17 June 2002
From: "Owen Lewis" <oml@sysrx.uk.com>
To: <ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Subject: RE: A dead duck? (Was RIP s22 notices SI)
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:12:52 +0100
I see today's Daily Telegraph [copy below] has gone to town on the sneaky secondary legislation to be put before the Commons tomorrow. A front page article over 4 col widths and continued onto the second page. A delightfully concise and pithy editorial [copy below] and - best of all - a further half page spread in the business news section.
I understand that The Guardian also has done good work in exposing this dirty piece of work for the repugnant thing it is.
For the Lords, Lords Strathclyde is reported as firmly declaring that the Lords will stop this nonsense and that if the govt wished to persist with it, they will be forced to bring it back to Parliament next year, re-framed as primary legislation.
Altogether very heartening. The left and right barrels of the serious press have squarely discharged their loads into this lame duck and, should it persist in spinning onwards though mortally wounded, the House of Lords stands ready to give it the coup de grace. I think there is room for hope.
When both left and right of centre combine to excoriate proposed legislation, even a government as clumsy as this one has become had better give pause for thought.
However, the battle is a long way from won. The Draft Order cannot be defeated tomorrow if the govt applies a party whip and it presumes to much of their good sense that they will do the right thing and withdraw it, lock stock and barrel. Therefore, we should all gird ourselves for a return to the fray when the proposal re-emerges as primary legislation. I almost look forward to it.
Let us be clear on one thing. If this iniquitous proposal is to pass into law, it is the members of the Parliamentary Labour Party who will cause its enactment. Though I am not generally of their political persuasion, none have never had grounds to think that they prize the freedoms in this country any less than do others. We have, therefore, two targets before us. The primary target is the PLP for it the members of it who will vote and who have the overwhelming numbers to pass or defeat whatever legislation they please. The secondary target is grass-roots public opinion for it is, more than any pressure group or professional lobbying, that will influence the PLP as to the mood of the people. It is the secondary target we should all address. If we do a sufficiently good job with that, no party whip will enforce the cohesion of the primary target.
Even if all goes well tomorrow - or if the Lords finally kill the Draft Order in a few week's time, the fundamental train of thought behind this appalling piece of legislation with remain. As always, govt will just bide its time and find another way to attain its end.
With this issue, we just may have reached the point of crystallisation of a growing swell on diffuse public unease about the massive increase in surveillance in recent years. We should not dissipate whatever level of crystallisation of opinion results from dispatching this Draft Order over the next few weeks. Office, pubs, clubs, neighbours, friends and family. Get them thinking about the issue (most are still unaware of it). When they are convinced that it's time to draw a line in the sand and shout "Stop! No further!", then get them to ensure that their friends & colleagues are similarly alive to the need to act similarly.
The large majority of the public - and therefore the Press, who can scent public mood before the public knows it has one - sat on the fence over the enactment of RIPA 2000. Arguably, RIPA was inevitable. It is this 'afterthought' Draft Order that puts the venom into the tail of that scorpion.
The Draft Order sets out an extension of powers that does not serve the public good. I believe that people can understand this without any need for the particular knowledge and experience that, say, a proper appreciation of crypto issues requires. It's a gut issue. Let's convince people of that.
Owen Lewis
Tel: +44-(0)1264-361582
Fax: +44-(0)1264-338051
E-mail: oml@sysrx.uk.com
(Filed: 17/06/2002)
It has been nearly a year since this newspaper launched its Free Country campaign. But never before have we been faced with a proposal as illiberal, disproportionate and dangerous as the extension of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
The Government intends to allow our internet use, emails and telephone calls to be monitored by a whole range of officials, with virtually no judicial control. Not only the security services, but also such bodies as the Food Standards Agency and even local councils will be allowed to access our personal communications.
The burden of proof ought always to rest with those who wish to take away a given freedom. It is up to the Government to explain how we will be made any safer by giving, say, the Post Office the right to monitor our private communications. So far, it has barely attempted to make this case.
"If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear," comes the old refrain. If only this were true. In fact, almost every day we read of innocent people who have suffered from the bungling of some state agency.
"Personal information - seeking advice about a medical condition, making disobliging comments about someone else, visiting a pornographic website - will now be rather less personal. The opportunities for blackmail or abuse of power are immense.
In a letter elsewhere on this page, the Tory leader in the House of Lords writes of his readiness to oppose this monstrous measure. We hope that peers of all parties and none will back him.
The first duty of an upper chamber, however constituted, is to protect the citizen from badly drafted and invasive legislation. It is difficult to think of any clearer example than the proposal that will come before the Lords tomorrow.
By Benedict Brogan
(Filed: 17/06/2002)
The House of Lords will step in and block government plans for a wholesale expansion of electronic "snooping" by public bodies if MPs refuse to vote against the measure tomorrow.
The Tories confirmed last night that they will oppose a ministerial order that would allow organisations ranging from health authorities to the Food Standards Agency to monitor the emails, mobile telephone calls and internet activities of private citizens.
In a letter to The Telegraph published today, Lord Strathclyde, the shadow leader of the Lords, calls on peers to stand up against what he describes as a "snoopers' charter" and a "threat to civil liberties".
The Commons will vote tomorrow on a batch of draft orders that will extend the scope of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which was passed two years ago against opposition from civil liberty campaigners.
If approved, the orders will give seven government departments, all local authorities and bodies ranging from the Environment Agency to UK Atomic Energy Authority police the right to demand - without a court order - the electronic communication records of anyone with a telephone.
The organisations will be able to demand that telephone companies and internet service providers hand over details about their customers, including the source and destination of emails, the identity of websites visited and the customer's location when making a mobile phone call.
The Home Office claims that giving powers to more departments and local authorities is necessary to fight crime and terrorism. But when it presented the original legislation two years ago, ministers promised that only the police, security services, Customs and the Inland Revenue would be authorised to monitor individual communications.
The Government's majority in the Commons means that the orders are likely to be approved after a short debate late tomorrow night.
Lord Strathclyde, one of the architects of a succession of government defeats in the Upper House on personal freedom issues, last night held out the prospect of a cross-party coalition of peers overturning the orders.
He hopes the Tories will be joined by Liberal Democrats who have opposed government efforts to expand electronic surveillance and Labour rebels.
Campaigners have protested at the Government's use of draft orders, also known as secondary legislation, to widen the reach of the existing Act. They say the scale of the "snooping" that would be allowed under the proposals should be the subject of new legislation to give Parliament a chance to scrutinise them properly.
"This is the kind of issue that the House of Lords is best at: standing up for individual rights, natural justice and ancient freedoms," Lord Strathclyde said.
"The Government has no right in imposing on the people of this country in secondary legislation these extraordinary powers for everyday services.
"I support the police and the security services having these powers but not other government departments, local authorities and statutory bodies.
"These are wholly unnecessary, out of proportion to any perceived problem. If a second chamber is to stand for anything this is a clear line in the sand and we will use this useful power that we have to stop this secondary legislation if the House of Commons do not stop it themselves.
"If we do, then the Government can always bring this forward in primary legislation in a properly thought through Bill next year and give it the parliamentary scrutiny it deserves."