DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
BotBitsand Nix
HTML https://botsbitsandnix.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: almost anything here
*****************************************************
#Post#: 51--------------------------------------------------
miss may and her snoopers charter
By: Nixsy Date: December 14, 2020, 6:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[code]
Draft Communications Data Bill
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Not to be confused with Investigatory Powers Act 2016, passed
legislation that has also been nicknamed the "Snooper's
Charter".
Unbalanced scales.svg
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion
may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message
until conditions to do so are met. (February 2016) (Learn how
and when to remove this template message)
Ambox current red.svg
This article needs to be updated. Please update this article to
reflect recent events or newly available information. (September
2018)
The Draft Communications Data Bill (nicknamed the Snoopers'
Charter or Snooper's Charter[1]) was draft legislation proposed
by then Home Secretary Theresa May in the United Kingdom which
would require Internet service providers and mobile phone
companies to maintain records of each user's internet browsing
activity (including social media), email correspondence, voice
calls, internet gaming, and mobile phone messaging services and
store the records for 12 months. Retention of email and
telephone contact data for this time is already required by the
Data Retention Regulations 2014.[2] The anticipated cost was
£1.8 billion.
May originally expected the bill to be introduced in the 2012–13
legislative session, carried over to the following session, and
enacted as law in 2014.[3] However, the former Deputy Prime
Minister Nick Clegg withdrew his support for this bill in April
2013,[4] saying "a law which means there would be a record kept
of every website you visit, who you communicate with on social
media sites ... it is certainly not going to happen with Liberal
Democrats in government",[5] and his Liberal Democrat party
blocked it from being reintroduced during the 2010-2015
Parliament.[6] Shortly after the Conservative victory in May
2015, May vowed to introduce the Communications Data Bill in the
next parliament.[7] In November 2015, May announced a new
Investigatory Powers Bill similar to the Draft Communications
Data Bill, although with more limited powers and additional
oversight.[8][9]
Contents
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2
2.1
2.1.1
2.2
2.3
3
4
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
6
7
8
History
Intercept Modernisation
Main articles: Interception Modernisation Programme and
Communications Data Bill 2008
The powers and intent of the Bill were preceded by plans under
the last Labour administration to improve access to
communications traffic data, under the Interception
Modernisation Programme.[10] The plans did not become a firm
legislative proposal and were strongly opposed by both
Conservative and Liberal Democrat opposition parties.[citation
needed][11]
The new coalition agreement in 2010 committed to ending the
storing of email and Internet records "without good reason". The
IMP was not entirely abandoned however, and the Home Office
under the new coalition committed to examining the problem of
access to communications data under the Communications
Capabilities Development Programme.[12][13][14]
Queen's Speech
The government announced its intention to legislate in order to
"maintain capability" of law enforcement access to
communications traffic data in 2012.[15]
Joint Committee
As the result of public reaction to the proposed Bill and
internal Liberal Democrat opposition to the Bill, Nick Clegg
asked for the Bill to be referred to a Joint Committee to
scrutinise the proposal. The Committee reported in December
2012.[16]
Counter Terrorism Bill 2015
In 2015 a cross-party group of lords — Tom King, Baron King of
Bridgwater, former Conservative Defence Secretary; Ian Blair,
Baron Blair of Boughton, former Commissioner of Police of the
Metropolis and crossbench peer; Alex Carlile, Baron Carlile of
Berriew, former Independent Reviewer of counter-terrorism
legislation and Lib Dem peer; and Alan West, Baron West of
Spithead, former Labour Minister for Security and
Counter-Terrorism — attempted to add the text of the
Communications Data Bill to the Counter-Terrorism and Security
Bill, which became the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act
2015.[17][18] However this was dropped before going to a vote
due to opposition.[19]
Powers
The bill would amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
2000.
Data collection
The bill would create a wide-ranging power to compel any
'communications service provider' to collect and retain
additional information about their users. Current data retention
obligations require ISPs to retain data collected for business
purposes for longer than normal. Under the new bill, any
organisation that interacts with users and produces or transmits
electronic communications could be compelled to collect and
retain information about them, even if it is entirely irrelevant
to their business needs.[citation needed]
Deep Packet Inspection
One technique that may be used to collect user data could be
Deep Packet Inspection.
According to Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism Charles
Farr, formerly of MI6, so-called "black boxes" – DPI – probes
are not the "central plank" of the 2012 Communications Data
Bill. The boxes would be used when communications service
providers refuse to submit data, but he anticipated that most
would maintain data about users in unencrypted form from which
contact information could readily be separated from content.
This would circumvent SSL encryption during transmission. He
said that the DPI boxes were already "used as a matter of
course" by ISPs.[20] The Mastering the Internet system was
described in 2009 by The Register and The Sunday Times as the
replacement for scrapped plans for a single central database,
involving thousands of DPI "black boxes" at ISPs in association
with the GCHQ base in Cheltenham, funded out of a Single
Intelligence Account budget of £1.6 bn, including a £200m
contract with Lockheed Martin and a contract with BAE Systems
Detica.[21] In 2008 the black box infrastructure was operated by
Detica, which had been expected to win additional contracts for
its proposed expansion in the Communications Data Bill 2008.[22]
Filtering arrangements
The bill creates arrangements to interrogate and match data from
different data sources. The justification is that only relevant
data would be returned, thus improving personal privacy.
Additionally, police cite problems matching data from for
instance different cell phone masts.
However, the bill has been said to provide the legislative basis
for a "giant database" that would allow "quite complicated
questions" about "communications behaviors and patterns" which
could become a "honeypot for casual hackers, blackmailers,
criminals large and small from around the world, and foreign
states", as Lord Strasburger described it, as the bill was
scrutinised by the Joint Committee of MPs and peers.[3][23]
The BBC reported that the Home Office stressed that the bill was
intended for targeted surveillance rather than "fishing
expeditions", but quoted opponent Nick Pickles, director of Big
Brother Watch: "The filtering provisions are so broadly worded
and so poorly drafted that it could allow mining of all the data
collected, without any requirement for personal information,
which is the very definition of a fishing trip."
Open Rights Group campaigner Jim Killock told the BBC that
officials 'would be able to build up a complex map of
individuals' communications by examining records of "their
mobile phone, their normal phone, their work email, their
Facebook account and so on",' which 'could compromise
journalistic sources, deter whistleblowers and increase the risk
of personal details being hacked'.[24] The human rights
organization Liberty also called for rejection of what is being
called the "Snoopers' Charter".[25]
Changes to oversight
The bill would change the authorisations given to police
officers under RIPA. Instead of individual data requests being
granted by a senior officer, the senior officer would grant
powers once a month to investigating officers to conduct data
requests on a topic they were investigating.
Additional changes to the role of Interception of Communications
Commissioner and Information Commissioner are argued to improve
oversight to the current arrangements under RIPA.
Justification
File:Cory Doctorow talks at ORGCon 2012 talks about the UK
Government’s Draft Communications Data Bill.ogv
Cory Doctorow talks at the Open Rights Group event ORGCon 2012
about the bill
The basic justification is that communications traffic data is
needed for investigations into serious crime, but access is
declining. The Home Office cites that they expect access to
decline from about 80% to around 60% of traffic data over the
next decade if no action is taken. They also state, however,
that the quantity of traffic data available is expected to grow
by around 1000% in the same decade.
May stated that police made urgent requests for communications
data in 30,000 cases last year and between 25% and 40% of them
had resulted in lives being saved. She said that "There is a
limited scope for the data we want to have access to. We have
been very clear about that at every stage. The police would have
to make a clear case for requesting access to data when there
was an investigation that required it.... The aim of this is to
ensure our law enforcement agencies can carry on having access
to the data they find so necessary operationally in terms of
investigation, catching criminals and saving lives"[23]
Though the bill had been mentioned in the context of terrorism
and child sexual abuse, the powers could be used against minor
crimes such as fly tipping.[26]
Reactions
A survey by YouGov, commissioned by Big Brother Watch, found
that 71% of Britons "did not trust that the data will be kept
secure", and half described the proposal as "bad value for the
money" as opposed to 12% calling it "good value". At the RSA
Conference Europe 2012, Jimmy Wales said the bill "will force
many relatively small companies to hang on to data that they
would not otherwise retain, which puts the data at risk".[27]
Wales told MPs that Wikipedia would take action to hinder
monitoring of users' interests by encrypting all communication
to the UK by default if UK ISPs are mandated to track which
pages on the site are visited.[28]
Speaking at the launch of the World Wide Web Foundation's Web
Index Tim Berners-Lee (inventor of the World Wide Web) talking
about the bill stated "In Britain, like in the US, there has
been a series of Bills that would give government very strong
powers to, for example, collect data. I am worried about that."
He added, "If the UK introduces draconian legislation that
allows the Government to block websites or to snoop on people,
which decreases privacy, in future indexes they may find
themselves farther down the list".[29]
Controversy
There are several main areas of controversy.
Patient and doctor private communication
As of November 2015, no ISP has announced or made public how
they will handle and store information securely.
Physical limitations
From costs to how to power the machines, there are incredibly
tough technical issues facing ISPs and some they might not be
able to overcome. The sheer volume of data will push hardware
software and network technologies beyond their design.
ISPs to retain logs for 12 months
The bill proposed that the obligation imposed on ISP providers
to retain data about their clients online activities is vastly
expanded.[30] The current legislation allows ISP providers to
retain information on clients for business purposes with a
maximum time limit of 12 months. The proposed legislation will
oblige communication service providers (CSPs) to retain a
variety of information for 12 months and make this information
available to state authorities upon request. The UK Internet
Services Providers' Association (ISPA) have issued a statement
raising concerns about the impact on the competitiveness of UK
CSPs as it creates a less attractive and more onerous
environment in which companies have to work.[31] The ISPA also
question whether there is a need to expand the scope of data
retention requirements and requested a more detailed explanation
of what, in practice, will be required of them.[31]
Weakening encryption
Former UK Prime Minister David Cameron openly expressed a desire
for encryption to be weakened or encrypted data to be easily
accessible to legal forces in order to tackle terrorism and
crime. This viewpoint has been widely addressed as uninformed
and greatly dangerous to the privacy and information of the
general public because of the dangers that this initiative would
entail.[32]
A ban on encryption would result in all information stored
online to be openly visible to anyone, this information would
include data such as bank details that might be input on online
shopping websites, addresses, personal details as well as
private messages sent on messaging services such as iMessage and
WhatsApp that all use encryption in order to protect the
identity and information of their users.
The encryption measures currently in place work on the basis
that no third party would be able to access the data and banning
this practice would mean that it would open not only to the
government but also to anyone interested because encryption
measures are not set to be sensitive to certain access requests,
they are fully protective of all data stored under those
measures.
Experts have made it clear that weakening or banning encryption
would be extremely dangerous and damaging to the safety of the
economic Internet environment and could have great repercussion
on the information stored online and how it is used.[33]
Oversight
The UK is unusual in the arrangement that Ministers sign off on
warrants when the inspection of bulk collected data is requested
by the security services. Just under 3 thousand warrants were
requested and authorized in 2014 by the Secretary of State.
Typically, in most democracies, independent judges decide and
sign off police warrants in the cases where surveillance is of
an intrusive nature.[34] Recently published Independent Review
of Terrorism Legislation calls for UK to adopt the judicial
authorisation as it is practised by other developed
democracies.[35]
There is a concern that No 10 will disregard the request for the
reform of the oversight and the call for independent judges
handling the sign off in the cases of highly intrusive
surveillance.[36]
Costs
Costs have been estimated at £1.8bn over the next ten years.
However the basis of the calculations used to reach this figure
have not been made public.[37]
[/code]
*****************************************************