/6/00: Home Office stands firm on 'Snooping Bill'
  825. E-Commerce Times 6/6/00: UK Snoop Bill Faces Formidable Foe
  826. Register 6/6/00: RIP could wreck UK business, Chamber of Commerce realises
  827. Daily Telegraph 6/6/00: Alert over email probes
  828. Wired 6/6/00: British E-Commerce to RIP?
  829. Guardian 6/6/00: BCC attacks Straw 'licence to snoop'
  830. The Site 6/6/00: RIP - Cyber-snooping or legitimate surveillance?
  831. Independent 6/6/00: Investors flock to help internet tax haven go it alone - Yesterday, after initially saying Sealand was outside British territorial waters, the Home Office joined the Foreign Office in saying it did not recognise the sovereignty of Sealand. A spokesman said the company would have to comply with new laws under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and it may be required to "provide an intercept capability" – a box that allows eavesdropping – for the intelligence services
  832. Excite 6/6/00: 'Snooping bill' concerns voiced too late, says campaigner
  833. BBC Radio 4 World Tonight 5/6/00  Real Audio (4m 24s)
  834. 5/6/00: Government attacked over RIP "own goal" as business leaders press for amendments
  835. KABC Los Angeles 5/6/00 - interview on RIP Real Audio (14m 4s) - "I never associated the British Government with paranoia; if this story was coming out of Moscow, I would get it" - John and Ken morning show
  836. Reuters 5/6/00: Britain's Web Spying Bill Could Inhibit E-Commerce
  837. BBC1 TV News 13:23 5/6/00 - Rory Cellan-Jones reports on business opposition to RIP RealVideo streaming 1m 31s
  838. 5/6/00: BCC condemns 'Snooping Bill'
  839. FT 5/6/00: Business lobbies against e-mail intercept plans
  840. BBC Online 5/6/00: Snooping bill 'will harm business'
  841. LA Times 4/6/00: British Government Wants to Play Online Big Brother - Big Brother is not only watching Britons, soon he may be demanding their computer passwords and perusing their e-mail from a new, $40-million cyber-surveillance center in the headquarters of the MI5 domestic spy agency. Under a bill making its way through Parliament, the government would have the right to monitor all online activities--some of them without a warrant (also carried by International Herald Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times)
  842. Observer 4/6/00: Your privacy ends here - while MI5 may need a warrant actually to read your email, many other people will have essentially unregulated access to logs of the websites you access, the pages you download, the addresses of those with whom you exchange email, the discussion groups to which you belong and the chat rooms you frequent - in short, a comprehensive record of what you do online and with whom
  843. Press Gazette 2/6/00: We have been watching... - it spells RIP not only for the future of e-commerce industry in the UK, but also for the ability of journalists to protect their sources when using email. 
  844. FT 1/6/00: The price of policing e-business - John Smith sometimes gets e-mails at work from someone suspected of tax evasion. The police, armed with a warrant from the Home Office, demand Mr Smith hands over either the key that will allow them to decrypt the messages or plain text versions of them. If Mr Smith refuses, he faces up to two years in jail. If he says he has forgotten the key and a court does not believe him, he could also be jailed. If he complies and hands over the key, the police may be able to access all the e-mails sent on that system. If the police lose the key, the company's entire security system could be put at risk. But if Mr Smith warns his employer or anyone else about the police's request, he again faces a stiff jail sentence.
  845. Guardian 1/6/00: LEADER: Hooked on secrecy
  846. FT 1/6/00: LETTER: RIP bill will make no impact (on professional criminals)
  847. Guardian 31/5/00: "Government tapping of phone calls between UK and Ireland challenged"
  848. Telepolis 30/5/00: Die Briten als Avantgarde einer besonderen Art
    FT 29/5/00: LETTER from Charles Clarke: Bill will help make UK safest place for e-commerce (if FT link expired search here)
  849. Guardian 27/5/00: Jeremy Hardy - Private means
  850. Newsbytes 26/5/00: UK E-Commerce Legislation Stirs Up Privacy Angst
  851. Reuters 26/5/00: "Britain Defends Plan to Snoop on Web Surfers" 

    RETRACTED !: After initial refusals, following persistent enquiries from FIPR, today (1/6/00) Tim Watkinson of the Home Office Press Office - (020) 7273 4610 -   formally retracted the deliberately withheld quote reported by Reuters, describing it as a "slight mis-brief"

    ??!! "The police have to prove the encryption key was deliberately withheld," the spokesman said...  ??!!

    RIP Bill S.49 (1) A person is guilty of an offence if (a) he fails to comply... and (b) he is a person who has or has had possession of the key. (2) shall be a defence...for that person to show- (a) that the key was not in his possession...

  852. Metro (London) 26/5/00: MI5 to lead world in e-snooping
  853. 26/5/00: LEADER: says no to Snooping Bill
  854. BBC Online 25/5/00: Watching while you surf - "PCs might soon be watching people surf on their PC"
  855. Computer Weekly 25/5/00: No rest over RIP
  856. Computer Weekly 25/5/00: Cool response to Love Bug raises spook role questions
  857. The Journalist 24/5/00: All Kafka'd up
  858. Time Out 24/5/00: Taking Civil Liberties
  859. Channel 4 News 24/5/00: report on RIP, Tom King MP and Simon Davies RealVideo streaming 11m 15s (and text report)
  860. Computeractive 24/5/00: EDITORIAL - Delays hit email privacy law
  861. FT 23/5/00: UK e-guru attacks interception plans
  862. Guardian 22/5/00: "Newspapers challenge widening of police, security agency powers" - "Lawyers say that the bill has enormous implications for journalists...since they would not be able to guarantee the confidentiality of the information on...supplied by their sources."
  863. Guardian 22/5/00: Four threats to the public's right to know - Bills going through parliament will hinder watchdog role of press and bolster state secrecy
  864. NBC Nightly News 21/5/00: report on RIP (anyone see it ?)
  865. VNUnet 19/5/00: Is New Labour delivering on its ecommerce promises?
  866. WSWS 18/5/00: New Internet spy agency to be set up in Britain
  867. Computer Weekly 18/5/00: The late show
  868. Computer Weekly 18/5/20: Minister in spat with Computer Weekly over RIP bill
  869. Network News 17/5/00:  Government RIPs into more controversy - "..If you visit sites or get mail from users that the police think are dodgy, then that will be reason enough to get a warrant," said Bowden.....this was backed up by the Data Protection Registrar. "One form of data could be used to inform the decision to intercept another. There's nothing in the new bill to suggest that it couldn't"...
  870. 16/5/00: Prying or protection "As controversy over the Regulatory of Investigatory Powers Bill ('Snooping Bill') heats up, is the government on a collision course with industry? Sally Watson visits the Internet and Power conference in Cambridge to find out..." (RealVideo streaming 3m 45s)
  872. Business & Technology  12/5/00: ISPs furious as snooping costs go through the roof
  873. Computing 11/5/00: Government forces through Net spy bill
  874. Computing 11/5/00: They could be watching you too!
  875. ComputerWeekly 11/5/00: Firms quit UK over RIP Bill - "Firms fear the breadth of powers it provides to various groups to intercept confidential commercial data. They are not trying to fight any more. They're just going. They fear the UK simply isn't a safe place for confidential data."
  876. ComputerWeekly 11/5/00: Firms move operations abroad to avoid RIP Bill
  877. AP 10/5/00: "Britain plans cyber-center to spy on the Internet" (AP unlinkable - search here or look at Chicago Tribune story)
  878. Network News 10/5/00: RIP threat to e-mail privacy
  879. VNUnet 10/5/00: Snooping bill under attack again - "It is repugnant at law to require someone to prove his innocence. It goes against the golden thread that runs through English justice." - Oliver Heald MP
  880. CNN TV report on RIP 10/5/00
  881. BBC Online 9/5/00: Tories demand tougher computer penalties
  882. ZDNet UK 9/5/00: Cyber-snooping Bill through House of Commons
  883. BBC Online 8/5/00: Computer crime plan 'bad for business'
  884. BBC Radio 5 Nicky Campbell phone-in 8/5/00  Real Audio (2m 52s)
  885. BBC TV Business Breakfast 8/5/00 07:45  - Max Foster reports on RIP Bill (RealVideo streaming 2m 55s) "...MI5 could potentially read every e-mail sent and received in Britain..."
  886. BBC Radio 4 'Broadcasting House' 7/5/00,  Dan Damon Real Audio (6m 57s streaming
  887. Sunday Times 7/5/00: The net closes in
  888. Dawn (Pakistan) 7/5/00: UK lays plans to snoop on all e-mail messages
  889. Observer 7/5/00: Coming to a screen near you
  890. Silicon.Com 5/5/00: Behind the Headlines....criminals taking the RIP (video)
  891. Independent 5/5/00: Freedom of information must mean just that - "The interception of e-mail is something we are going to be hearing a lot more about in the future" - Phil Harding (BBC controller of editorial policy)
  892. Christian Science Monitor 5/5/00: UK moving to open all (e-)mail
  893. NTK 5/5/00: "...Nick Palmer MP, who claimed on Channel Four news that plans were already far advanced for a law that would stop ILOVEYOU ever happening again. Yes, it's that darn RIP bill, still struggling to find supporters in the real world"
  894. Daily Telegraph 4/5/00: Fool Britannia
  895. Daily Express 4/5/00: THE ESSEX GIRL E-MAIL TRAP
  896. Daily Express 4/5/00: Where's the sense in Big Brother snooping on our e-mail?- "It sounds like the kind of thing George Orwell might have written in 1984, except that it's no longer science fiction..... MI5 is building a £25million surveillance centre so that it can spy on e-mail and Internet traffic."
  897. The Register 4/5/00: "RIP - Lib Dems wade into cyber rights debate"
  898. 4/5/00: 'Snooping Bill' will not deter criminals, say experts
  899. Computing 4/5/00: Critics launch fresh attack on Net bill - "Foreign companies will look at the letter of the law, and say the UK is a dodgy place to do business because of the unknown liabilities. They will go somewhere else." - Chris Sundt, EURIM
  900. Guardian 3/5/00: Spider in the web
  901. Guardian 3/5/00: Francis Wheen: MI5's e-mail snoops - "Jack Straw has reversed the usual burden of guilt: all encrypted files on your computer are presumed to be incriminating unless you can prove otherwise. Oh, and if you make any public complaint about your treatment, another five years will be added to the sentence. Only a home secretary as ingenious as Straw could invent a new crime of forgetting one's password..."
  902. BBC Radio 2 'Johnnie Walker' 3/5/00 17:15 - RIP interview with Caspar Bowden.
  903. Financial Times 3/5/00: LETTERS: Foreign investors will be scared off (if FT link expired search here)
  904. ABCnews 2/5/00: Britain to Build E-Mail Surveillance System - “I think that in the balance between privacy and fighting drugs, that fighting drugs is more important than privacy”- Tam Dalyell MP
  905. Telepolis 2/5/00: Tony Geraghty - Irish War: British Disease
  906. Financial Times 2/5/00: State surveillance plans are 'worrying leap in dark' - "Government plans to intercept internet messages and e-mails are heading towards a 'big brother' regime matched only by Russia..." (if FT link expired search here
  907. ZDNet 2/5/00: MI5 to build new email and surfing surveillance centre
  908. British Forces Broadcasting Service 2/5/00 11:15 - RIP interview with Caspar Bowden Real Audio
  909. E-Commerce Times 1/5/00: British Plans for E-Mail Snoop Center Revealed
  910. Austrian Broadcasting Corporation FM4 2/5/00 11:50 - RIP interview with Caspar Bowden.
  911. BBC Radio 5 Live 1/5/00 12:40 - RIP interview with Caspar Bowden Real Audio
  912. 1/5/00: U.K. plan to open Internet spy center draws criticism
  913. ITN 1/5/00: MI5 to spy on email
  914. BBC Online 1/5/00: Spy centre to spread its web
  915. Independent 1/5/00: Watchdog slams Net snooping (sic)
  916. Macworld 1/5/00: Beware Big Browser
  917. PA News 1/5/00: Watchdog highlights internet security fears
  918. Slashdot 30/04/00: UK Building Eavesdropping infrastructure
  919. Yahoo 30/4/00: MI5 plans to build Internet surveillance centre
  920. PA News 30/4/00: Spy centre to target hi-tech crime
  921. BBC Online 30/4/00: Computer cloaks and digital daggers
  922. Sunday Times 30/4/00: MI5 builds new centre to read e-mails on the net - "The arrival of this spy centre means that Big Brother is finally here" - Norman Baker MP
  923. Scotsman 28/4/00: WHEN RIP WILL NOT MEAN REST IN PEACE
  924. NTK 28/4/00: ...civil rights lunatics opposed to RIP Bill...include the Data Protection Commissioner, ISPA/LINX, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition...
  925. 27/4/00: ...furore over the UK's RIP Bill still growing......what's the US high-tech industry's perspective?
  926. Computer Weekly 27/4/00: Government told to pay set-up RIP Bill costs
  927. Computer Weekly 27/4/00: ISPs step up attack on RIP Bill
  928. BBC Radio 4 'You and Yours' 26/4/00: RIP discussion with e-Minister Patricia Hewitt, Caspar Bowden, and Clive Feather 7m 43s Real Audio or Windows Media 
  929. VNUnet 26/4/00: Industry slams cost of UK snooping bill
  930. ZDNet News 26/4/00: Wiretapping may cost ISPs £17m says new report
  931. 26/4/00: Snooping Bill report attacks 'one size fits all' policy
  932. KableNet 25/4/00: RIP Bill to cost ISPs more than £30m
  933. The Register 25/4/00: RIP Bill - ISP costs mount up
  934. Financial Times 25/4/00: Whitehall 'should pay to set up e-mail intercept' (if FT link expired search here)
  935. The Register 19/4/00: RIP: Tories attack from the Right
  936. Observer 16/4/00: Jack Straw wants the keys to your office. Don't let him in ... - "The RIP Bill is such a crazed piece of legislation that one wonders if the Government hasn't taken leave of its senses. Bemused MPs say they don't understand this encryption stuff and hide behind the assumption that the Home Office must know what it's doing. Big mistake."
  937. 14/4/00: Data protection watchdog slams Snooping Bill
  938. Daily Telegraph 13/4/00: DIALOGUE BOX: What the Bill actually says...
  939. Network News 12/4/00: Bowden puts paid to the RIP Bill
  940. 11/4/00: Analysis of Survey: RIP and you
  941. Telepolis 11/4/00: Echelon in Holland
  942. Times 11/4/00: RIP privacy?
  943. 10/4/00: 'Snooping Bill' slammed by viewers
  944. Herald 7/4/00: Part-time sheriffs to be introduced  
  945. Times 7/4/00: Take a stand on freedom
  946. Irish Times 7/4/00: E-Commerce Bill aims to enhance Ireland's Position
  947. Daily Telegraph 6/4/00: Raising the stakes
  948. KableNet 6/4/00: INSIGHT - RIP it up and start again 

    "Conceivably the RIP bill makes sense for a country putting itself on an infowar footing. Conceivably, it makes sense for a law-enforcement community which believes it will know, because of extensive covert intrusive surveillance, exactly who is doing what and who the major criminals are.

    Under RIP, it can then demand keys from people it already knows to be criminals, and incriminate them with their own evidence. This leaves the state's own investigative methods in the dark. While this conforms to the intelligence doctrine of protecting methods at all costs, it implies developing the capability to put anyone under such close surveillance that the government will indeed know when you are guilty. Perhaps this explains how the Home Office can be so confident that the innocent will not suffer.

    But if we are moving towards a maximum surveillance society we will need much better safeguards than offered by RIP, which seems to assume infallible policing perpetually free of abuse or corruption"

  949. Network News 5/4/00: The politics of crypto access
  950. Daily Express 5/4/00: Internet prowlers using a secret code
  951. Independent 2/4/00: E-mails that could return to haunt you
  952. IMIS Journal April: Security Column (Kevin Townsend)
  953. BBC Online 31/3/00: Website campaign to derail legislation
  955. Guardian 30/3/00: Three exchanges of letters between FIPR and Charles Clarke MP

    "How do you demonstrate that you've lost or forgotten a key? You explain what has happened and the court will decide whether, on balance, you're telling the truth." - Charles Clarke MP, Minister of State at the Home Office.

    "You assume everyone prosecuted will be a villain, refuse to say how they can prove they are not guilty, and then assure us that the innocent will not suffer! That's not the job of a politician. We have a judiciary to sort out the innocent from the guilty, on the basis of evidence.The trouble with your 'statutory defence' is that there is no evidence when someone forgets something, so criminals with a lot to hide will always plead a bad memory." - FIPR

  956. Computing 30/3/00: New law opens up private data to MI5
  957. 30/3/00: Government accused of 'hopelessly underestimating' RIP costs
  958. Computer Weekly 30/3/00: FEI warns Government RIP faces huge hurdles
  959. Open Letter 29/3/00: from Oliver Heald MP, Opposition spokesman on RIP
  960. Network News 29/3/00: Bill imperils cheap net access
  961. Ananova 27/3/00: Minister defends web surveillance bill
  962. Guardian 27/3/00: MI5 bugging exempt from privacy act
  963. Sunday People 26/3/00: FORGET YOUR PASSWORD... END UP IN JAIL - "BIG Brother wants to know your computer password - and he'll throw you in jail if you don't tell him. Home Secretary Jack Straw aims to make it a criminal offence to refuse to tell police or secret services the way into your personal computer. And you could go down for two years, even if you've only forgotten the vital word."
  964. Observer 26/3/00: It's RIP basic human rights as 'worst UK legislation ever' looms 

    "Ah, that magic phrase, 'balance of probabilities'. And how, pray, is that to be assessed? By the use of lie-detectors in British courts? Clarke was repeatedly pressed on this at the conference, but declined to be drawn. Instead he intoned the 'balance of probabilities' mantra like a speak-your- weight machine on valium"

    "A chap who is responsible for the security and integrity of the networks of several large banks and financial institutions... can be required to disclose those keys to a duly authorised goon - but he is also legally forbidden to reveal to his clients that their secrecy has thereby been compromised. As he spoke, you could see Clarke opening and shutting his mouth like a stunned carp. The only sound to be heard was the noise of online banks stampeding to leave the country."

  965. Irish Times 25/3/00: British bill may 'drive' e-commerce to Republic
  966. BBC Radio 4 'PM' 24/3/00: Branwen Jeffreys reports on RIP 5m 13s Real Audio or Windows Media 
  967. Financial Times 24/3/00:Legal fears over e-mail tapping (if FT link expired search here)
  968. NTK 24/3/00: Minister in charge of Not Being Scared by The Crypto Freaks
  969. 24/3/00: E-bugging bill gets a slating
  970. VNUNet 24/3/00: Snooping powers could harm cheap net access
  971. The Register 23/3/00: RIP: even Big Brother is confused
  972. 23/3/00: Ripping into U.K. Privacy Bill
  973. ComputerWeekly 23/3/00: Banks snub bill to spy on IT data
  974. VNUNet 23/3/00: UK government answers snooping bill critics
  975. 23/3/00: Internet 'Snooping Bill' fails human rights audit
  976. ZDNet News 22/3/00: RIP Bill comes under fresh attack
  977. VNUNet 22/3/00: Industry tackles UK government over snooping bill
  978. Network News 22/3/00: Industry insiders challenge RIP Bill
  979. Register 21/3/00: "MPs get 1000 anti-RIP faxes"
  980. Financial Times 21/3/00: Letter from Charles Clarke MP (if FT link expired search here)
  981. ZDNet 21/3/00: RIP bill gets buried under fax mountain
  982. Communications Week International 20/3/00: ISPs condemn expensive 'spy tax' proposal
  983. NTK 17/3/00: RIP Bill and external communications, Freedom servers
  984. Computer Weekly 16/3/00: Why the RIP Bill should R.I.P.
  985. Computer Weekly 16/3/00: City banks urged to air grievances over Bill
  986. Computer Weekly 16/3/00: WAKE UP CALL: the RIP Bill, what is it ?
  987. Business & Technology (March): Big Brother demands keys to e-mail doors (177kB .jpg)
  988. Daily Telegraph 16/3/00: Regulation Bill carries 'tipping off' offence
  989. Guardian 15/3/00: Letter from Caspar Bowden in reply to Charles Clarke MP
  990. Register 14/3/00: What the hell is... the UK's RIP Bill
  991. Financial Times 14/3/00: LETTERS -Threat to internet ambitions, Tom Wills-Sandford, FEI (if FT link expired search here)
  992. Independent 14/3/00: Investigatory Powers Bill is `Big Brother charter', warn objectors  
  993. The Register 13/3/00: Big Brother Bill faces Select Committee storm
  994. Open Letter 13/3/00 from Charles Clarke MP and reply thread on ukcrypto mailing list
  995. Observer 12/3/00: Encryption bill has to be last straw
  996. Guardian 10/3/00: Letter from Charles Clarke MP
  997. Computer User 9/3/00: E-Mail Tapping Bill Hits Problems
  998. Daily Telegraph 9/3/00: - "..there is absolutely no reason to believe the new powers would be effective. Why on earth would terrorists or paedophiles obey the new law and meekly surrender their encryption key when challenged?"
  999. Guardian 8/3/00:  LETTER from John Carr - Your leader (March 7) ... was wrong on one important count: there is no presumption of guilt
  1000. BBC Online 8/3/00: Big Brother delves into your inbox
  1001. ComputerUser 8/3/00: Opposition Against Encryption Bill
  1002. Newsbytes 7/3/00: Opposition Growing Against UK's Encryption Bill
  1003. Financial Times 7/3/00: LEADER: Spies in the web - "Yesterday Jack Straw introduced a bill in Britain's House of (Commons that would give the authorities more intrusive powers than in any other western democracy....a presumption of guilt if anyone failed to give up an encryption key when legitimately asked, potentially give the authorities enormous additional powers." (if FT link expired search here)
  1004. Guardian 7/3/00: LEADER: RIP for basic liberties - "If you encrypt data on your home computer and forget the key ... you are presumed guilty until proved innocent. Straw says that courts will easily distinguish between genuine memory lapses and criminals withholding information - but why should there be a presumption of guilt in the first place?"
  1005. BBC Online 7/3/00: Computer crime plans attacked
  1006. Times 7/3/00: How secure is your e-mail?
  1007. Times: Changing world of the snoopers, March 7, 00.
  1008. 7/3/00: U.K. Crypto Law a Key Issue
  1009. 7/3/00: UK email interception bill stumbles
  1010. The Register 6/3/00: Opposition mounts against UK's Big Brother Bill
  1011. Financial Times 6/3/00: Bill could affect cost of accessing the internet (if FT link expired search here)
  1012. Radio 4 'Today' 6/3/00: interview with Caspar Bowden Real Audio  or Windows  Media 
  1013. Sunday Times 5/3/00:Fighting for online privacy
  1014. Irish Times: UK RIP Bill Is Killer Blow To E-Commerce, March 5, 00.
  1015. NTK 3/3/00: RIPping yarns
  1016. Federation of Small Business Policy Brief (March 00) on RIP: "..threatens to deter businesses from using the internet due to its regulatory impact"
  1017. Guardian Online 1/3/00: Government surveillance bill arouses alarm
  1018. ZDNetUK: Government Snooping will cost taxpayers millions, March 1, 00.
  1019. IEEE Internet Computing March/April 00: British Encryption and Surveillance Bill Raises Concerns
  1020. Network News 28/2/00: Encryption at the mercy of the law
  1021. BBC World Service radio Insight (26/2/00)   (13m 53s STREAMING) Joanne Episcopo examines the debate on the individual's right to privacy in the light of a new parliamentary bill in Britain that increases the powers of surveillance by the intelligence services. Requires Real Audio.
  1022. BBC Radio 5 Live 26/2/00: Interview with Nicholas Bohm Real Audio  or Windows Media
  1023. Daily Telegraph 24/2/00: Bill revives attack on privacy
  1024. Computer Weekly 24/2/00: LEADER: Folly of draconian law on decryption - "Even more worrying, for the average IT director, is the prospect of being embroiled in a three-way fight between a defendant, the British government and the European Court of Human Rights"
  1025. Daily Express 23/2/00: How US spies opened Windows on the world
  1026. Irish Times 18/2/00:UK RIP BILL IS KILLER BLOW TO E-COMMERCE
  1027. Wired: Irish, UK Crypto Regs Far Apart, February 16, 00.
  1028. ZDNetUK 14/2/00: Jane Wakefield: Bullies, teenagers and Net giants  
  1029. Guardian 11/2/00:Leader: All eyes and ears
  1030. The Register 11/2/00: "UK gov't reveals Big Brother bill"
  1031. Financial Times 11/2/00: BIG BROTHER: Government unveils e-mail surveillance law  - "Britain had become 'the only country in the world to publish a law which could imprison users of encryption technology for forgetting or losing their keys'" (if FT link expired search here)
  1032. Guardian 11/2/00: Ministers seek wide bugging powers
  1033. TechWeb 10/2/00: E-Spying Bill Called 'Escrow By Intimidation'
  1034. ZDNet UK 10/2/00: New surveillance bill comes under fire
  1035. BBC Online 10/2/00: Surveillance bill under fire
  1036. Computer Weekly 27/1/00: Peter Sommer - Investigating cyberspace

    "NCIS can claim to be good at research, co-ordinating with other police forces, industry and overseas law enforcement agencies, but it is not an operational organisation....also a prime candidate to 'own' the new encryption-related Government Technical Assistance Centre (GTAC) with set-up funds of £25m...Whitehall rumours suggest that the centre may take advantage of the offer of secure accommodation, not at NCIS but at Thames House, headquarters of MI5. In any event, expertise and resources would inevitably have to come from Cheltenham."

  1037. Times 25/1/00: John Wadham - When is a human right not a human right?
  1038. ZDNet  17/1/00: IT Week: Decryption centre mooted
  1039. Financial Times 11/1/00: LAW: Ministers rush through e-mail powers (if FT link expired search here)
  1040. Financial Times 21/12/99: Caspar Bowden (personal view): Decrypt with care

    "(the) interception of communications commissioner, makes spot-checks on interception paperwork, but has no technical staff and depends on the police or spy agencies to tell him what is happening. The efficacy of current safeguards is already dubious, and almost certainly insufficient to cope with the bewildering complexities of internet surveillance. Powerful new techniques will be used to analyse patterns in web sites visited and e-mail contacts, and flag suspicious associations in traffic logs that record the activity of the innocent and guilty alike...Modernising the authorisation of surveillance must be accompanied by effective technical and legal safeguards."

History: Key Reports and Resources

From 1996 until 1999, government attempts to regulate the use of encryption were the responsibility of the DTI (see the FIPR Electronic Commerce Information Centre). However, controversial decryption powers in Part.III of the Draft Electronic Communications Bill were dropped in the final version published after the Queen's Speech in November 1999, and it was announced that the Home Office would now lead on this issue.

There was also a public consultation in the summer of 1999 on plans to revise the 1985 Interception of Communications Act. Details can be found on the FIPR Interception of Communications Information Centre.


click to RIP progress through Parliament page with links to each debate 

"I request the other place to examine the Bill rigorously. It has features that are unacceptable to our sense of freedom, liberty and the due processes that we have held to be important for many years." Richard Shepherd MP

 " What will happen to the innocent defendant who will have to prove to the court that he is not lying about having lost or otherwise forgotten his key number? It appears that he can be punished as a criminal for failing to prove that he does not have the information. That is a crazy state of affairs." Baroness Harris of Richmond

 "the Bill sanctions mass domestic surveillance....measures such as this are without parallel anywhere outside, of all places, Zimbabwe." The Earl of Northesk

" To put it bluntly, the whole authorisation process and all the protections afforded by chapter II could be reduced to a meaningless sham" Harry Cohen MP


Go to FIPR front page.

Go to FIPR Electronic Commerce Policy Information Centre.

Go to FIPR Interception of Communications Information Centre.

The Foundation for Information Policy Research is registered in England and Wales under the Companies Act 1985 as a private company limited by guarantee (No.3574631). Application for charitable status is in progress

Last Updated Apr 16th, 2001