dade72 - Fotolia

Fight against Investigatory Powers Bill may not be over

Labour's shadow home secretary Diane Abbott says that wider society must now debate the controversial Investigatory Powers Bill, despite Parliamentary approval

One of the most unfortunate facets of the Investigatory Powers (IP) Bill is that it contains a series of provisions relating to data, technology and internet-based companies which may be difficult for non-experts to grasp.

Added to that are claims from the government that these new, fairly draconian measures contained in the bill are necessary for national security. So it is no surprise that so many members of Parliament are willing to lend their support.

The IP Bill now looks set to become law. It was introduced with cross-party support and, despite the objections of many stakeholders, will be adopted in that fashion.

It is not just civil liberties’ organisations that have objected. Trade unions have too, especially the National Union of Journalists, along with the Society of Editors and many tech companies large and small.

Public bodies can conduct mass surveillance of data

All of their objections are important in themselves, but they are also related. In effect, the legislation allows the mass trawl of internet data and other records merely on the basis of suspicion of any crime, not just serious or terrorist crime.

A large number of public agencies will then be able to handle and to pass on that data, without either the internet service provider (ISP) or the target being informed.

At the same time, all voluntary organisations will be obliged to keep an “open door” for the security agencies, police and others to access their systems. As we know, this is too often an open door to the hackers as well. Either you have encryption, or you don’t.

This systematic transfer of powers to state bodies could have a wide-ranging commercial impact too. All companies handling data in the UK are only allowed to operate in the EU courtesy of a “data passport”, which recognises the equivalence of data protection regimes throughout the EU. But given the sweeping powers allowed in the IP Bill, many firms are concerned that the data passport would be withdrawn.

Internet companies may lose business in the EU

At that point, some very difficult choices will be faced by everyone from small internet startups to some of the giant global internet firms that have been established here. They may lose substantial business in the EU, or may choose to relocate here. In either event, jobs here could be under threat.

It is not clear that colleagues who have allowed these measures to go through, almost on the nod, fully understand these consequences of the IP Bill.

But that may not be the end of the matter. The IP Bill has a less draconian predecessor, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (Dripa), which has been subject to legal challenge at the European Court of Justice (ECJ). It has not been used in a high-tech operation to target criminal masterminds and terrorist networks. There were well over half a million requests for data in 2014 alone.

Legal challenges against IP Bill likely

The interim judgement at the ECJ is highly critical of Dripa, which is less oppressive than the IP Bill. It seems likely that the ECJ will find against the government. Sections of Dripa could be struck down.

If that occurs, some form of legal challenge against the IP Bill seems highly likely once it becomes law. This could be a call for judicial review, or may result in another legal case.

It is now too late in the Parliamentary process to fundamentally alter the character of the legislation. But while the debate in the Parliament on the IP Bill may be drawing to a close, the arguments in wider society may be just beginning.

Read more about the Investigatory Powers Bill


Diane Abbott MP is the shadow home secretary, and Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington.

This was last published in November 2016

CW+

Features

Enjoy the benefits of CW+ membership, learn more and join.

Read more on Privacy and data protection

Join the conversation

4 comments

Send me notifications when other members comment.

By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy

Please create a username to comment.

Well Diane, I imagine if you'd been more proactive and actually voted during the second and third readings then maybe we could have avoided this mess? 

After all, by virtue of writing this article, shouldn't you have made sure that other (Labour) MPs 'understood the consequences of the IP Bill' and voted against it?

Instead you have simply shirked your responsibility and passed the buck onto us - the 'wider society'. Unfortunately your concern is disingenuous, marred by your record, so forgive me for finding this rather hard to swallow. 

Thanks for nothing! 

 
Cancel
There are a number of issues why this bill is fundermentally flawed.

This is a political cover all to amaglamate previous law debated and thrown out for political reasons disconnected with national security.
Diane is right MPs dont have any ability to understand the business reprocussions of this bill.

The government has already has powers to spy on people with no significant case for requiring more ever proven under national security. Ironically the legislation appears to strengthen the techniques of data cloaking by enemies of the state which will lead to a future position where the government will have less information than it does now.

As Trump points out mass surveillance of everyones data means that hackers will be able to own all data once a breach occurres leading to a less sure position in times of war and cybersecurity.
Everything from political parties spying on each other at election time undermining our democratic rights and manipulating the out comes to referendums.

Practical considerations are wide spread but analyst points out that this legislation has significant funding requirements by central government at a time there is no funding available.

A 2 mbs broard band connection will escalate in cost by twice in the next five years as ISPs try to pass the cost of regulated storage to some of the poorest in society. The MPs much talked about 30 mbs connection will increase storage costs for such connections by 120% in five years.
All government telemedicine programs and public services electronic programs could be terminated at costs to the tax payer of billions of pounds. The forcast is that ISPs will move offshore outside the scope of this bill to save the substantial regulatory costs generated.

In terms of commercal data integraty. This will likely effect job production in the UK and add a new level of cyberfraud risks to doing business.

Clearly its base flawed assumption is that cyber security is a single tool based on the premis that it is a linear projected relationship between data and information.


Cancel
One should not confuse mass data collection with mass surveillance. Targeted surveillance requires mass data collection. It is clear that most opposition to the IPB is based on a lack of understanding.
Cancel
This is economically and politically unworkable and will cost a loss in national wealth and employment.Clearly the question to be settled is what happens to data protection after britexit? Should we allow american corporations have our industrial and medical files for commercial gain? Clearly the judicary need a roll to protect the vulnerable again this potential mass market failure and grant only surveillance powers to those who threaten the security of the state.The threat to spend all our time,military budget, and national wealth on storage of data is very worrying. There are more pressing needs to look after the elderly, blind, terminally ill, and educate the workforce.
Cancel

-ADS BY GOOGLE

SearchCIO

SearchSecurity

SearchNetworking

SearchDataCenter

SearchDataManagement

Close