FIPR Press Release 3/4/01: FOR IMMEDIATE USE ========================== Foundation for Information Policy Research Contact: Caspar Bowden Tel: +44(0)20 7354 2333 Official spy watchdog excoriates operation of RIP Tribunal ---------------------------------------------------------- The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) wrote to the Prime Minister in December to complain that the official body supposed to investigate complaints arising from the UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act was unable "even to open the mail, let alone process and investigate complaints". The RIP Act 2000 can compel ISPs to install "black-boxes" to relay Internet wiretaps to a monitoring centre in the MI5 building. New trawling warrants (http://www.fipr.org/rip/index.html#Overlapping) permit mass-surveillance of communications, targeted against persons inside the UK, which may effectively require ISPs and telcos to connect their backbones to ECHELON. From October, failure to provide a decryption key in connection with any crime can be punished by two years imprisonment, and any public authority may seek a court order demanding decryption even from those not suspected of any crime. "Decryption notices" can be served with a lifetime gagging order prohibiting public protest, punishable with five years imprisonment if breached. The only redress against abuse of these powers is from the Tribunal. In their pre-election interim report, the ISC say the Prime Minister had told them "steps were now being taken" but the post-election ISC would need to "examine progress" (several members are retiring including the Chairman Tom King, whose contribution to the RIP 2nd Reading debate confused the idea of decryption with transcription - 6 Mar 2000 : Column 802 http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo000 306/debtext/00306-15.htm). During the debate on the report Alan Beith MP (ISC member) said the Tribunal was "quite incapable of carrying out its job" with its "tiny" support staff, a situation he found "ludicrous". The Tribunal was "Britain's defence in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), so that an individual who believes that his civil liberties are being damaged has a mechanism through which he can appeal. If those involved in that mechanism cannot even open his letter - let alone process it or put it in front of the judicial authority who is to adjudicate upon it - we are not providing a safeguard that should be there" (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/cm01 0329/debtext/10329-17.htm#10329-17_spnew2) Quotes: ======= Caspar Bowden, director of Internet Policy think-tank FIPR commented: "The official parliamentary watchdog has exposed the complaints mechanism as a sham, and a senior member has highlighted its inadequacy under the European Convention of Human Rights. How long has this state of affairs obtained? All we know is that over the past fifteen years, out of six hundred complaints, the Tribunal only investigated eight." (source: 1.9 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/oicd/intera.htm#Chapter%201) The membership and rules of the Tribunal were published last September and provide : a) that evidence from the complainant and the authorities are taken in separate hearings b) no right of cross-examination of the testimony of the authorities c) no right for the complainant to receive a summary of the secret evidence d) no representation of the complainant's interest by a "special advocate", as appeared in the original Draft Electronic Communications Bill 1999 (where decryption powers first appeared). The Commons held their annual debate on the work of the ISC on 29/3/01, however the report itself was not published (on the web) by the Cabinet Office (the responsible department) until four days later. Web publication of previous reports has sometimes been delayed months. Full details and links to referenced reports are at http://www.fipr.org/rip/index.html#PaperKnife on the RIP Information Centre website. Notes for Editors ----------------- 1. The Foundation for Information Policy Research (www.fipr.org), is a non-profit think-tank for Internet policy, governed by an independent Board of Trustees with an Advisory Council of experts. FIPR's analysis of the RIP Act stimulated media debate, and led to amendments ensuring that people who lose keys or forget passwords are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and preventing casual surveillance of web browsing without a warrant. 2. The ISC Committee (http://www.fipr.org/rip/index.html#ISC) was established by the 1994 Intelligence Services Act to provide parliamentary oversight over GCHQ, MI5, and MI6. It lacks the powers of a Select Committee, and its terms of reference considerably limit the scope of its inquiries. It reports to the Prime Minister not to Parliament, and members are appointed by the Prime Minister. 3. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal subsumed several previous Tribunals which separately dealt with complaints against different Agencies using various powers, an early concession made during RIP's troubled passage through the Commons. It is quorate with just two of its members sitting: Lord Justice Mummery (President), Sir Michael Burton (vice-president), Sheriff Principal John Colin McInnes QC, Sir David Calcutt QC, Sir Richard Gaskell, Mr Robert Seabrook QC, Mr Peter Scott QC and Mr William Carmichael. 4. A Commons debate is timed to coincide with the publication of the ISC annual report. The ISC Interim Report 2000-2001 is at: http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm51/5126/5126.htm