Incisive columnist and IT expert Colin Beveridge looks at a hot
issue of the day.I take my hat off to Paul Wey and I hope that he
doesn't end up in jail soon. Wey has hit the headlines for
publishing "sensitive" information on the Internet, attracting the
attention of our security services.
According to BBC reports, readers of his newsgroup are privy to
transcripts of purported radio conversations between members of the
Special Branch and other agencies, apparently intercepted by Paul
through the simple medium of a radio "scanner" - a device that
anybody can find and buy openly in London's Tottenham Court Road in
less than five minutes.
Mind you, having bought your scanner, you cannot legally use it in
this country because of the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1949. The
fact that legally you can buy a scanner but not use it is yet
another great example of the absence of joined-up thinking in our
legislation.
Why is it that so many of our laws seem to conflict with each other
and fail to pass even the rudimentary scrutiny of common sense? No
wonder so many lawyers enter politics - it's good for trade.
The irony of the present furore has not escaped me. Especially
after the home secretary's embarrassing U-turn, postponing the
introduction of controversial changes to the RIP (Regulation if
Investigatory Powers) Act - the so-called snooper's charter - which
would have allowed all sorts of unlikely bodies to access our
routine voice and data conversations; all in the cause of national
security.
It brought a wry smile to my face, therefore, when I realised that
Government agencies have now become the victims of intrusive
technology wielded by a member of the public. The biter has been
bitten.
Of course, some of the details published on the Internet by Paul
Wey are, undoubtedly, extremely sensitive, such as security
arrangements for members of the royal family and Government
ministers, and may well constitute a real security threat.
I regard that as a serious matter - but not quite as serious as the
fact that our allegedly security-conscious Government has failed to
eliminate the source of the threat in the first place - by using
secure communication networks that are not susceptible to
interception with freely available hardware.
For sure, we can also question Paul Wey's judgement in running his
newsgroup on the Web and the apparent impotence of the security
services to prevent such publication.
Quite simply, they claim, the Internet is outside their control -
the British government has no jurisdiction over Internet newsgroups
based in the US.
I would be more inclined to accept that argument, however, if I had
not just received a VAT bill from a US-based supplier for goods
ordered over the Internet.
A short time ago, the EU imposed its authority to make American
companies levy British value-added tax directly on all Web
transactions with British consumers - which just seems to prove my
suspicions that when it comes to Internet governance, national
security has a much, much lower priority than collecting VAT.
Has the Government got its priorities wrong? Tell us with an
email >>CW360.com reserves the right to edit
and publish answers on the Web site. Please state if your answer is
not for publication.Colin Beveridgeis an interim executive who has
held top-level roles in IT strategy, development services and
support. His travels along the blue-chip highway have taken him to
a clutch of leading corporations, including Shell, BP, ICI, DHL and
Powergen.