On the day the “snooper’s charter” was announced in the Queen’s Speech, the Home Office is already moving towards killing a key part of the bill, TechWeekEurope has learned.
The original plan for the Communications Bill proposed that “black boxes” (sealed units that gather data) should be installed at ISPs like BT and Virgin, from which communications data on all online citizens would be shipped off to GCHQ for inspection. But the Home Office is now moving away from the idea of black boxes, even as the draft Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech today, according to a source within government.
The source said the government is “retreating massively” from forcing black boxes upon ISPs. Instead the government is simply looking to make it clearer what it expects from communications providers when asked, “rather than black boxes,” the source told TechWeekEurope.
Separately, Liberal Democrat MPs have been claiming success in fighting the initial plans. They had already managed to kick the proposals out of a more general crime bill, which has been described as a “massive defeat for the Home Office”.
As for what happens now, the draft bill is yet to be published, but when it is put down on paper it will come in the form of draft clauses. That will not be the final version of the draft, but will “look like a full bill”, Huppert said.
“That will give all of us a chance to read it and see what it says and it will force the Home Office to say what they actually plan to do because they have been woefully unclear about what it is they want to do,” he added. “It will then go to a scrutiny committee. I don’t know yet whether or not that will be the Home Affairs Select Committee, which I serve on, or whether it would be a specially constituted committee.”
Huppert said, in theory, the draft could become law in the next year, but it would depend on how the bill looked. “It depends on the urgency and I think it also depends on how large the changes are. If it ends up being a few small tweaks, then I think we’d just say ‘OK can we get on with this and not waste anymore time on it?’” he said.
“My expectation is that by the time we get to a draft bill it will look a lot better and after it comes out of scrutiny it will look even better than that.
“The Home Office cannot play the game they’ve always played of rushing things through with no time to work out what it is they are actually talking about. That is why this draft is just so key.”
Facebook and Google are also looking for more clarity from the government, according to Huppert, who held a meeting last month with the two tech giants and others to talk about the proposals.
Although little information has been forthcoming on the technical aspects of the bill, a piece of documentation to support the announcement in the Queen’s Speech has been released. It outlines various provisos of the draft bill. That includes a 12-monthy limit on how long communications providers can hold onto data for, as well as a guarantee that the Information Commissioner’s Office will be responsible for monitoring the security of that information and its deletion at the end of the 12-month period.
The Home Office did not respond to requests for comment on this story.
How well do you know Internet security? Try our quiz and find out!
New UK rules bring in basic security requirements for millions of internet-connected devices, aiming to…
Google parent Alphabet sees market capitalisation surge over $2tn on plan to over first-ever cash…
Google asks Virginia federal court to dismiss case brought by US Justice Department and eight…
Snapchat parent Snap reports user growth, revenues in spite of tough competition, in what may…
Quick-growing fast-fashion company Shein must comply with most stringent level of EU digital rules after…
Intel shares sag after company shares gloomy revenue predictions, as data centre chip demand hit…
View Comments
[MARKED AS SPAM BY ANTISPAM BEE | Spam IP]
Damn, I was looking forward to living North Korean style with the government inspecting everything I did and said.
Next: Police Drones—Recording Conversations In Your Home & Business To Forfeit Property?
Police are salivating at the prospect of having drones to spy on lawful citizens. Congress approved 30,000 drones in U.S. Skies. That amounts to 600 drones for every state.
It is problematic local police will want to use drones to record without warrants, personal conversations inside Americans’ homes and businesses: Consider the House just passed CISPA the recent Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. If passed by the Senate, CISPA will allow——the military and NSA spy agency (warrant-less spying) on Americans’ private Internet electronic Communications by using so-called (Government certified self-protected cyber entities” that may share with NSA your private Internet activity, e.g. emails, faxes, phone calls and confidential transmitted files they believe might relate to a cyber threat or crime—circumventing the Fourth Amendment—with full immunity from lawsuits if done in good faith. CISPA does not clearly define what is an element or self-protected cyber entity, that could broadly mean anything, e.g. a private computer, local or national network, website, an online service.
Despite some cities and counties banning and restricting police using drones to invade citizens’ privacy, local police have a strong financial incentive to call in Federal Drones, (Civil Asset forfeiture sharing) that can result from drone surveillance). Should (no-warrant drone surveillance evidence) be allowed in courts circumventing the Fourth Amendment, for example (drones’ recording conversations in private homes and businesses, expect federal and local police civil asset property forfeitures to escalate. Civil asset forfeiture requires only a preponderance of civil evidence for federal government to forfeit property, little more than hearsay: any conversation picked up by a drone inside a home or business, police can take out of context to institute arrests; or civil asset forfeiture to confiscate the home/business and other assets. Local police now circumvent state laws that require someone be convicted before police can civilly forfeit their property—by turning their investigation over to the Federal Government that can rebate to the referring local police department 80% of assets forfeited. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture that have nothing to do with illegal drugs.
Consider: if CISPA is passed by Congress it will provide Government, police and government contractors (without warrants) the incentive (to take out of context) any innocent—hastily written email, fax or other Internet activity to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person’s arrest, assess fines and or civilly forfeit a business or property. U.S. Government can use CISPA to (certify any employee) including employees that work for a Government certified cyber self-protected entity—opening the door for certified employees to spy on their employers and clients. U.S. Government is not prohibited from paying any person including Government Certified Self Protected Cyber Entities, Elements or Certified Employees part of government forfeited assets or other compensation that result from the aforementioned providing U.S. Government a corporation’s confidential information or clients’ private information—that otherwise would require a warrant. U.S. Government currently contracts on a fee/commission basis with Self Protected Cyber Entities, Elements and Contractors that have security clearances to participate in facilitating arrests and Government asset forfeitures.
Currently U.S. Government can't use evidence obtained through illegal Internet searches of e.g. private emails and transmitted files without a warrant, however that will change if CISPA or a similar bill is passed by Congress. Since CISPA, two additional cyber-security bills have been created in the Senate called, “The Cyber Security Act of 2012” and “SECURE IT Act”. Both bills appear unconstitutional; appear designed to circumvent the Fourth Amendment. The Cyber Security Act of 2012 formally known as S. 2105 was created by Senate Democrats, Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins. Similar to CISPA, the Cyber Security Act of 2012 would abolish legal walls that stop Federal government and private companies sharing information.
The SECURE IT Act: S. 2151 was introduced by Senate Republicans on March 1st 2012: would require federal contractors to alert government about any cyber threats, forcing such communications between government regulators and corporations. The SECURE IT Act authorizes sharing of persons’ private Internet information (without a warrant) going beyond what is necessary to describe a believed cyber threat. SECURE Act fails to create a regulatory system at the Federal level to oversee cyber-security threats opening the door for a person or businesses’ confidential information to be misused and misappropriated by government agencies and private cyber entities.
Government should be prohibited from using independent contractors, created non-profit organizations and so-call (certified self protected cyber entities) to circumvent the Fourth Amendment. Corrupt police, U.S. Government Agencies and Government Contractors may too easily use private Internet transmissions, emails and transmitted files it is free to collect without a warrant to extort corporations, politicians and Citizens; or sell confidential information gleaned from warrant-less Internet Surveillance. Confidential Information in corrupt hands can be worth more than illegal drugs.