Dissecting DRIP – the emergency Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

http://cyberleagle.blogspot.com/2014/07/dissecting-emergency-data-retention-and.html

by kmfrk • 12 years ago

46 11 12 years ago

cyberleagle.blogspot.com

rwmj2• 12 years ago

It's interesting that a 6 clause bill requires so much explanation. Here's another attempt (sorry, free registration wall: [1])

Partly this is because the clauses "patch" existing laws, and also pull in definitions from existing laws.

I honestly think the best thing would be to present the law as an actual computer program, and this bill as a patch file. We could apply it to our git repos and do a code review.

This is not a completely new (or mad) idea. See the Stanford University law center's CodeX project Project CALC [2].

[1] http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/07/11/drip-drip-d...

[2] http://web.stanford.edu/group/codex/cgi-bin/codex/

mjfisher• 12 years ago

That blog in [1] is a good read, so thanks for the link. If anyone wants to get around the required registration, pasting 'drip-drip-drip-the-emergency-surveillance-law-erodes-our-civil-liberties' into Google News search and following the link from there lets you read the blog post in full.

I don't know enough about the legal environment or the consequences of this legislation to really comment, but I do find the whole affair highly suspicious.

rayiner• 12 years ago

I understand the desire to use familiar tools, but if the U.K. works as the U.S. does, bills are already presented as patch files. In the U.S., for example, most "laws" are a list of amendments to the U.S. Code.

For example, here's a snippet from SOPA: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112Rt6...:

        (b) Title 18 Amendments- Section 2319 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

        (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking `during any 180-day period' and all that follows and insert `of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, or of at least 10 public performances by means of digital transmission, of 1 or more copyrighted works, during any 180-day period, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;';

        (2) in subsection (c)--

            (A) in paragraph (1), by striking `of 10 or more copies or phonorecords' and all that follows and inserting `including by electronic means, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, or of at least 10 public performances by means of digital transmission, of 1 or more copyrighted works, during any 180-day period, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;'; and

            (B) in paragraph (3), by striking `if the offense' and all that follows and inserting `in any other case;';

        (3) in subsection (d)(4), by striking `under paragraph (2)' and inserting `committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain under subsection (a)';

        (4) in subsection (f)--

            (A) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:

        `(2) the terms `reproduction', `distribution', and `public performance' refer to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under paragraphs (1), (3), (4), and (6), respectively, of section 106 (relating to exclusive rights in copyrighted works), as limited by sections 107 through 122, of title 17; and';

            (B) in paragraph (3), by striking `; and' and inserting a period; and

            (C) by striking paragraph (4); and

        (5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

rwmj2• 12 years ago

And that's exactly the point. This is the worst kind of patch file -- one that is barely understandable by humans, and that I can't just apply mechanically to the existing laws.

VBprogrammer• 12 years ago

I had the pleasure of speaking to a close advisor of Nick Clegg about these new regulations. He spoke at great length of the added protections which are being introduced as part of this bill.

While I'm still sceptical of the need for large scale surveillance I'm glad to see these regulations being moved from shady interpenetration of existing laws to being out in the open.

  - The Bill includes a termination clause that ensures the legislation falls at the end of 2016 and the next government is forced to look again at these powers.

  - Between now and 2016 we will hold a full view of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, to make recommendations for how it could be reformed and updated.

  - We will appoint a senior diplomat to lead discussions with the American government and the internet companies to establish a new international agreement for sharing data between legal jurisdictions.

  - We will establish a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board on the American model, to ensure that civil liberties are properly considered in the formulation of government policy on counter-terrorism. This will be based on David Anderson's existing role as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.

  - We will restrict the number of public bodies that are able to approach phone and internet companies and ask for communications data. Some bodies will lose their powers to access data altogether while local authorities will be required to go through a single central authority who will make the request on their behalf.

  - Finally, we will publish annual transparency reports, making more information publicly available than ever before on the way that surveillance powers operate.

Taken from here:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/jul/10/cameron...

pling• 12 years ago

What is said and what is done rarely have any relation in politics.

pjc502• 12 years ago

If it's not in the text of the Bill: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-data-retentio... then it's at best a sketchy promise and at worst an outright lie. I remember the "promise" to end tuition fees.

The only one of those that's actually in the text of the Bill is the termination clause.

Note that the previous regulations were not "shady interpenetration", they were fairly clear - the problem is that they violate Convention rights.

pjc502• 12 years ago

Note for Americans and other non-UK persons: if you're running any kind of service which involves "messages" or "communications", any of which are offered to persons in the UK, this bill would oblige you to comply silently with interception requests; or, concievably, face extradition.

(What would happen if the UK government actually tried to enforce that is anyone's guess, but it's what the Bill says.)

coldcode• 12 years ago

You can't pass laws that involve foreign citizens in their own countries to do your bidding. You either have to negotiate with that country, kidnap them in violation of international law (the US does this apparently) or start a war. Otherwise you just look like an idiot.

CapitalistCartr• 12 years ago

The US does all of this. We pass laws involving foreigners in their own countries, we pressure their governments to go along, we kidnap people and ship them to third-world prisons to be tortured, and we start wars. Pretty indiscriminately.

Canada• 12 years ago

I wonder which western country will be the first to attempt a ban on posession of any computing device without a government approved backdoor.

Dissecting DRIP – the emergency Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Related Stories