MPs say Britain's proposed spying law is confusing and will damage UK businesses
MPs have expressed their misgivings about Britain's proposed new spying law in a critical report.
There are concerns that the Investigatory Powers Bill as it currently stands is too vague about key terms, and this is worrying businesses that could be affected by it.
The report, released by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, warns that the "cost of [the] investigatory powers bill could undermine [the] UK tech sector."
Announcing the report, Nicola Blackwood, MP of the committee, said in a statement that "the current lack of clarity within the draft Investigatory Powers Bill is causing concern amongst businesses. There are widespread doubts over the definition, not to mention the definability, of a number of the terms used in the draft Bill. The Government must urgently review the legislation so that the obligations on the industry are clear and proportionate."
She added: "There remain questions about the feasibility of collecting and storing Internet Connection Records (ICRs), including concerns about ensuring security for the records from hackers. The Bill was intended to provide clarity to the industry, but the current draft contains very broad and ambiguous definitions of ICRs, which are confusing communications providers. This must be put right for the Bill to achieve its stated security goals."
The deputy chairman of industry group techUK says that the bill as it currently stands risks undermining "trust in both the legislation and the reputation of companies that have to comply with it."
Some of the concerns the report raises include:
- Definitions. Definitions of certain terms - including "internet connection records" are not properly defined, causing concern among tech companies. "There seems still to be confusion about the extent to which 'internet connection records' will have to be collected," the report says. "This in turn is causing concerns about what the new measures will mean for business plans, costs and competitiveness."
- Encryption. The UK government insists it isn't going to try to weaken encryption, but there are still fears that the wording of the bill could require it. The report says: "There is some confusion about how the draft Bill would affect end-to-end encrypted communications, where decryption might not be possible by a communications provider that had not added the original encryption. The Government should clarify and state clearly in the Codes of Practice that it will not be seeking unencrypted content in such cases, in line with the way existing legislation is currently applied."
- Equipment interference. Equipment interference is a euphemism for government-sanctioned hacking. "Some sectors of the communications industry have concerns that equipment interference could jeopardize their business model; for example those producing and distributing open source data."
Anthony Walker, deputy CEO of tech industry group techUK said: "we need more clarity on fundamental issues, such as core definitions, encryption and equipment interference. These are all issues that we highlighted to the Committee and can be addressed both in the Bill and in the Codes of Practice which we believe must be published alongside the Bill, and regularly updated, as recommended by the Committee. Without that additional detail, too much of the Bill will be open to interpretation, which undermines trust in both the legislation and the reputation of companies that have to comply with it."
Jim Killock, executive director of digital liberties pressure group Open Rights Group, said in a statement: "David Cameron needs to consider whether he wants to be the Conservative PM that jeopardised the success of the UK tech industry. As it stands, the IPB will be bad for business, bad for citizens and bad for UK democracy.
"There are serious concerns about whether the issues raised by the Committee can be resolved in such a short timeframe. There is too much at stake for the government to rush this law through."
Here's the link to the full report »