Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (1): BigBrother.gov.uk: State surveillance in the age of information and rights

Criminal Law Review

Volumn , Issue FEB., 2001, Pages 73-90

  Akdeniz, Yaman ^b   Taylor, Nick ^b   Walker, Clive ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044524837     PISSN: 0011135X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (127)

1. See Y. Akdeniz, C. Walker and D. Wall, The Internet, Law and Society (Longman, London, 2000).
2. See C. Dandeker, Surveillance, Power and Modernity (Polity Press, Cambridge, 1990);
3. D. Lyon, The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society (Polity Press, Cambridge, 1994);
4. S. Davies, Big Brother: Britain's Web of Surveillance and the New Technological Order (Pan, London, 1996);
5. D. Banisar, Privacy & Human Rights: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Developments (EPIC, Washington DC, 2000).
6. See HMIC, Policing with Intelligence (London, 1997/98);
7. JUSTICE, Under Surveillance (London, 1998);
8. Policing with Intelligence: Criminal Intelligence: HMIC Thematic Inspection Report on Good Practice 1997/98;
9. R.V. Ericson and K.D. Haggerry, Policing the Risk Society (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997).
10. See further N. Taylor and C. Walker, "Bugs in the System" (1996) 1 Journal of Civil Liberties 105;
11. E. A. Mohammed, "An examination of surveillance technology and their implications for privacy and related issues" (1999) (2) Journal of Information, Law & Technology;
12. P. M. Schwartz, "Privacy and democracy in cyberspace" (1999) 52 Vanderbilt Law Review 1609.
13. See Malone v. United Kingdom, Ser A 82, (1984) 7 E.H.R.R. 14.
14. See G. T. Marx, "Undercover" in C. Fijnault and G. T. Marx, Undercover - Police Surveillance in Comparative Perspective (Kluwer, Hague, 1995).
15. See Preston [1994] 2 A.C. 130 at pp.145-146 per Lord Mustill.
16. Parts I chapter I, II and IV are in force, but Part I chapter 2 is expected in mid 2001 and Part III in late 2001.
17. See generally L. Lustgarten, and I. Leigh, In from the Cold (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994). A "communication" can include the logging of numbers called: Morgans v. DPP [2000] 2 W.L.R. 386.
18. Cm. 4368. For responses, see http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/oicd/conslist2.htm, 1999.
19. See further Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999 SI no. 2093. Note also the European Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, Brussels, July 12, 2000, COM(2000) 385.
20. See C. Feather, "Interception of email" (http://www.davros.org/legal/interception.html, 1998).
21. W [1995] 1 A.C. 309.
22. Ahmed [1995] Crim.L.R. 246.
23. See Taylor-Sabori [1999] 1 All E.R. 160. It is possible that some of these forms of transmissions may still fall outside of RIPA and within the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, s.5: Lord Nolan, Report of the Commissioner for 1999: Interception of Communications Act 1985 (Cm. 4778, 2000) para. 24.
24. For a list, see http://www.oftel.gov.uk/oftlic_c.htm, 2000.
25. Home Office, Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom (Cm. 4368, 1999) p.i.
26. Source: Lord Nolan, Report of the Commissioner for 1999: Interception of Communications Act 1985 (Cm. 4778, 2000) Annex.
27. For example, in the Netherlands, there were 3284 tapping warrants in 1994: B.-J. Koops, The Crypto Controversy (Kluwer, Hague, 1999) p.76.
28. "Interception" and "transmission" of communications (but not postal items) are defined in section 2. "Communications" for these purposes do not include "traffic data", since they are regulated by Part 1 chapter 2. The territorial limitation of RIPA is explained by sections 2(4) and 20.
29. This responds to Halford v. UK, (1997) 24 E.H.R.R. 523; A v. France, Ser A 277/B. It replaces a Home Office Circular 15/1999, Interception of Non-Public Telecommunications Networks (1999).
30. Official Journal C 197 (2000), http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/133108.htm, arts 12, 13. See House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, 12th Report (1999-00 HL 93).
31. "Business" includes government departments and public authorities: section 4(7).
32. 2000 SI no. 2699. See http://www.dti.gov.uk/cii/lbpintro.htm. Compare OFTEL, Recording Telephone Conversations on Private Networks (London, 1999).
33. See the criticisms of the European Commission Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with respect to the processing of Personal Data, Recommendation 2/99 on the respect of privacy in the context of interception of telecommunications (5005/99/Final, 1999) para. 9.
34. See Draft Code Of Practice on the Use of Personal Data in Employer/Employee Relationships, Public Consultation Exercise, http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/dpr/dpdoc.nsf/, 2000.
35. See Owen and Stephen [1999] 1 W.L.R. 949.
36. But this may be disregarded for the interception of external communications under section 5(6): section 8(5).
37. Home Office, Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom (Cm. 4368, 1999) para. 7.6.
38. ibid. para. 7.13.
39. See P. Mirfield, "Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: Evidential Aspects" in this issue.
40. But there are broad exemptions from the wider requirements under the Data Protection Act 1998.
41. Home Office, Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom (Cm. 4368, 1999) para. 5.4.
42. A cost of £46bn was estimated by the British Chamber of Commerce, and Demon Internet has estimated extra running costs of up to 15% (http://www.dispatches.demon.net/ pr/1999/pr1999-08-19a.html. 1999). But the Home Office reckons that only around a dozen ISP (out of around 300) will be affected and estimates payments under section 14 as amounting to £20m over three years: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/bcc.htm, http:/ /www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/riapt1.htm, 2000.
43. See Home Office, Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom (Cm. 4368, 1999) paras 5.5., 5.6. The Secretary of State should also consult with the persons likely to be affected and bodies (such as OFTEL) which have related statutory functions: section 12(9).
44. JUSTICE, Under Surveillance (London, 1998) p.21,
45. Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill (London, 2000) para. 3.4. Compare Klass v. Germany, (1980) 2 E.H.R.R. 214; Huvig v. France, Ser A 176B para. 33.
46. Home Office, Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom (Cm. 4368, 1999) para. 7.2.
47. See ibid., para. 1.19; Response from Lord Bassam to open letter by Amnesty International (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/oicd/ripam.html, 2000).
48. The U.K. is the only signatory state to have entered a reservation from the Council of Europe Recommendation on the use of data in the police sector which requires a surveillance target to be notified after the event, unless to do so would prejudice the performance of police tasks. See, JUSTICE, Under Surveillance (London, 1998).
49. Klass v. Germany, loc. cit. (para. 58).
50. See Kopp v. Switzerland, App. no. 23224/94, 1998-II; Amann v. Switzerland, App. no. 27798/95, Judgment of February 16, 2000.
51. Interception of Communications Act 1985; Report of the Commissioner for 1998 (Cm. 4364, 1999) para. 14.
52. See RIPA, s.81. This is much the same as the definition given in the Police Act 1997, s.93(4).
53. JUSTICE, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill (London, 2000) para. 4.9.
54. RIPA, ss.71, 72. See Home Office, Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom (Cm. 4368, 1999) para. 7.16; http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/intofcom.htm, 2000, paras 3.7, 3.11.
55. See Niemietz v. FRG, (1993) 16 E.H.R.R. 97; S. Singleton, "E-mail, surveillance and work" (2000) 164 J.P. 698.
56. JUSTICE, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill (London, 2000) para. 3.8.
57. See R. v. Governor of Belmarsh Prison ex p. Martin [1995] 1 W.L.R. 412.
58. European Parliament written Question E-1402/98, 1999/C 13/043, C13/32 EN 18 January 1999.
59. See D. Campbell, "Echelon: Interception Capabilities 2000 Report" at http://www.cyber-rights.org/interception/stoa/stoa_cover.htm. But see RIPA, s.1(4).
60. RIPA, ss.73-75.
61. See M. Colvin, "Part III Police Act 1997" (1999) 149 N.L.J. 3111;
62. S. Uglow, "Covert surveillance and the European Convention on Human Rights" [1999] Crim.L.R. 287;
63. Home Office, Intrusive Surveillance Code of Practice (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/oicd/iscop.htm, 1999).
64. See B. Khela, "The luck of the Irish" (2000) The Lawyer June 26, p.28.
65. See The Times June 12 2000, p.4; http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/oicd/ripam.html, 2000.
66. See Foundation for Information Policy Research, http://www.fipr.org/rip/.
67. See Code of Practice on the Interception of Communications and Accessing Communications Data (http://www.ncis.co.uk/, 1999). Compare Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain, App no. 27671/95, 1998-V.
68. ACPO and ISP Industry, 1999, http:www.linx.net/misc/dpa28-3form.html. There were 18,000 such requests by Customs and Excise in the first quarter of 1998: http://www.home office.gov.uk/ripa/commdata.htm, 2000.
69. See Y. Akdeniz, "New Privacy Concerns: ISPs, Crime prevention, and Consumers' Rights" [2000] 14(1) International Review of Law, Computers and Technology 55.
70. The system would almost certainly fail under the European Convention standards set out in Huvig v. France, Ser A 176B; Kopp v. Switzerland, App. no. 23224/94, 1998-II; Kruslin v. France, Ser A 176A; Lambert v. France, App. no. 23618/94, 1998-V.
71. Home Office, Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom (Cm. 4368, 1999) para. 5.4.
72. Council Regulation on the Lawful Interception of Telecommunications 1995 O.J. 96/C/329; Memorandum of Understanding on the Lawful Interception of Communications EU JHA - Council, October 25, 1995.
73. JUSTICE, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill (London, 2000) para. 4.6.
74. Home Office, Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom (Cm. 4368, 1999) para. 10.9.
75. Data Protection Commissioner, Briefing For Parliamentarians on RIP, http://www. fipr.org/rip/DPCparlRIP.htm, 2000.
76. See especially Govell v. United Kingdom, App. no. 27237/95, [1997] E.H.R.L.R. 438; Khan v. U.K., App. no. 35394/97, [2000] Crim.L.R. 684, (2000) 5 Journal of Civil Liberties 338.
77. See RIPA, s.48.
78. See, JUSTICE, Under Surveillance (1998), p.19.
79. RIPA, s.26(5)(b).
80. See also Response of the Data Protection Commissioner to the Government's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill: A Briefing for Parliamentarians, (http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/dpr/ dpdoc.nsf, 2000) para. 10; Covert Surveillance Draft Code of Practice para. 2.7, available at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa.
81. It follows that most CCTV systems fall outside RIPA, despite raising many privacy concerns: Norris, C., Moran, J., and Armstrong, G. (eds.), Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control (Ashgate, Aldershot, 1998).
82. Niemietz v. Germany, loc. cit.
83. JUSTICE, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill Human Rights Audit, Surveillance and Society Seminar Series, University of Hull, April 18, 2000.
84. See, Malone v. U.K., loc. cit.
85. During the Committee Stage of the Bill it was suggested that intrusive surveillance should, so as to satisfy Article 8, be defined as taking place in circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Minister of State for the Home Office, Charles Clarke stated that such an amendment "would mean . . . that the police would have to know before each covert surveillance operation began where their target was likely to go and whether he might find himself in circumstances in which he or another could have a reasonable expectation of privacy". House of Commons Standing Committee F, March 30, 2000.
86. See, Response of the Data Protection Commissioner (2000) para. 11.
87. RIP (Prescription of Offices, Ranks and Positions) Order 2000 SI no. 2417.
88. The public authorities entitled to authorise directed surveillance are listed in Schedule 1 to the Act.
89. Covert Surveillance Draft Code of Practice, para. 3.10. See JUSTICE, Under Surveillance (London, 1998) p.22.
90. JUSTICE (Under Surveillance ibid., p.21) made the same comment in relation to the Police Act 1997.
91. (1999) 28 E.H.R.R. 101.
92. See further RIP (Source Records) Regulations 2000 SI no. 2725.
93. Kopp v. Switzerland, App. no. 23224/94, 1998-II.
94. Kruslin v. France, (1990) 12 E.H.R.R. 547.
95. DTI, Summary of Responses to Promoting Electronic Commerce: Consultation on Draft Legislation and the Government's Response to the Trade and Industry Committee's Report (Cm. 4417, 1999).
96. DTI, Promoting Electronic Commerce: Consultation on Draft Legislation and the Government's Response to the Trade and Industry Committee's Report (Cm. 4477, 1999) para. 20.
97. App. no. 27798/95, Judgment of February 16, 2000.
98. See DTI, Summary of Responses, loc. cit., para. 22.
99. Draft Code of Practice, on Part III of the RIP Bill, Investigation of electronic data protected by encryption etc, 10 July, 2000, at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/oicd/ripbill.htm.
100. For an analysis of the Draft Code see Gladman, B., Comments on Draft Home Office Code of Practice on Part III, 11 July, 2000, at http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/p3copcom.pdf.
101. ibid., para. 8.10.
102. See Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK), "A Critique of Part III, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill" (http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/part-iii.htm, 2000).
103. See RIPA, s.51(2), Sched. 2.
104. For a critique, see B. Gladman, "Provisions for Government Access to Keys" (http:/ /www.fipr.org/rip/RIPGAKBG.pdf, 2000),
105. and "Annotated Guide" (http://www.npr.org/rip/ BG_pIIIc.pdf, 2000).
106. For the draft Code of Practice, on Part III of the RIP Bill, 2000, see B. Gladman, "Comments on Draft Home Office Code of Practice on Part III" (http://www.cyber-rights.org/ reports/p3copcom.pdf, 2000).
107. See Funke v. France, (1993) 6 E.H.R.R. 297; Salabiaku v. France, (1988) 13 E.H.R.R. 379; Murray (John) v. UK, Appl. no. 18731/91, 1996-I, (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 29; Sounders v. UK, App. no. 19187/91, 1996-VI, (1997) 23 E.H.R.R. 313; Serves v. France, App. no. 20225/92, Reports 1997-VI, (1999) 28 E.H.R.R. 265.
108. This section was first proposed in the Performance and Innovation Unit of the Cabinet Office report, Encryption and Law Enforcement, CABI 199-4 278/9905/D16, at http:/ /www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/Innovation/1999/encryption/index.htm, 1999;
109. and was included within the draft Electronic Communications Bill (see DTI's, Promoting Electronic Commerce: Consultation on Draft Legislation and the Government's Response to the Trade and Industry Committee's Report (Cm. 4477, 1999)).
110. Clause 10. See generally DTI, Promoting Electronic Commerce: Consultation on Draft, loc. cit., para. 4.10.13.
111. Lord Bassam, House of Lords Debates, vol. 614 col. 972, June 28, 2000.
112. Compare Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK), A Further Open Letter to the House of Lords concerning the RIP Bill, http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/hl-let2.htm, 2000.
113. See Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK), "A Critique of Part III, RIP Bill" at http:/ /www.cyber-rights.org/reports/part-iii.htm, 2000.
114. Draft Code of Practice, on Part III of the RIP Bill, 2000 para. 11.9.
115. Per Lord Bassam, House of Lords Debates, vol. 615 col. 1073, July 19, 2000.
116. House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee, Fourteenth Report on the Draft Electronic Communications Bill, (1999-00 HC 862) para. 34. Note the Government Response, Third Special Report of the Trade and Industry Committee, (1999-00 HC 199).
117. See further The Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland. Belfast: Northern Ireland Office, Belfast, 1999.
118. See further the Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2000 SI no. 2665. The Tribunal replaces those under the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994, as well as recourse to the Surveillance Commissioners under the Police Act 1997, s.102: RIPA, s.70(2).
119. Home Office, Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom (Cm. 4368, 1999) para. 1.9.
120. ibid., para. 2.10.
121. Christie v. United Kingdom, App. no. 21482/93, 78A D&R; Esbester v. United Kingdom, App. no. 18601/91; Hewitt and Harman (no. 1), App. no. 12175/86; Hewitt and Harman (no. 2), App. no. 20317/92; Redgrave v. United Kingdom, App. no. 20271/92; Preston v. UK, App. no. 24193/94.
122. See Chahal v. UK, (1996) 23 E.H.R.R. 413; Tinnelly v. UK, (1999) 27 E.H.R.R. 249. Compare Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.
123. JUSTICE, Under Surveillance (London, 1998) pp.15, 19.
124. Home Office, Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom (Cm. 4368, 1999) paras 4.1, 4.5.
125. Consider here the permissive nature of Part II and also the retention of unspecified residual powers in RIPA, s.80.
126. Council of Europe, Recommendation R(99)5, Guidelines for the protection of individuals with regard to the collection and processing of personal data on information highways, http://www.coe.fr/dataprotection/elignes.htm, 1999.
127. HC Debs, vol. 345 col. 767, March 6, 2000, Jack Straw.