For me, this is the worst bit:<p><pre><code> 4 Extra-territoriality in Part 1 of RIPA
(1) Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
(communications) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 11 (implementation of interception warrants), after
subsection (2) insert –
- (2A) A copy of a warrant may be served under subsection (2) on a person
outside the United Kingdom (and may relate to conduct outside the
United Kingdom).
(3) In subsection (4) of that section, after "that person" insert
"(whether or not the person is in the United Kingdom)".
(5) In subsection (8) of that section, after "enforceable" insert
"(including in the case of a person outside the United Kingdom)".
(6) In section 12 (maintenance of interception capability), after subsection
(3) insert –
- (3A) An obligation may be imposed in accordance with an order under
this section on, and a notice under subsection (2) given to,
persons outside the United Kingdom (and may be so imposed or
given in relation to conduct outside the United Kingdom).
</code></pre>
I did some snipping to get rid of admin stuff, but those terms extend the authority of the UK home secretary to give him jurisdiction on ordering wiretapping outside of the UK. Section 11 of RIPA is about wiretaps, section 12 is about ensuring the ability to have wiretaps.<p>If this passes, the following will be law in the UK:<p><pre><code> (4) Where a copy of an interception warrant has been served by or on behalf
of the person to whom it is addressed on—
(a) a person who provides a postal service,
(b) a person who provides a public telecommunications service, or
(c) a person not falling within paragraph (b) who has control of the
whole or any part of a telecommunication system located wholly or
partly in the United Kingdom,it shall (subject to subsection (5))
be the duty of that person (whether or not the person is in the
United Kingdom) to take all such steps for giving effect to the
warrant as are notified to him by or on behalf of the person to
whom the warrant is addressed.
(8) A person’s duty under subsection (4) to take steps for giving effect to
a warrant shall be enforceable (including in the case of a person
outside the United Kingdom) by civil proceedings by the Secretary of
State for an injunction, or for specific performance of a statutory duty
under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988, or for any other
appropriate relief.
</code></pre>
To put it plainly, this act, if it passes, will allow the UK to seek civil redress against companies that have no link to the United Kingdom if they refuse to spy on their users, so long as they can argue that some part of the communications system is in the UK. To me, that reads like it will be valid if there are users in the UK.
If you're in the UK then you should contact your MP about this to let them know what you think. And you need to do it now - the vote is on Monday.
Perhaps if they realise what people think about this they might reconsider.<p>Contacting your MP is easy using <a href="https://www.writetothem.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.writetothem.com/</a> or the dedicated anti-DRIP page at ORG <a href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/no-emergency-stop-the-data-retention-stitch-up" rel="nofollow">https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/no-emergency-stop-...</a>
This bill[1] is of direct interest to non-UK people, because it 'clarifies' that the requests to intercept or for communications metadata are enforceable on companies outside the UK, and on ""internet based services, such as webmail" [2, paras 27,71].<p>(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer)<p>[1] <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/328939/draft-drip-bill.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...</a>
[2] <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/328940/draft-drip-notes.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...</a>
Giving a speech to the House of Commons today, the UK Home Secretary, Theresa May, made it clear that, in her view, the powers in the new legislation are still inadequate — saying they “will not tackle the wider problem of declining communications data capability” – bringing back the specter of a more wide-ranging ‘Snoopers’ Charter’ being introduced by a future Tory government.<p>In other words: They're just warming up.
> Which will only last until 2016.<p>If there's anything I've learned in life, it's that there's nothing more permanent than temporary laws.
Look forward to the argument "this bill just lets the security services keep doing what they're already doing" when this bill has to be renewed after the sunset date.
Even during an interview on BBC Radio 4 on Wednesday evening a government minister slipped in that the government need to keep an eye on catching paedophiles and serious organised crime. So this clearly isn't just for an immediate terrorist threat, they're just going through all the legislation that's been going a bit stale and rushing it through whilst the opinion polls don't really matter and all under false pretences or half truths.
As I understand it this law (passed or not) makes no difference to GCHQ who are probably collecting as much of this data as they can; and have exemptions written into existing laws; and etc etc.
I'm always a fan of "emergency powers" that infringe on the public's rights because they are "necessary" for "public safety". I'm sure the expiration time and a powerless oversight board will make all the difference, especially if you put a bunch of people on it that totally agree that the government have access to all things. No way this could ever lead to abuse. This is how the star power game is played[1].<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarPower_(game)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarPower_(game)</a>
> Prime Minister David Cameron and his Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will tell a special cabinet meeting on Thursday that emergency legislation is necessary to keep the country safe.<p>Safe from what, exactly?
I read that the EU ruled a similar EU wide law unlawful recently. Can they not do the same here? I always thought that although the UK can make it's own laws it couldn't override EU rulings.
> <i>"[E]mergency legislation is necessary to keep the country safe"</i><p>After the number of times US and UK spy agencies have been caught red-handed, do people really still buy this? Because that'd be the saddest part of all.
Looks like status quo as this is the response I got from Sky regarding data retention a couple of week ago: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7970165" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7970165</a>
The country where 1984 was written seems determined to make it factual history. Once a government decides it's fine and dandy to spy on its own (and others) it's unlikely to ever go backwards.
Which Billis this? Is this the Communications Data Bill that has been around for a while? I can't see anything in hansard remotely related to this.