Researchers from the Policy Engagement Network, based in the London School of Economics Information Systems and Innovation Group, have produced a 57 page report, which is essential reading for anyone worried about the Home Office's EU Directive based mandatory Communications Traffic Data Retention laws, and their vague plans for extending this even further the Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP), the review of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) codes of practice and legislation .
It is also relevant to Sir John Chilcot's Privy Council Working Group review of Intercept as Evidence, and to GCHQ's Mastering the Internet plans, and to other Surveillance Database State policy issues like the National Identity Register / ID Cards scheme:
Briefing on the Interception Modernisation Programme (.pdf 57 pages)
Abstract
In this briefing we aim to provide some depth of understanding of the nature of the Home Officeʼs latest proposals on communications surveillance. We are sympathetic with the needs of the law enforcement community and we agree with the Home Office that the communications environment is changing. However we question whether the Home Office fully understands the extent to which the way in which surveillance activities are authorised would change were its wishes granted, in turn leading to a tipping of the balance in favour of state power and away from the individual. We are also concerned that there is a significant under-estimate of the burdens being placed on Communication Service Providers at a time where elsewhere in government there is a demand for universal broadband internet provision which industry is supposed to fund. This report was not drafted to respond to the Home Officeʼs Consultation document, but rather we are adding more expertise to the public deliberation on this policy. The report is the result of research we conducted with key experts across the UK and internationally.
Table of Contents:
Summary 3
About the Government's Consultation 5
Challenges with the Framing of the Consultation 5History of Interception Law 7
Current state of law 7
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 7
Communications Data Retention 9
What is "communications data"? 10Changes in Modes of Communications 12
Email service provision has been globalised 12
New modes of communicating 15
Current environment for law enforcement agencies 16Technological background and implications of the new proposal 20
The Reality of DPI 23
Effectiveness of the deep packet inspection equipment 25Safeguards 27
The Law 27
Issue of Warrants and Authorisations 29
CSP SPoCs 30
Interception of Communications Commissioner 31Analysis 35
Is it still feasible to distinguish between content and communications data? 35
Inadmissibility of Interception Material 35
Who grants interception warrants and authorises release of communications data? 36
Is it feasible to think of the targeted collection of communications data rather than collect it in respect of everybody? 36
The need for precise language 37
Who will actually control the "DPI Black Boxes" to be installed at CSPs? 37
Encryption Issues 37
Advances in Mutual Legal Assistance 38
What answers can we give to law enforcement and intelligence agencies if we decide to deny them the levels of access they seek? 38
Other responses 41Cost Estimates 43
Concluding Remarks 46
Appendix 1: Issues around the Admissibility of Intercept Evidence 48
Appendix 2: The Privacy Issues 55
A Chilling Effect? 56
Briefing on the Interception Modernisation Programme by the LSE Policy Engagement Network is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/
Spy Blog does not mind being quoted, with attribution and with a link back to the original article.
However, when other websites try to pass off our text as their own, this is not acceptable.:
This has happened with this very article:
http://projectwhistleblower.dynalias.com/dragons/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&Itemid=110&gid=344
"ProjectWhistleblower.org" seem to have copied huge chunks of the wikileaks.org website as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectwhistleblower.org
Regarding the Project WhistleBlower site, I wrote about them recently:
www.itwire.com/content/view/25699/1231/
www.itwire.com/content/view/25846/1231/
Regarding the wikipedia article - this was deleted in July 1st, but was based almost completely on my two articles and some IP / domain research (not by me).
The jury "is still out" on the activities of these guys.