Britain isolated on RIP Bill
Pressure is mounting on the government to abandon the RIP Bill before it is too late. Today President Clinton's Internet advisor warned that Britain could face becoming a "police state" and called for the Bill to be thrown out.
Compare and contrast: in the US, they have a president who, earlier in the week, made history by broadcasting to the nation on the web, and where a new law to allow legally-binding online signatures has just been approved with an overwhelming majority. In short, carefully considered measures to boost confidence in the Internet and keep the States at the forefront of the Internet Revolution.
In Britain, a government so clueless it believes the best way to promote e-commerce is to - wait for it - introduce unnecessary legislation, threaten innocent Internet users with imprisonment, and impose a higher cost burden on Internet Service Providers and companies which do business on the web. A government which has a leader who is happy to admit he gets his kids to switch on the computer for him (at least, when they're sober). A government which has started a brain-drain from high-tech industries unprecedented since the 70's, while at the same time declaring it wants to be first in the Internet race.
That ambition seems to have as much hope of success as England's bid to host the World Cup, but unfortunately looks set to cost far more. Adding her voice to the chorus of condemnation this week is Esther Dyson, Internet advisor to Bill Clinton and chairman of the influential ICANN group. She warns that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill (dubbed the "Snooper's Charter" by its critics) risks turning Britain into a "police state", where people will be forced to "keep their curtains up to help the police."
The government claim that the RIP will increase confidence in e-commerce, and that "companies who support the RIP Bill are reticent about going public." Given their lack of silence over the equally contentious Euro debate, this seems unlikely. Ms Dyson, a former Wall Street analyst and chairman of venture capitalist group EDventure Holdings, casts further doubt on this claim, urging the government to "have the courage and the faith to leave people alone."
Responding to Jack Straw's claim that other countries will soon be following Britain's lead in introducing the RIP Bill, Dyson conceded that "the UK is not uniquely clueless on this." Despite recent amendments, however, she urged ministers to drop the Bill before it became law.
The amendments were introduced to head off fierce opposition in the Lords from Democrat and Conservative peers, who threatened to throw out the Bill. The most important concession is that Internet users will not be required to prove they have forgotten passwords to encryption keys: instead, the prosecution will need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a defendant is seeking to hide information (a similar amendment introduced by Conservative MPs was rejected by the government earlier in the year).
There is also a provision that, except in "special circumstances", surrendering plain-text documents to the security forces will be adequate, although it is still unclear what those circumstances will be. Company directors will now be informed if encryption keys are demanded, and there will be limitations on the number of officials able to demand interception of private information.
Still, the amendments do not go far enough, and Ms Dyson's comments this week confirm that business leaders overseas will continue to view the Bill with suspicion. They are still worried about the requirement for ISPs to carry the costs of the "black box" to monitor online traffic, and the possibility of government snooping into confidential documents.
Lord Cope, a RIP opponent in the Lords, expressed his dismay that the government were still pushing ahead with the legislation while other countries delay similar measures, aware of its complexities and the potential damage it could cause. And Lord Strathclyde warned that the battle for the RIP Bill would continue after the summer parliamentary break, threatening to delay its planned introduction in October.
Everyone except Jack Straw and Charles Clarke is agreed that this Bill will damage e-commerce, fail to combat crime, and be harmful to the United Kingdom. What more do they need to convince them to back down before it is too late?
--
Simon Burns
Weaselfast Programmer