Spinning the RIP
The Government are becoming worried about the content of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, and are taking action to limit its impact. At least, Jack Straw and Charles Clarke have written to three national newspapers this week, flatly denying there is any problem with the Bill, and with this spin-obsessed Government that's about as close to real action as you're likely to get.
Jack Straw's letter to the FT on 14th June states that "This Bill is about law enforcement." What he doesn't seem to realise (or chooses to overlook) is that it is also about e-commerce, whether he likes it or not. Charles Clarke claims that the measures "can give confidence to the whole community", and that the E-commerce Act and the RIP Bill will facilitate "trust in new technologies."
The only conclusion that can be drawn from these public protestations is that Messrs Clarke and Straw either don't know what is in the Bill, or they don't care. Or perhaps (given the Government's frequent high-profile blunders in the world of IT) they simply don't understand. Take your pick. Here are some of the points they raise, and the reasons they are wrong:
Jack Straw's Letter to the Financial Times, 13th June 2000
Having read the BCC's report, it is unclear in any event how the £46 billion figure is arrived at ... Out of nowhere the loss next year from the Bill is estimated at £2 billion. Yet the total contribution of e-commerce to the UK's economy is estimated at around 0.6% of Gross Domestic Product, or about £5 billion.
You might expect the Home Secretary to repudiate the figures by producing his own calculations, or do something to indicate why the British Chambers of Commerce report is "quite literally incredible". As it is, we just have to take his word for it.
No-one except Mr Straw doubts that the Bill will be very expensive in terms of implementation costs, loss of business to our overseas competitors, and the cost of lost opportunities. The BCC report is produced in collaboration with the London School of Economics: one can only assume that, when it comes to business and economics, these two organisations don't know what they're talking about.
Contrary to its claim, there will be no need for "black boxes at all ISPs ..." The number of ISP's we are likely to work with is many fewer than that estimated; and Government will as now bear any significant staffing costs.
There is a constant tendency for Ministers to contradict the contents of the Bill itself. They don't seem to understand that concerns don't necessarily focus around this Government, but a future legislation without the high moral principles of Tony Blair and Jack Straw. Section 12(1) of the Bill provides that the Home Secretary can demand that "telecommunications providers" maintain "an interception capability" - aka a "black box" - to allow "interception warrants to be imposed and complied with".
With regard to staffing costs, a recent Government report proposed that small ISPs should bear £20,000pa to run the "interception capability", and that large ISPs should pay £250,000pa. The taxpayer will meet the remaining costs.
Other countries are following suit quickly (another reason why the decamping theory has little in it).
This argument is based on the false assumption that other governments will copy the RIP Bill in its entirety, and there will, therefore, be nothing to choose between one country and another when it comes to e-commerce. If we want to get ahead in the e-commerce game, we need to provide reasons to come to the UK to trade, not to leave.
Charles Clarke's Letter to the Guardian, 14th June 2000
Your editorial ("Kick this legislation out," 12 June 2000) could do far more to drive e-commerce overseas than you allege the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill would.
It is extraordinary that Mr Clarke seeks to place the blame for any damage with the newspapers who are analysing this legislation, while at the same time denying that the Bill itself will cause any damage.
He goes on to write about the "myths and misunderstandings pedalled by those who know they are untrue". These peddlers of lies include the British Chambers of Commerce, London School of Economics, The Times, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Independent, Richard Stallman, Foundation for Information Policy Research, the STAND website and, of course, UKTECH. Given the political diversity of these groups and people, it's amazing that they agree on one thing: the RIP Bill is bad news.
Not all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the UK will be asked to provide an intercept capability ... Similarly, only a small proportion of ISPs may be required to have such a capability in the future.
This is fundamental to the misunderstanding between Government and business: business-people seek certainty, and the Government will not provide it. "Only a small proportion of ISPs may be required to have" means that, on the other hand, all ISPs may be required to spy on their customers. As an international business-person looking to set up an e-commerce facility in Europe, you will almost certainly be considering locating outside the UK to escape this risk and additional expense.
We want a level playing field across the communications industry and we're examining closely the question of costs.
We haven't got a level playing field if this Bill becomes law: we're competing in a global market-place, and we have to take into account the global situation. This is particularly true of e-commerce and other high-tech industries.
...in the unlikely event that key confidentiality is breached, an individual may sue, as you would expect.
Faced with the loss of sensitive commercial information when their encryption keys are unlawfully disclosed, it will be little comfort to business that they may sue the Government or the individual concerned. This could take years, be highly expensive and (given the shroud of secrecy the Bill proposes) unlikely to succeed. Encryption keys are meant to be kept secret: that's the whole point of having them. Since MI5 can't even protect its own laptop computers from theft, why should they be trusted with our encrypted data?
So, is it all over? That the Home Secretary and Charles Clarke are taking the unprecedented step of writing to the newspapers indicates that there is still much to fight for. The Lords do now have real power and the will to oppose legislation, all the more so since their reform: if the new-style Lords don't represent the "will of the people", why were the changes made in the first place?
I met with Francis Northbrook, Conservative DTI spokesman in the Lords recently, and he was optimistic that changes could be made. He insisted that I fax him information about the main flaws in the Bill, and showed an immediate grasp of the potential damage to business and to civil liberties. He also observed that the Government do not have an overall majority in the Lords, and the Conservative and Democrat peers could join forces to amend or reject this legislation (as they did to such great effect with the e-commerce bill last year). A meeting with my Democrat MP (Mark Oaten,
Winchester) produced the same observation and assurances.
The Ministers' public protestations, apart from showing they have their heads firmly in the sand, prove that they, too, are concerned that the Lords could succeed where the Commons has failed.
Simon Burns
Sys Admin