Internet 'Snooping Bill' fails human rights audit

NEWS The government's Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill has failed to pass a human rights audit undertaken by leading human rights lawyers. The news intensifies debate about the RIP Bill, currently at committee stage, that aims to regulate the way in which the police can gain access to information sent over the Internet. Human rights lawyers commissioned by the Foundation for Information Policy Research and human rights organisation Justice have concluded the Bill, "will have the inevitable consequence of compromising the affected individual's whole security and privacy apparatus". The lawyers say the reversal of the burden of proof in the Bill onto the individual, contravenes the European convention on human rights. Under the terms of the Bill, an individual now has to prove he did not have access to the key to the encrypted information, or be presumed guilty. The lawyers also said the lack of adequate safeguards against abuse, in addition to the fact a suspect could be forced to incriminate himself, breached human rights legislation. Speaking at a public meeting on Wednesday, Home Office Minister Charles Clarke denied the Bill would infringe people's rights, and insisted this legal opinion was just one of many. He pledged to work with industry to resolve the outstanding issues. Caspar Bowden, director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research was sceptical of the minister's proclamation. "The government's position seems to be 'don't worry about proving your innocence because we'll only prosecute you if you're guilty' - which is clearly ridiculous," he said. Clarke was unable to explain to Bowden how the government expects people to prove they have forgotten or mislaid encryption keys. ISPs, however, may have received some comfort from yesterday's meeting. Clarke confirmed he is in discussions to consider refunding ISPs their costs for monitoring Internet traffic - a requirement under the proposed Bill. He said this was an issue that is currently being resolved at committee stage. However, ISPs were still not convinced. Richard Clayton, Internet expert at ISP Demon Internet said the Bill contained no definition of what ISPs' responsibilities were - so the possible expenses were limitless. He commented: "In addition there is no responsibility for the police to look for value for money when requiring ISPs to provide information. Potentially, the police could ask for anything - with absolutely no requirement to consider how much it will cost the service provider."