ad info  technology > computing
    Editions | myCNN | Video | Audio | Headline News Brief | Feedback  




Consumer group: Online privacy protections fall short

Guide to a wired Super Bowl

Debate opens on making e-commerce law consistent



More than 11,000 killed in India quake

Mideast negotiators want to continue talks after Israeli elections


4:30pm ET, 4/16










CNN Websites
Networks image

Concern over U.K. e-mail surveillance bill grows

June 13, 2000
Web posted at: 8:42 a.m. EDT (1242 GMT)

(IDG) -- A surveillance bill that would give the U.K. government sweeping powers to access e-mail and other encrypted Internet communications is coming under increasing criticism from companies and organizations as the bill heads for a vote in the House of Lords this week.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) bill, which has already been passed by the House of Commons and, unless sent back to the lower house, will become law on October 5, would, among other things, require ISPs (Internet service providers) in the U.K. to track all data traffic passing through its computers and route it to the Government Technical Assistance Center (GTAC). The GTAC is being established in the London headquarters of the U.K. secret service office, MI5 -- the equivalent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the U.S.


Also, under the provisions of the RIP bill, the U.K. government -- specifically the Home Office and its head, the Home Secretary -- can demand encryption keys to any and all data communications with a prison sentence of two years for those who do not comply with the order.

"It is an absolute disgrace," said Tony Benn, a member of Parliament and former minister for technology in the 1970s. "You can't bug anyone's telephone without a warrant, which is express written consent personally signed by the Home Secretary. Why should you have less protection over the Internet?"

  TechInformer: The Thinking Internaut's Guide to the Tech Industry
  Survey says workers unworried about e-mail privacy
  Kids' e-privacy law costs a bundle
  Privacy 2000: In Web we trust?
  Reviews & in-depth info at
  How-to and advice from
  Download free PC software from
  Questions about computers? Let's editors help you
  Product reviews and computing news from
  Search in 12 languages
  News Radio
  * Fusion audio primers
  * Computerworld Minute

Civil liberty organizations are worried that the government's e-mail interception bill would grossly encroach on privacy, while businesses fear the law will force e-commerce companies to move operations to other countries, such as Ireland, which do not have such restrictions.

"There is a real danger that the competitive disadvantage caused by this measure will frustrate the government's ambition of making the U.K. the best place to trade electronically by 2002," wrote Chris Humphries, Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce, in a letter to the Home Secretary Jack Straw.

In the letter, sent on June 5 and made available to the public, Humphries made it clear that the members of the British Chambers of Commerce "fully understand the need for law enforcement agencies to have access to decrypted electronic data." But Humphries raised questions of "potential civil liability of a company" and "the possibility that the government could be seen to be acting as a shadow director by controlling an employee over the directors of the company."

The Institute of Directors, a worldwide, nonpolitical organization for company directors, also voiced its concerns over the RIP bill on Monday, calling for amendments to be made by the House of Lords before it passes the bill.

Individuals in multinational businesses may run afoul of the RIP law with no legal recourse to protect themselves, the Institute of Directors said in a statement released on Monday.

"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' preventing them from informing others in the company (such as senior management or security staff) that the integrity of their encryption systems has been potentially compromised. The employee is protected in this country against the consequences of that action. This protection does not extend outside the U.K. to other jurisdictions such as that of the parent company," said Jim Norton, the head of e-business policy for the Institute of Directors.

Even individual companies are coming out in opposition to the RIP as it currently stands, including the U.K.-based IT security company Biodata Information Technology Ltd. "We are calling for further debate on certain issues within the bill," said Furqan Syed, spokesman for Biodata. "We would like to understand more about the technical details of the mechanisms that will be used by the Government to monitor Internet traffic."

The RIP bill, which is now in Committee in the House of Lords, already has 229 amendments which pundits feel have little chance of passing.

"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 said.

Three necessary principles behind privacy laws
June 7, 2000
Radio 'sniffers' likened to fed e-surveillance
May 31, 2000
Senate Democrats to introduce bill mandating Web privacy standards
May 24, 2000
Rewriting the fourth amendment
May 12, 2000
More cops on the Net beat? Privacy groups say not so fast
April 10, 2000

Building a British e-empire
Industry Standard
U.K. defends plan to snoop on Web surfers
Industry Standard
Is the NSA spying on Americans?
Federal Computer Week
Survey says workers unworried about e-mail privacy
Kids' e-privacy law costs a bundle
Network Word Fusion
Australian Intelligence given power to hack systems
IDG Australia
Against her Majesty's Secret Service
Privacy 2000: In Web we trust?
PC WorldPrivacy 2000: In Web we trust?

The British Chamber of Commerce home page
Institute of Directors home page
Biodata Information Technology home page

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window
External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.


Back to the top   © 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.