• silicon.com
• Technology
• Security

By Jon Bernstein, 6 June 2000 00:25

COMMENT Better late than never. The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) yesterday expressed its grave concerns over the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (aka 'Snooping') Bill. It warns the interception of emails could leave City of London institutions open to huge legal costs if forced to give up access to privileged data. The BCC wants assurances that its members won't find themselves between a rock and a hard place, between clients and the government. silicon.com welcomes this intervention and while it is a pity it didn't come sooner, it once again illustrates the flawed nature of the Bill. Add this to the two other questions the Bill raises that have yet to be satisfactorily answered: - why should an individual be forced to prove he/she was never in possession of, or legitimately lost, decryption keys?
- why should ISPs be expected carry the bulk of the costs for implementing interception technology? The Home Office has developed what can only be described as a siege mentality - a belief that any opponent of the Bill is an opponent of law and order. Time and again, the sceptics have pointed out that concerns over sections of the proposed legislation do not mean opposition to the principle of tackling the use of electronic encryption by criminals. Yet those concerns are either met with a stock statement or, most often, silence. Two weeks ago, silicon.com was invited by Sky News to take part in a head-to-head debate with Home Office minister, Charles Clark. Not for the first time, Clark turned down the opportunity at the eleventh hour. For a government that so overtly courts publicity, this is a strange state of affairs. If the Home Office won't answer these questions directly, we can at least pass them on to members of the House of Lords who will be examining the detail of the Bill next Monday. So if you want your say, email silicon.com and we will make sure you get heard. Send your feedback to editorial@silicon.com