[x-pubpol] UK Government Publishes Written Evidence for New ISP Internet Snooping Bill

[Joly MacFie]

(Via KK)

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/09/uk-government-publishes-written-evidence-for-its-draft-isp-internet-snooping.html

 by Mark Jackson <http://www.ispreview.co.uk/contact.shtml>

The Joint Committee on the UK government’s Draft Communications Data Bill,
which aims to expand existing *internet snooping laws* by forcing ISPs into
logging a much bigger and more accessible slice of your online activity,
has published a full *summary of all the written evidence* submitted to its
inquiry.

The *existing law* requires internet providers to maintain a very basic log
of their customers internet and email accesses (times, dates and
IP<http://www.ispreview.co.uk/jargon/category/Internet_Services/IP.htm>
addresses)
for 12 months, which does NOT include the content of your communication and
only occurs after a specific request is made to the ISP (most ISPs already
keep simple short-term logs).

By comparison the new law threatens to expand those access logs to collect
even more detail (e.g. chat logs for online games, skype call logs etc.)
and would also aim to make them more accessible to “*the police and others
with powers to intercept*“. This could result in security services being
given almost *real-time access* to the ISPs database, though a *court order*
 / *police warrant* would still be required (full summary of the new
bill<http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/06/uk-government-publishes-details-draft-isp-internet-snooping-law.html>
).

Sadly there are far too many responses for an easy summary of the colossal
447 page long document and in any case most will be more interested in the
Inquiry’s eventual conclusions. So, with a focus on the feedback from ISPs,
here are a few choice quotes from the various replies.

*ISPA <http://www.ispa.org.uk/> Statement*

*We believe that the current regime performs fairly well … [but] a great
deal of uncertainty surrounds the [new] proposals and the main changes
should be viewed as significant extensions to current capabilities.*

*Industry needs clearer and more detailed information on what the proposals
will actually mean in practice for different CSPs. They will have a
significant impact on how the UK Internet is run and our members need to
fully understand how this will affect them.*

*LINX Statement*

*The draft Bill contemplates the collection of a large amount of personal
communications data. Both the volume and range of data to be collected are
unprecedented in the UK, and probably in the world.*

*The collection and processing of “third party” communications data by
network operators is substantial extension of their duties that is, in our
opinion, materially distinct from existing sata retention requirements,
amounting to a complete novelty.*

*In our analysis the “filtering arrangements” provided for in clauses 14‐16
are best understood as a “profiling engine” which creates detailed profiles
on all users of electronic communications systems and makes those profiles
available for sophisticated data mining.*

*In our opinion this profiling engine amounts to an enormously powerful
tool for public authorities. Its mere existence significantly implicates
privacy rights, and its extensive use would represent a dramatic shift in
the balance between personal privacy and the capabilities of the State to
investigate and analyse the citizen.*

*Telefónica UK (O2 <http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/go/o2uk>) Statement
*

*TUK takes the privacy and security of its customer’s data extremely
seriously and has always responded responsibly and in a timely fashion to
lawful, authorised disclosure requests regarding its own customers. The
widening of the scope to include TUK’s own customer’s data that may not
currently be held for business purposes appears to be a reasonable
extension of today’s powers. Widening the scope to ANY data that happens to
traverse our network does not.*

*TUK is currently not convinced that all providers of UK communications
will be treated equally and fear that UK based providers may find
themselves disadvantaged by this Bill*.

*Virgin Media <http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/go/vm> Statement*

*At this stage, our primary concern with the draft Bill as it stands
relates to the retention requirements on providers not previously caught by
data retention requirements and the requirement for UK providers to retain
data of these providers. Virgin
Media<http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/go/vm>currently
enjoys good working relationships with a range of third parties, both
domestically and internationally. In many cases, Virgin
Media<http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/go/vm> makes
their applications and services available to its customers through, for
example its TiVo service. If Virgin Media is legally obliged to provide
data from such third parties, this may well damage its commercial
relationship with those parties and other third parties, particularly those
based overseas who may be reluctant to make their services available to
Virgin Media.*

*Virgin Media is also concerned to ensure that there is a level playing
field for all data holders covered under the legislation. The legislation
must be underpinned by a robust Code of Practice which sets out the process
that is required for all third party data requests. Virgin Media and other
UK based communications providers’ obligations to supply third party data
should be seen as a last resort, only exercised once the third party in
question has rejected the request. Once the Code of Practice is in
operation Virgin Media recommends that it is kept under review and regular
Parliamentary scrutiny to ensure the appropriate checks and balances remain
effective.*

It’s well worth reading through all of the responses if you have the time,
we especially recommend the UK Internet Service Providers Association
(ISPA<http://www.ispa.org.uk/>)
feedback as they break all of the various points down into constructive and
manageable chunks.

Similarly it was interesting to see Virgin Media raise a somewhat unique
point about the bills impact on their commercial relationships (above).

*Draft Communications Data Bill Written Evidence (PDF)*
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/communications-data/…pdf<http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/communications-data/Communications%20Data%20formatted%20written%20evidence.pdf>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.isoc-ny.org/pipermail/x-pubpol-isoc-ny.org/attachments/20120912/bb27d621/attachment-0001.htm>