.............................................................. >From the New Paradigms Project [Not Necessarily Endorsed] Note: We store 100's of related "conspiracy posts" at: http://www.msen.com/~lloyd/oldprojects/recentmail.html From: "Paul Wolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: British Authorities May Get Wide Power to Decode E-Mail Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 8:11 PM From: Michael Hourigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> British Authorities May Get Wide Power to Decode E-Mail By Sarah Lyall The New York Times, July 19, 2000 LONDON, July 18 -- As the Clinton administration formally enters the debate about law enforcement surveillance in cyberspace, the British government is about to enact a law that would give the authorities here broad powers to intercept and decode e-mail messages and other communications between companies, organizations and individuals. The measure, which goes further than the American plan unveiled on Monday in Washington, 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. Such a measure would be an important tool for the government because data is increasingly being encrypted for reasons of security and privacy. Despite a barrage of criticism from all sides, the bill is likely to become law as it passes through its final stage in the House of Lords and returns to the House of Commons next week because the Labor government, which offered the plan, holds a wide majority in Parliament. Government officials maintain that the measure is essential if law enforcement agencies are to combat the sophisticated modern crime that is enhanced by access to the Internet, including pedophilia, drug smuggling, money laundering, terrorism and trafficking in refugees. "The powers in the bill are necessary and proportionate to the threat posed by 21st century criminals, no more, no less," Charles Clarke, the Home Office official in charge of the bill, said last week. But the measure has had a rocky time in Parliament, where lawmakers have vehemently objected to several provisions, including one that would give the government new powers to require Internet service providers to install "black box" surveillance systems that would sort and send a range of data and e-mail to a monitoring center controlled by the domestic security service, M.I.5. Such systems are also being used in the United States by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, where the technology is known as Carnivore because it is able to extract the "meat" quickly from vast quantities of e-mail messages and other communications between computers. But one major difference in the British measure is that the authorities here would be able to require companies to install and maintain the black boxes at their own expense and according to technological specifications set out by the government. In addition, to justify such surveillance, the authorities would not be obligated to take elaborate steps to persuade an independent arbiter like a court that a crime had probably been committed. In contrast to the United States, Britain has a tradition of unfettered and often uncontested intrusion by the authorities into citizens' privacy, In the United States, the F.B.I. must first obtain a search warrant before using the Carnivore technology, which is then installed and maintained by the bureau. Under the British plan, failure to turn over a decryption key or to convert encrypted data or messages into plain text could result in a two-year prison sentence. Although many nations are considering similar bills to deal with encrypted data, only Singapore and Malaysia have so far enacted them. The legislation would allow the British government to tap into and monitor electronic communication for a host of reasons, including to protect national security, to "safeguard the country's well-being," and to prevent and detect serious crime. That last, far-reaching category might include, for instance, "a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose." The measure would not require traditional warrants signed by judges. Instead, warrants for e-mail surveillance would have to be signed by the home secretary, who controls a range of domestic and legal matters. Other officials, including high-ranking police officers, would be empowered to approve requests for encryption keys. The effect of this part of the bill "can justifiably be described as mass surveillance of Internet activities without judicial warrant or adequate oversight," according to a report prepared for the British Chambers of Commerce by a team of professors at the London School of Economics and University College London. Opponents of the measure in Britain represent an extraordinarily diverse interests, ranging from trade unions and Amnesty International to representatives of big business and newspapers across the political spectrum. Not only does the bill violate basic civil liberties, they argue, but it would also impose onerous costs on Internet service providers, subject them to anti-competitive restraints, and drive business out of Britain. "This is Big Brother government realizing that unless they get their act together, technology is going to make them impotent by allowing individuals to bypass the regulations, and the spies, of the state," said Ian Angell, professor of information systems at the London School of Economics and a consultant on the recent report. "I'm a supporter of the police, and I believe they should be given powers, but there has to be due process, and this bill doesn't provide that," Mr. Angell said. "They'll be allowed to go on fishing expeditions." It is not yet clear how much the measure will cost. The government has put aside 20 million pounds, or $30 million, to help businesses set up the new technology, but as it stands now, Internet service providers themselves would bear most of the costs of the "black boxes" themselves. This provision is roughly akin to asking "manufacturers to pay for the police cars the Home Office provides to the police," said William Roebuck, an executive on the legal advisory group at the E-Center, a trade association that studies standards and practices in e-commerce. The London School of Economics report estimated that the measure would cost British business some 640 million pounds, or $960 million, over the next five years, a figure that could rise to 46 billion, or $69 billion, when opportunity costs and losses from the economy are included. But Mr. Roebuck said it was impossible to tell what the final figure would be. "If Internet service providers are made to take on board the costs, then the costs will be put through to the consumer," he said. "What's going to happen is that companies are going to reroute everything away from the U.K. and take their business abroad." Among the companies that have already said the measure would make them reluctant to do business here is Poptel, one of Britain's oldest Internet service providers. Poptel serves the noncommercial sector -- charities, trade unions, lobbying organizations and the like -- and many of its members have serious concerns about the bill's implications. "There are a number of our users who come into quite legitimate conflict with the government," said Shaun Fensom, Poptel's chairman, who said he might transfer some of the company's operations offshore. "They are concerned that the government could classify some of their legitimate activity as being snoopable. My feeling is that they will want access to at least some kind of secure e-mail facility." Some critics are charging that the measure has been sloppily and hastily drawn up to give the government as broad latitude as possible. "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," said Halya Gowan, a researcher at Amnesty International in London. "As a human rights organization, our work is based on the confidentiality of statements we take from opponents of governments around the world who are possibly victims of human rights violations by these governments," she said. "But under this bill, we won't be able to guarantee confidentiality anymore." The measure, known as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, or R.I.P., is an effort to extend a 1985 law setting out the government's powers to intercept and monitor communications across telephone lines to a host of modern technologies, including e-mail, Web sites, pagers and cell phones. As it happens, said Mr. Roebuck of the E-Center, the government has already quietly been doing many of the things it will now be legally allowed to do. "They've already been doing covert surveillance, covertly intercepting e-mail," he said. "This gives them a legal basis to do so." And the government agrees, in effect, saying it is merely setting out in law the parameters for what it has been doing informally anyway. "The bill is an important one which does not substantially increase the powers available to the law enforcement and security agencies but will make the U.K. a better and safer place to live for all," Mr. Clarke told The Daily Telegraph. Some groups say that although they disagree with the nuts and bolts of the bill, they are encouraged that the government is, at last, trying to establish a legal framework for its surveillance activities. "Generally, people should welcome the bill because it provides some kind of system of accountability for interferences with privacy where there hasn't been in the past," said John Wadham, the director of Liberty, a civil liberties group. But that is not good enough, said Conor Gearty, a professor of human rights law at King's College London. "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," he said. Forwarded for info and discussion from the New Paradigms Discussion List, not necessarily endorsed by: *********************************** Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the entire political-ideological spectrum. **FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ** Explore Our Archive: <http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic.html> <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
