British Chambers of Commerce Condemn RIP Bill

As the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill (the so-called "Snoopers' Charter") is debated in the House of Lords, the British Chambers of Commerce and London School of Economics publish a report which concludes:

"The RIP Bill as it stands is entirely inadequate as a mechanism to achieve efficient and reasonable interception and surveillance. Its effect is likely to be loss of confidence in e-commerce, unacceptable costs to business and to the UK economy."

Despite passing its third reading in the House of Commons last month, the

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill (RIP) still has to clear the House of

Lords before it becomes law. And this is not as easy as it might sound: the

Lords are enjoying their new-found sense of legitimacy after Tony Blair's

"stage one" reform of the upper house, and are prepared to amend or completely oppose legislation which they see as unfit.

The RIP Bill is about as unfit as it gets: the absurdity of the provisions is clear to anyone with even a slight knowledge of computing, the worst being that people will be required to prove that they have forgotten passwords to encrypted documents - or face a two-year prison sentence. Most helpline staff will tell you that lost or forgotten passwords form 80% of their calls, but at least they don't say "I'll only help when you can prove you have forgotten it!"

Adding its voice to the chorus of criticism this week is the British Chambers of Commerce, which (in a report produced in collaboration with the London

School of Economics) estimates that the RIP provisions will cost UK industry

£46 billion in its first five years of operation. This would be bad enough in itself, but the BCC concludes the RIP won't help with its stated aim of preventing online crime:

"The RIP Bill as it stands is entirely inadequate as a mechanism to achieve efficient and reasonable interception and surveillance. Its effect is likely to be loss of confidence in e-commerce, unacceptable costs to business and to the

UK economy." [

Full report]

As for costs to ISPs, the BCC believes the Government have seriously underestimated the potential damage to this important industry sector. Over the first five years, it is likely that the true costs of forcing ISPs to spy on their customers will be close to £640 million - a level of expense which will, quite simply, force many ISPs out of business or out of the country.

In an open letter to Jack Straw, Home Secretary, the BCC are forthright in their condemnation of the Bill, saying "There is a real danger that the competitive disadvantage caused by this measure will frustrate the government's ambition of making the UK the best place to trade electronically by 2002."

They point out that there are serious implications for corporate confidentiality, business confidence and the sensitive issue of the "tipping off" offence, by which an employee of a company could be imprisoned for up to five years for telling his employers that he has been asked to monitor or decrypt the company's online traffic. The BCC point out that "the government could be seen to be acting as a shadow director by controlling an employee over the directors of the company."

The BCC are not alone in waking up to the RIP Bill and the damage it looks set to cause. A leader in The Times (12 June) points out that "this Bill will do little to cow the online underworld and it will, without doubt, infringe civil liberties and subject businesses to needless costs and uncertainties."

It goes on to describe the Bill as "so misguided as to be practically unamendable."

The influential Institute of Directors has also condemned key measures in the

RIP Bill. Professor Jim Norton, the IoD's Head of E-Business Policy, said "The

UK stance on this Bill is worrying many companies - especially multi-nationals who contrast the proposed UK legislation against far more business friendly proposals in Ireland, France and Germany and even the USA." He points out that data processing staff in many organisations could find themselves open to criminal action in other countries:

"If an employee is served with an order to release highly sensitive encryption keys, they are likely also to be served with a 'gagging order' preventing them from informing others in the company ... The employee is protected in this country against the consequences of that action. This protection does not extend outside the UK to other jurisdictions such as that of the parent company. They may made need to be very careful where they travel!"

He also attacks the Bill for providing too much power to Government officials:

"Is it really the intention to provide Inland Revenue or VAT inspectors or DTI

Company investigators with these powers? Even the car park attendant at the

Home Office seems to have them under current drafting!"

The widespread opposition to the Bill has come to the notice of the Lords, including Lord Cope of Berkeley who pointed out that "the Bill has achieved the rare, if not unique, distinction of having The Times, the Financial Times and the Guardian all call for the Bill to be withdrawn and reconsidered." The

Government spokesman, Lord Bassam of Brighton, answered that "the public debate has revealed some very serious misunderstandings about the Bill", and made the apparently self-contradictory statement that "we are very much in listening mode on this Bill. However, we shall not be deflected from our course; nor shall we withdraw the Bill." All of which has a very familiar ring to it. Let's hope that his colleagues are inclined not only to listen but to act as well.