-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 13:55:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bruce Dienes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [BCPolitics] Re: British government plans to give police and intelligence services the right to read private email Thank you for this information. We need to keep up to date on such matters. I am 100% certain that even without legislation, the CIA intercepts every email message on the planet. Given that they acknowledge on ed tv that they keep every radio and tv broadcast on the planet in their files would you expect otherwise? FWP http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex/Machine-Psychology.htm On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Bruce Dienes wrote: > FYI: > > PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY > > RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE / Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill forum > > 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 enforcement, > 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 Telecommunications > 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 organizations 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] > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.vcn.bc.ca/culturex/The-Question-Nobody-Will-Answer.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ LOW RATE, NO WAIT! Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click.egroups.com/1/2122/2/_/103697/_/954708941/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections 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, CTRL gives 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://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== 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
