Silicon.com: 'Unworkable' Snooping laws delayed for third time

[Richard Clayton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <55ED5FD3B4D2D41193E60002A5090BCDC32D72@clerkenwell.pres.co>,
Owen Blacker <owen.blacker@wheel.co.uk> writes

>> HEADLINE: 'Unworkable' Snooping laws delayed for third time
>> PUBLISHED: 6:25pm on Friday 2nd March 2001
>> CHANNEL: Power brokers
>> AUTHOR: Suzanna Kerridge
>> SERVICE: http://www.silicon.com
>> 
>> TEXT OF STORY FOLLOWS:

This story is a little confused...

>> The UK Home Office has pushed back the publication of the 
>> code of practice designed to govern the day-to-day operation 
>> of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act.

There are many codes of practice...  the current hot story is that the
*consultation* on the CoP for Part I Chapter II (comms data) has been
delayed - and this is going to delay turning on this part of the Act

>> The code of practice, without which the Act is unusable, 

if only!  Part I Chapter I (interception) has been running without a CoP
since early October 2000. The consultation on that finished in December
and we still await publication of the comments, let alone a revised CoP

However... the rest of the story appears to be about something
completely different! 

>> has 
>> already been delayed three times thanks to a wave of protests 
>> from the high-tech industry.
>> 
>> Sally Low, policy advisor at the British Chambers of 
>> Commerce, said: "They have put back the process because the 
>> Commission has been inundated with comments. The most 
>> criticism has been received from businesses claiming the code 
>> places an enormous burden on them and is unworkable." 

this appears to be a reference to the Draft CoP on Use of Personal Data
in employer/employee relationships; which is a consultation being run by
the Information Commissioner (not the Home Office at all)

>> David Smith, information commission registrar, confirmed the 
>> reports. "We received more comments than expected and the 
>> process of going through them all is taking longer than 
>> originally thought," he said.

the consultation closed in early January

>> Smith admitted the majority of responses accused the code of 
>> being too restrictive on employers. He said the commission 
>> was taking the concerns into consideration when drafting the code.
>> 
>> But Yamen Akdeniz, director of Cyber Rights and Cyber 
>> Liberties, questioned whether the delay was due to conflicts 
>> in the code with regulations set down in RIP.
>> 
>> He told silicon.com: "RIP is a complex issue that needs to be 
>> balanced with the Data Protection Commission's codes. The Act 
>> deals with interception of email while the Data Commission 
>> comes into practice once the data has been stored. The 
>> problem is that these two issues conflict and I don't know if 
>> there will ever be a unified code."

I'd look at it differently than Yaman does, and say that RIP (and the
associated Regulations on Lawful Business Practice) states whether or
not when you look at piece of email you are or are not committing the
criminal act of "interception".

The Information Commissioner's code will govern whether you are
committing an offence under the Data Protection Act by the way in which
you look at email and how you deal with it thereafter.

- -- 
richard @ highwayman . com                       "Nothing seems the same
                          Still you never see the change from day to day
                                And no-one notices the customs slip away"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBOqTplBfnRQV/feRLEQKN/gCg0ijChpnCHYG5pQiNeVQHdwVJahEAoIBt
ZJmzvFXN4F2ESvkK/HseXasx
=JWcK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----