--- F R E N D Z of martian --- I actually took advantage of the 'fax your MP' thing at www.stand.org.uk, within a couple of weeks I had a substantial envelope through my door containing the draft bill, explanatory notes and the Hansard debate report. So I have all the info in my hands, but no time to read it. If anyone wants my copy, mail me and I'll stick it in the post. Martin ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Keene (by way of Tony Gosling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 3:19 PM Subject: Internet social campaigning under threat > PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY > PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY > PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY > > RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE / Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill forum > > Peaceful protest is a "serious crime" in the British government's Bill > to intercept private email communication > > Statement from GreenNet > > In September last year, at a conference on British government plans to > give police and intelligence services the right to read private email, > Patricia Hewitt, the minister for e-commerce, claimed these plans were > necessary "because crime has become global and digital and we have to > combat this". What she omitted to mention was that one of the "crimes" > the government was setting out to combat was the kind of peaceful > protest actions that took place in Seattle at the WTO meeting. This has > now been made crystal clear in the proposed Regulation of Investigatory > Powers (RIP) Bill. Continuing with a definition first brought in by the > Thatcher government to allow police to tap the phones of union members > in the 1985 British miners' strike, the Bill specifically designates > "conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose" to > be "a serious crime" justifying an interception of their private email > correspondence. The police requested that this measure be introduced in > a report into the demonstration that took place at the City of London as > part of an international day of protest actions on June > 18th last year. There were violent clashes between the police and this > initially non-violent demonstration. > > The group that organised the June 18th demonstration is a GreenNet user > and much of the organisation for the international protest took place > using GreenNet Internet facilities. If the RIP Bill had been in place > last year there seems little doubt that the police would have applied > for an order to force GreenNet to give them access to the private email > of people involved in the June 18th events. The police would almost > certainly have wanted a similar order over protest activities planned to > coincide with the Seattle WTO meeting. Under the RIP Bill, they will now > be able to obtain such facilities to spy on the activities of protest > groups. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will have to build > "interception capabilities" into their systems. When served with an > "interception warrant" they will be forced to intercept private email > and convey its contents to the police or various intelligence services. > Refusal to comply with a warrant will carry a maximum jail sentence of > two years. "Tipping-off" someone that their email is being read is > punishable by up to five years jail. > > This also applies to informing anyone not authorised to know about the > interception warrant. The warrant will initially be served on a named > individual within an ISP. They may inform only those other people they > need to help them implement the warrant and these, in turn, face the > same penalties for tipping-off. The only exception allowed is to consult > legal advisors. > > A separate section of the Bill deals with encryption. This provides for > "properly authorised persons (such as members of the law enforcement, > security and intelligence agencies) to serve written notices on > individuals or bodies requiring the surrender of information (such as a > decryption key) to enable them to understand (make intelligible) > protected material which they lawfully hold, or are likely to." > > Such an order can be served on anyone "there are reasonable grounds for > believing" has an encryption key. They could face two years jail for not > revealing the key and are also subject to the same possible five year > jail sentence as ISPs for informing someone that attempts are being made > by the authorities to read their email. This section of the Bill has > been widely condemned by civil liberties lawyers as reversing the > fundamental right of a person to be presumed innocent until proven > guilty and will almost certainly be challenged using the European > Convention on Human Rights. > > The British Bill is part of long term plans that have been developed > since 1993 to give law enforcement bodies around the world the ability > to intercept and read modern digital communications. In that year, the > FBI initiated an International Law Enforcement Telecommunications > Seminar (ILETS) for that purpose. The ILETS group has operated behind > the back of elected parliamentary bodies and within the European Union > its plans have been implemented through secret meetings of the Council > for Justice and Home Affairs (CJHA). > > An essential part of these plans involve international collaboration > between law enforcement bodies. Large sections of the RIP Bill deal with > "International mutual assistance agreements" to intercept > communications. Particular reference is made to a > "draft Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters" produced > within the CJHA. This Convention lays out plans for communications > taking place between individuals in one country to be intercepted in > another. The RIP Bill includes specific legislation "to enable the > United Kingdom to comply with the interception provisions in this > draft". The Bill's Explanatory Notes go on to say that "Although no > similar agreements are currently under negotiation, this subsection will > provide flexibility for the future". > > In fact, Hansard records of a debate on the draft Convention in the > House of Lords reveal that "it is hoped that in due course substantially > similar provisions will be adopted by members of the Council of Europe > and that there will be co-operation on similar lines with the United > States and Commonwealth countries" (Lord Hoffman. Moving a report on > behalf of the government. 7 May 1998). > > The Council of Europe has 41 member states and includes many countries > with extremely dubious democratic credentials and some very partisan > "law enforcement" bodies (Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Turkey, Russia, > etc). At the same time, the ILETS group at the centre of the plans for > international co-operation in communication interception includes Hong > Kong, now part of mainland China. > > In many of these countries, opposition to the government or just > fighting for democratic rights is regarded as "serious crime". Yet the > RIP Bill proposes open ended legislation to allow interception from the > UK of "communications of subjects on the territory of another country > according to the law of that country" at the request of "the competent > authority" in that country. > It even proposes that "Since no decision is being made on the merits of > the case...it is considered appropriate for these warrants to be issued > by senior officials rather than the Secretary of State." > > The RIP Bill is an extremely reactionary piece of legislation dressed up > with New Labour "spin" to make it appear as if it limits state spying on > citizens when it actually extends it dramatically. The Bill represents a > serious threat to the rights of those who use the Internet to campaign > on social justice issues, both in Britain and internationally. > Representation to the Home Office from GreenNet over this was > disregarded. Although GreenNet's submission was included on the Home > Office web site, the points we made were totally ignored in the Home > Office summary of submissions. We have been one of the most active ISPs > within the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) in expressing a > viewpoint on the Bill, yet we were not included in the 20 strong ISPA > delegation that the Home Office selected to meet. > > GreenNet intends working with sympathetic civil liberties groups, > lawyers, politicians and Internet policy organizations against the > passing of the Bill. We call for the widest possible international > support for this campaign from ISPs and user groups using the Internet > for social campaigning purposes. The RIP Bill represents a serious > threat to us all. Campaigning against it will be an important part of > the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) European Civil > Society Internet Rights Campaign, which GreenNet is playing a major role > in. > > Anyone who wants to help in this campaign please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Resources | Support | Services | Search | Contact | Home > © 1998 GreenNet UK > > > > I shall be organizing the campaign against the Bill for the Green Party > of England and Wales. Please get in touch if you would like to help. > > Chris Keene, Campaigns Committee, Green Party of England and Wales > 90 The Parkway, Canvey Island, Essex SS8 0AE > Tel 01268 682820 Fax 01268 514164 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Sent to you via the frendz list at marsbard.com The archive is at http://www.mail-archive.com/frendz@marsbard.com/