Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long title:
Statute book chapter: 2000 c.23
Dates
Date of Royal Assent: 28 July 2000
Status: Unknown
Text of statute as originally enacted
Official text of the statute as amended and in force today within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c.23) (RIP or RIPA) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, regulating the powers of public bodies to carry out surveillance and investigation, and covering the interception of communications. It was introduced to take account of technological change such as the growth of the Internet and strong encryption.

RIPA can be invoked by government officials specified in the Act on the grounds of national security, and for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime, preventing disorder, public safety, protecting public health, or in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 9, 2000 and completed its Parliamentary passage on July 26.

In September 2003, Home Secretary David Blunkett announced wide-ranging extensions to the list of those entitled to see information collected under the RIPA. The list now includes jobcentres, local councils, and the Chief Inspector of Schools. Civil rights and privacy campaigners have dubbed these extensions a "snoopers' charter". At the passing of the act only nine organisations (including the police and security services) were allowed to invoke it, but as of 2008, it was 792 organizations (including 474 councils).[1]

Contents

[edit] Summary

The RIPA regulates the manner in which certain public bodies may conduct surveillance and access a person's electronic communications. The Act:

  • enables certain public bodies to demand that an ISP provide access to a customer's communications in secret;
  • enables mass surveillance of communications in transit;
  • enables certain public bodies to demand ISPs fit equipment to facilitate surveillance;
  • enables certain public bodies to demand that someone hand over keys to protected information;
  • allows certain public bodies to monitor people's internet activities;
  • prevents the existence of interception warrants and any data collected with them from being revealed in court.

[edit] Powers

Type Typical use Reasons for use Type of public authority permitted to use Level of authorisation required
Interception of a communication Wire taps and reading post In the interests of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime and for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom Defence Intelligence Staff, GCHQ, HM Revenue and Customs, Secret Intelligence Service, Security Service and territorial police forces of Scotland Warrant from Home Secretary or Cabinet Secretary for Justice
Use of communications data Information about a communication, but not the content of that communication (phone numbers, subscriber details) In the interests of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder, in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, in the interests of public safety, for the purpose of protecting public health, for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department and for the purpose, in an emergency, of preventing death or injury or any damage to a person’s physical or mental health, or of mitigating any injury or damage to a person’s physical or mental health. As listed below Senior member of that authority
Directed surveillance Following people In the interests of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder, in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, in the interests of public safety, for the purpose of protecting public health and for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department. As listed below Senior member of that authority
Covert human intelligence sources Informers In the interests of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder, in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, in the interests of public safety, for the purpose of protecting public health and for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department. As listed below Senior member of that authority
Intrusive surveillance Bugging houses/vehicles In the interests of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime and in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. GCHQ, Secret Intelligence Service, Security Service, Ministry of Defence, armed forces, Her Majesty's Prison Service or Northern Ireland Prison Service.

The territorial police forces, the Ministry of Defence Police, the British Transport Police, the Royal Navy Regulating Branch, Royal Military Police, Royal Air Force Police and HM Revenue and Customs.
Authorisation from Home Secretary or Cabinet Secretary for Justice




Authorisation from the head of the relevant agency: chief constable of any of the territorial police forces, the Ministry of Defence Police or the British Transport Police, the Provost Marshals of the Royal Navy Regulating Branch, Royal Military Police or the Royal Air Force Police and any customs officer designated for the purposes by the Commissioners of Revenue and Customs.

[edit] Agencies with investigative powers

[edit] Communications data

The type of communications data that can be accessed varies with the reason for its use, and cannot be adequately explained here. Refer to the legislation for more specific information.

[edit] Directed surveillance & covert human intelligence sources

The reasons for which the use of directed surveillance & covert human intelligence sources is permitted vary with each authority. Refer to the legislation for more specific information.

[edit] Directed surveillance

The reasons for which the use of directed surveillance is permitted vary with each authority. Refer to the legislation for more specific information.

[edit] Controversy

Critics claim that the spectres of terrorism, internet crime and paedophilia were used to push the act through and that there was little substantive debate in the House of Commons. The act has numerous critics, many of whom regard the RIPA regulations as excessive and a threat to civil liberties in the UK. Critics such as Keith Vaz, the chairman of the House of Commons home affairs committee, have expressed concern that the act is being abused for "petty and vindictive" cases.[1] Similarly, Brian Binley, MP for Northampton South has urged councils to stop using the law, accusing them of acting like comic strip detective Dick Tracy.[2]

In April 2008, it became known that council officials in Dorset put three children and their parents under surveillance, governed by RIPA, at home and in their daily movements to check whether they lived in a particular school catchment area.[3][4] This was in the context of rules which allow people who live in the school catchment area to enjoy advantages in obtaining a place at a popular school. The same council put fishermen under covert surveillance to check for the illegal harvesting of cockles and clams[5] in ways that are regulated by RIPA. Other councils in the UK have conducted undercover operations regulated by RIPA against dog fouling and fly-tipping.[1] According to the Daily Telegraph newspaper, local councils are conducting over a thousand RIPA-based covert surveillance operations every month for petty offences such as under-age smoking and breaches of planning regulations.[1] David Smith, deputy commissioner at the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) has stated that he is concerned about the surveillance which has taken place in Poole.[6] In June 2008, the chairman of the Local Government Association, Sir Simon Milton, sent out a letter to the leaders of every council in England, urging local governments not to use the new powers granted by RIPA "for trivial matters", and suggested "reviewing these powers annually by an appropriate scrutiny committee".[7]

Especially contentious was Part III of the Act, which requires persons to supply decrypted information (which had been previously encrypted by the owner) and/or the cryptographic key to government representatives. Failure to disclose these items is a criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of two years in jail. Using the mechanism of secondary legislation, some parts of the Act required activation by a ministerial order before attaining legal force. Such orders have been made in respect of the relevant sections of Part I and Part II of the RIP Act and Part III. The latter became active in October 2007.[8] The first case where the powers were used was against animal rights activists in November 2007.[9] It has been suggested that the "plausible deniability" features in free software such as FreeOTFE, TrueCrypt and BestCrypt will make the task of investigations featuring RIPA much more difficult.

Critics claim that the provisions of Part III are too complex, and possibly unworkable, and that this might be a reason for government reluctance to activate this part of the legislation.[citation needed] Another possibility is that the government wishes to have the powers in reserve, such that if they were deemed necessary they could be implemented more quickly and easily than if new primary legislation were required.[citation needed] Another possibility is that relevant government agencies might reasonably believe that it is easier to use pre-existing judicial procedures to compel production of evidence rather than the more cumbersome and difficult procedures that ultimately found their way into Part III.[citation needed]

Another objection is that the Act requires sufficiently large UK Internet Service Providers to install technical systems to assist law enforcement agencies with interception activity. Although this equipment must be installed at the ISPs' expense, RIPA does provide that Parliament will examine appropriate funding for ISPs if the cost burden became unfairly high.

[edit] Prosecutions under the RIPA

A number of offences have been prosecuted involving the abuse of investigatory powers. Widely reported cases include the Stanford/Liddell case, the Goodman/Mulcaire Royal voicemail interception, and Operation Barbatus.

Cliff Stanford, and George Nelson Liddell pleaded guilty to offences under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (and the Computer Misuse Act) in 2005. They were found to have intercepted emails at the company Redbus Interhouse[10]. Stanford was sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for two years, and fined £20,000. It was alleged Stanford had intercepted emails between Dame Shirley Porter and John Porter (Chairman of Redbus Interhouse). [11] In 2007, News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman was sentenced to four months in jail for intercepting the voicemail of members of the Royal Family[12]. His partner Glenn Mulcaire received a six month sentence.

In 2007, Operation Barbatus exposed a sophisticated criminal surveillance business organised by corrupt police officers.[13] A former Metropolitan Police officer, Jeremy Young was jailed for 27 months for various offences including six counts of conspiracy to intercept communications unlawfully[14]. A second former policeman Scott Gelsthorpe, was sentenced to 24 months for offences including conspiracy to intercept communications unlawfully. 3 other former police officers and a private detective were also jailed for their part in running a private detective agency called Active Investigation Services[15].

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c d Gordon Rayner and Richard Alleyne: Council spy cases hit 1,000 a month. The Daily Telegraph, April 14, 2008
  2. ^ "Council 'acted like Dick Tracy'". BBC News. 2008-05-22. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/7414382.stm. Retrieved on 2009-01-05. 
  3. ^ "Family's shock at council spying". BBC News. 2008-04-10. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7341179.stm. Retrieved on 2009-01-05. 
  4. ^ Council admits spying on family, BBC 11th April 2008
  5. ^ Spying council targets fishermen , BBC News 13 May 2008
  6. ^ Spying council to be investigated BBC News, 28 May 2008
  7. ^ Review urged on RIPA surveillance powers. LGA media release 23 June 2008
  8. ^ Kirk, Jeremy (October 1, 2007). "Contested UK encryption disclosure law takes effect". PC World. Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100100511.html. Retrieved on 2009-01-05. 
  9. ^ Ward, Mark (2007-11-20). "Campaigners hit by decryption law". BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7102180.stm. Retrieved on 2009-01-05. 
  10. ^ "Redbus and Demon founder denied RIPA appeal • The Register". www.theregister.co.uk. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/03/redbus_founder_denied_ripa_appeal/. Retrieved on 2009-05-27. 
  11. ^ "Tycoon fined for e-mail spying". Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article567117.ece. Retrieved on 2009-05-27. 
  12. ^ "Clive Goodman sentenced to four months". Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jan/26/newsoftheworld.pressandpublishing1. Retrieved on 2009-05-27. 
  13. ^ "'Network' of police linked to private eyes". BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7034317.stm. Retrieved on 2009-05-27. 
  14. ^ "Six men jailed for misconduct". Metropolitan Police. http://cms.met.police.uk/news/convictions/six_men_jailed_for_misconduct. Retrieved on 2009-05-27. 
  15. ^ "Former police private eyes jailed". BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7033935.stm. Retrieved on 2009-05-27. 

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

Personal tools
Languages