>Subject: government e-mail snooping
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000
>Peaceful Protests to be considered SERIOUS CRIME
>
>Activist Mailing List - http://get.to/activist
>
>Peaceful protest is a "serious crime" in the British government's
>Bill to intercept private email communication
>
>Statement from GreenNet
>
>In September last year, at a conference on British government plans
>to give police and intelligence services the right to read private
>email,
>Patricia Hewitt, the minister for e-commerce, claimed these plans
>were necessary "because crime has become global and digital and
>we have to combat this". What she omitted to mention was that one
>of the "crimes" the government was setting out to combat was the
>kind of peaceful protest actions that took place in Seattle at the
>WTO meeting.
>
>This has now been made crystal clear in the proposed Regulation of
>Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill. Continuing with a definition first
>brought in by the Thatcher government to allow police to tap the
>phones of union members in the 1985 British miners' strike, the
>Bill specifically designates "conduct by a large number of persons
>in pursuit of a common purpose" to be "a serious crime" justifying
>an interception of their private email correspondence. The police
>requested that this measure be introduced in a report into the
>demonstration that took place at the City of London as part of an
>international day of protest actions on June 18th last year. There
>were violent clashes between the police and this initially non-violent
>demonstration.
>
>The group that organised the June 18th demonstration is a GreenNet
>user and much of the organisation for the international protest took
>place using GreenNet Internet facilities. If the RIP Bill had been in
>place last year there seems little doubt that the police would have
>applied for an order to force GreenNet to give them access to the
>private email of people involved in the June 18th events. The police
>would almost certainly have wanted a similar order over protest
>activities planned to coincide with the Seattle WTO meeting.
>
>Under the RIP Bill, they will now be able to obtain such facilities to
>spy on the activities of protest groups. Internet Service Providers
>(ISPs) will have to build "interception capabilities" into their
>systems. When served with an "interception warrant" they will be
>forced to intercept private email and convey its contents to the police
>or various intelligence services. Refusal to comply with a warrant
>will carry a maximum jail sentence of two years. "Tipping-off"
>someone that their email is being read is punishable by up to five
>years jail.
>
>This also applies to informing anyone not authorised to know about
>the interception warrant. The warrant will initially be served on a
>named individual within an ISP. They may inform only those other
>people they need to help them implement the warrant and these, in
>turn, face the same penalties for tipping-off. The only exception
>allowed is to consult legal advisors.
>
>A separate section of the Bill deals with encryption. This provides for
>
>"properly authorised persons (such as members of the law enforce-
>ment, security and intelligence agencies) to serve written notices on
>individuals or bodies requiring the surrender of information (such
>as a decryption key) to enable them to understand (make intelligible)
>protected material which they lawfully hold, or are likely to."
>
>Such an order can be served on anyone "there are reasonable
>grounds for believing" has an encryption key. They could face two
>years jail for not revealing the key and are also subject to the same
>possible five year jail sentence as ISPs for informing someone that
>attempts are being made by the authorities to read their email. This
>section of the Bill has been widely condemned by civil liberties
>lawyers as reversing the fundamental right of a person to be
>presumed innocent until proven guilty and will almost certainly be
>challenged using the European Convention on Human Rights.
>
>The British Bill is part of long term plans that have been developed
>since 1993 to give law enforcement bodies around the world the
>ability to intercept and read modern digital communications. In that
>year, the FBI initiated an International Law Enforcement Tele-
>communications Seminar (ILETS) for that purpose. The ILETS
>group has operated behind the back of elected parliamentary bodies
>and within the European Union its plans have been implemented
>through secret meetings of the Council for Justice and Home
>Affairs (CJHA).
>
>An essential part of these plans involve international collaboration
>between law enforcement bodies. Large sections of the RIP Bill
>deal with "International mutual assistance agreements" to intercept
>communications. Particular reference is made to a "draft Convention
>on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters" produced within the
> CJHA. This Convention lays out plans for communications taking
>place between individuals in one country to be intercepted in another.
>The RIP Bill includes specific legislation "to enable the United
>Kingdom to comply with the interception provisions in this draft".
>The Bill's Explanatory Notes go on to say that "Although no similar
>agreements are currently under negotiation, this subsection will
>provide flexibility for the future".
>
>In fact, Hansard records of a debate on the draft Convention in
>the House of Lords reveal that "it is hoped that in due course
>substantially similar provisions will be adopted by members of the
>Council of Europe and that there will be co-operation on similar
>lines with the United States and Commonwealth countries" (Lord
>Hoffman. Moving a report on behalf of the government. 7 May 1998).
>
>The Council of Europe has 41 member states and includes many
>countries with extremely dubious democratic credentials and some
>very partisan "law enforcement" bodies (Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine,
>Turkey, Russia, etc). At the same time, the ILETS group at the
>centre of the plans for international co-operation in communication
>interception includes Hong Kong, now part of mainland China.
>
>In many of these countries, opposition to the government or just
>fighting for democratic rights is regarded as "serious crime". Yet the
>RIP Bill proposes open ended legislation to allow interception from
>the UK of "communications of subjects on the territory of another
>country according to the law of that country" at the request of "the
>competent authority" in that country. It even proposes that "Since
>no decision is being made on the merits of the case...it is considered
>appropriate for these warrants to be issued by senior officials rather
>than the Secretary of State."
>
>The RIP Bill is an extremely reactionary piece of legislation
>dressed up with New Labour "spin" to make it appear as if it limits
>state spying on citizens when it actually extends it dramatically. The
>Bill represents a serious threat to the rights of those who use the
>Internet to campaign on social justice issues, both in Britain and
>internationally.
>
>Representation to the Home Office from GreenNet over this was
>disregarded. Although GreenNet's submission was included on
>the Home Office web site, the points we made were totally ignored
>in the Home Office summary of submissions. We have been
>one of the most active ISPs within the Internet Service Providers
>Association (ISPA) in expressing a viewpoint on the Bill, yet we
>were not included in the 20 strong ISPA delegation that the Home
>Office selected to meet.
>
>GreenNet intends working with sympathetic civil liberties groups,
>lawyers, politicians and Internet policy organisations against the
>passing of the Bill. We call for the widest possible international
>support for this campaign from ISPs and user groups using the
>Internet for social campaigning purposes. The RIP Bill represents
>a serious threat to us all. Campaigning against it will be an
>important part of the Association for Progressive Communications
>(APC) European Civil Society Internet Rights Campaign, which
>GreenNet is playing a major role in.
>
>Anyone who wants to help in this campaign please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>-------------------
>
>"We are not for names, nor men, nor titles of Government, nor are
>we for this party nor against the other but we are for justice and
>mercy and truth and peace and true freedom, that these may be
>exalted in our nation, and that goodness, righteousness, meekness,
>temperance, peace and unity with God, and with one another, that
>these things may abound." (Edward Burroughs, 1659)
>
>THE FREE RANGE ACTIVISM NETWORK Facilitators -
>Paul Mobbs - [EMAIL PROTECTED], tel./fax 01295 261864
> Tim Shaw - [EMAIL PROTECTED], tel./fax 01558 685353
>Website - http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/rangers/
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPORT the Blue Ear Forum by PURCHASING BOOKS via this link:
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=23148
BROWSE the Blue Ear Forum website, request DIGEST option or UNSUBSCRIBE:
http://www.blueear.com/forum/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy the award-winning journalism of The New York Times with
convenient home delivery. And for a limited time, get 50% off for the
first 8 weeks by subscribing. Pay by credit card and receive an
additional 4 weeks at this low introductory rate.
http://click.egroups.com/1/2516/5/_/13887/_/953585221/
-- Create a poll/survey for your group!
-- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=blueear-forum&m=1
