Dictionary Thesaurus Word Dynamo Quotes Reference Translator Spanish

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIP or RIPA) is a United Kingdom law regulating the powers of public bodies to carry out surveillance and investigation, and covering the interception of communications. It was introduced to take account of technological change such as the growth of the Internet and strong encryption. The long title of the Act is:

An Act to make provision for and about the interception of communications, the acquisition and disclosure of data relating to communications, the carrying out of surveillance, the use of covert human intelligence sources and the acquisition of the means by which electronic data protected by encryption or passwords may be decrypted or accessed; to provide for the establishment of a tribunal with jurisdiction in relation to those matters, to entries on and interferences with property or with wireless telegraphy and to the carrying out of their functions by the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters; and for connected purposes.

RIPA can be invoked by government officials specified in the Act on the grounds of national security, and for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime, preventing disorder, public safety, protecting public health, or in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 9, 2000 and completed its Parliamentary passage on July 26. The Bill received Royal Assent on July 28.

In September 2003, Home Secretary David Blunkett announced wide-ranging extensions to the list of those entitled to see information collected under the RIPA. The list now includes jobcentres, local councils, and the Chief Inspector of Schools. Civil rights and privacy campaigners have dubbed these extensions a "snoopers' charter". At the passing of the act only nine organisations (including the police and security services) were allowed to invoke it, but as of 2008, it was 792 organizations (including 474 councils).

Summary

The RIPA allows the government to access a person's electronic communications. The Act:

Enables the government to demand that an ISP provides access to a customer's communications in secret;
Enables mass surveillance of communications in transit;
Enables the government to demand ISPs fit equipment to facilitate surveillance;
Enables the government to demand that someone hands over keys to protected information;
Allows the government to monitor people's internet activities;
Prevents the existence of interception warrants and any data collected with them from being revealed in court

Controversy

Critics claim that the spectres of terrorism, internet crime and paedophilia were used to push the act through and that there was little substantive debate in the House of Commons. The act has numerous critics, many of who regard the RIPA regulations as excessive and a threat to civil liberties in the UK. Critics such as Keith Vaz, the chairman of the House of Commons home affairs committee, have expressed concern that the act is being abused for "petty and vindictive" cases. Similarly, Brian Binley, MP for Northampton South has urged councils to stop using the law, accusing them of acting like comic strip detective Dick Tracy

In April 2008, it became known that council officials in Dorset put three children and their parents under surveillance, governed by RIPA, at home and in their daily movements to check whether they lived in a particular school catchment area. This was in the context of rules which allow people who live in the school catchment area to enjoy advantages in obtaining a place at a popular school. The same council put fishermen under covert surveillance to check for the illegal harvesting of cockles and clams in ways that are regulated by RIPA. Other councils in the UK have conducted undercover operations regulated by RIPA against dog fouling and fly-tipping. According to the Daily Telegraph newspaper, local councils are conducting over a thousand RIPA-based covert surveillance operations every month for petty offences such as under-age smoking and breaches of planning regulations. David Smith, deputy commissioner at the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) has stated that he is concerned about the surveillance which has taken place in Poole. In June 2008, the chairman of the Local Government Association, Sir Simon Milton, sent out a letter to the leaders of every council in England, urging local governments not to use the new powers granted by RIPA "for trivial matters", and suggested "reviewing these powers annually by an appropriate scrutiny committee".

Especially contentious was Part III of the Act which (under some circumstances) might require persons to supply the cryptographic key to a duly authorised person if the actual decrypted traffic was not supplied. Failure to disclose decrypted traffic (or if appropriate the relevant key) would be a criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of two years in jail. Using the mechanism of secondary legislation, some parts of the Act required activation by a ministerial order before attaining legal force. Such orders have been made in respect of the relevant sections of Part I and Part II of the RIP Act and Part III. The latter became active in October 2007. The first case where the powers were used was against animal rights activists in November 2007. It has been suggested that the "plausible deniability" features in free software such as FreeOTFE, TrueCrypt and BestCrypt will make the task of investigations featuring RIPA much more difficult.

Critics claim that the provisions of Part III are too complex, and possibly unworkable, and that this might be a reason for government reluctance to activate this part of the legislation. Another possibility is that the government wishes to have the powers in reserve, such that if they were deemed necessary they could be implemented more quickly and easily than if new primary legislation were required. Another possibility is that relevant government agencies might reasonably believe that it is easier to use pre-existing judicial procedures to compel production of evidence rather than the more cumbersome and difficult procedures that ultimately found their way into Part III.

Another objection is that the Act requires sufficiently large UK Internet Service Providers to install technical systems to assist law enforcement agencies with interception activity. Although this equipment must be installed at the ISPs' expense, RIPA does provide that Parliament will examine appropriate funding for ISPs if the cost burden became unfairly high.