BAD NEWS :( Government amendments reinforce Big Browser

[Ken Brown]

Thanks for those committee comments from Steve Bassam - I think I am
keeping them! But it would be so much simpler if, rather than offering
us his assurance that the code of practice would clearly spell it out,
he offered us the code of practice itself, so that MPs and Lords could
see what it is they were voting on before they voted.

Ken Brown

Roland Perry wrote:
> 
> In article <3.0.5.32.20000612202153.0092d480@mail.netkonect.co.uk>,
> Nicholas Bohm <nbohm@ernest.net> writes
> >I remain in agreement with Roland.  The consequences seem
> >absurd.
> 
> However, we now have two statements in committee from Lord Bassam:
> 
> "Lord Bassam of Brighton: Our understanding is that Amendments Nos. 9
> and 11 would change the definition of telecommunication system to
> exclude the origin and destination. The noble Lord made that clear in
> his explanation. But a primary purpose of this part of the Bill is to
> ensure that wherever along the path of a communication it is
> intercepted, the required level of authority, handling, safeguards and
> oversight remain the same. It would make no sense for interception of a
> telephone wire in the street to require a Secretary of State warrant,
> yet no warrant to be required if the interception was to occur at the
> telephone handset. Indeed, this was the deficiency identified by the
> European Court in the case of Halford v. UK which this Bill seeks to
> remedy. An important step is being taken with this legislation. "
> 
> and regarding the "dial-through fraud" amendments 22 and 83:
> 
> Lord Bassam of Brighton: It has also been brought to my attention that
> these amendments have caused some concern in relation to the Internet,
> with one interpretation being that they would allow the content of e-
> mail communications to be treated as communications data and therefore
> allow interception of e-mail communications to take place without the
> need for a warrant authorised by the Secretary of State. Although I do
> not agree that this is a valid interpretation of the wording, I want to
> place on the record that this is not the intention--I repeat the word
> "not"--of these amendments and that the Bill will require Secretary of
> State warranting for the interception of e-mail communications. I offer
> my assurance that the code of practice will clearly spell that out so
> that there can be no misunderstanding on that issue."