RIP gets Royal Assent
01 June 2000
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act got the Royal Assent on 28 July (see Statewatch, vol 10 no 1). Much of the public debate on the RIP Bill centred on the important provisions in Part III on encryption. Little attention was paid to Parts I (interception of telephones and mail) and II (covert surveillance, including "induced" informants) - the latter legitimising previously unlawful practices.
During the debate on the Bill a number of issues were highlighted. On Part III encryption it became clear that "black boxes" (similar to "Carnivore") could be placed in internet service providers at the behest of a law enforcement agency. Equally illuminating was the admission by Lord Bassam, Home Office Minister, in response to Andrew Phillips, Liberal Democrat peer, that GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) will gain new powers. Until now GCHQ was only authorised, by ministerial warrant, to intercept domestic communications if there was a suspicion of terrorist activity. Lord Bassam for the government admitted GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 can lawfully intercept internal communications even when a warrant specifies only external ones. Referring specifically to e-mails and mobile phones he said: "it is not possible to intercept the external communications.. without intercepting internal ones as well."
There was also a certain amount of confusion over encryption, handing over keys and access to e-mails. Some argued that businesses and others would take their trade to other EU countries if this was not changed. In fact many of the key features in the RIP Bill, including these, are ones all member states of the EU are signed up to enforce under the combination of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in criminal matters (adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Brussels on 29 May; it now has to be ratified by national parliaments) and the "Requirements" to meet the needs of the "law enforcement agencies" (the start of the EU-FBI telecommunications surveillance system) agreed on 17 January 1995.
The admission in the final debate in the House of Commons by Charles Clarke, Home Office Minister, that the government did not realise when it drew up the Bill how many agencies would be allowed to carry out "directed surveillance" (Article 28) or make use of "covert human intelligence sources" (Article 29). The Act distinguishes between "directed surveillance" and intrusive surveillance" with the latter involving the presence of an informers or listening/recording devices actually in the premises/home. "Directed surveillance" is distinguished from "intrusive surveillance" where it involves putting a tracking device in a vehicle or if surveillance, eg microphones, video cameras is carried out by a device not actually in the vehicles or premises/home. "Covert human intelligence" includes undercover police or Special Branch officers or informants ("induced" or voluntary). For the latter the agencies which are able to authorise the use of "covert" sources are:
Health and Safety Executive
A Health Authority
A Special Health Authority
A NHS Trust
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
For both Articles 28 and 29 the following agencies, Ministries and bodies under them can authorise surveillance:
Any police force
National Criminal Intelligence Service
National Crime Squad
Fraud Office
Any of the intelligence agencies (GCHG, MI5 and MI6)
Any of Her Majesty's Forces
Commissioners of Customs and Excise
Commissioners of Inland Revenue
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Ministry of Defence
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Department of Health
Home Office
Department of Social Security
Department of Trade and Industry
National Assembly for Wales
Any local authority
Environment Agency
Financial Services Authority
Food Standards Authority
Intervention Board for Agricultural
Produce Personal Investment Authority
Post Office
No wonder the Minister was surprised at the i