Guardian 7/3/2000: "LEADER: RIP for basic liberties"

[Caspar Bowden]

http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,144046,00.html]
RIP for basic liberties

Jack Straw's bill is far too intrusive
Free speech on the net: special report

Tuesday March 7, 2000

Michael Gapes, Labour MP for Ilford South, told the Commons yesterday how
his father as a postman would have to deliver letters to a certain place
where they were opened then resealed before continuing their journey to the
recipient's house. He was speaking during the second reading of the
controversial regulation of investigatory powers (RIP) bill. Everyone knows
that interception takes place and that it is the duty of the authorities to
hunt down drug-pushers, paedophiles and money-launderers by all legal means.
The RIP bill still fails to strike the right balance between an individual's
right to privacy and the state's duty to track down criminals. Even Jack
Straw at his most avuncular could not explain why the right to authorise
interception should rest with him (and his less avuncular successors) rather
than with judges as in many other countries.

The bill contains powers that seem to be saying RIP to basic civil
liberties. If you encrypt data on your home computer and forget the key (or
did not have it in the first place) you are presumed guilty until proved
innocent. Straw says that courts will easily distinguish between genuine
memory lapses and criminals withholding information - but why should there
be a presumption of guilt in the first place? Meanwhile, child pornographers
will refuse to decrypt - and get a mere two years in prison instead of the
long stretch they deserve.

The bill requires, for the first time, that internet service providers such
as Freeserve install systems allowing the authorities to track their
subscribers' communications traffic. Mr Straw argues that this is just an
extension of what existing telecoms operators (and Mr Gapes' dad) have been
doing for years. The difference is that internet mapping technology enables
the authorities to build up networks of peoples' relationships with others.
Fortunately, information gathered clandestinely is still not admissible in
court - but neither is it admissible to the people being surveyed. They will
never know even if they have been proved innocent. How all this squares with
Britain's plans to attract e-commerce companies from all over the world is a
mystery. We will soon know because Ireland is doing the opposite. It will be
illegal for the authorities to force encryption users to hand over their
codes. It remains to be seen whether inward investors find the grass greener
on the other side of the water.