The Gibraltar Government is in the process of drafting a new Bill allowing the Police and other enforcement agencies and I presume security services from who knows where, to intercept our private communications and to acquire and disclose data relating to Communications and also to carry out surveillance if need be. Understanding, that a Parliamentary Bill only sets out proposals for new laws, or any plans to change existing laws which will eventually be presented for debate in Parliament. It will be interesting to monitor how the public reacts to such a law. However, nothing has been explained by anyone, as to why these laws that have proved hugely controversial in the UK and in many other countries, are now deemed a necessary in Gibraltar. The Government said during the recent budget session that similar legislation to the one they are currently drafting was introduced in the UK in 2000. The law being the ‘Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000’ The Government also pointing out that the provisions of the new legislation ‘will include stringent safeguards’ to ensure that the relevant investigatory powers are used in accordance with the rights contained in the Gibraltar Constitution and international Human Rights obligations. No Information Why Gibraltar Needs These Laws However, the reasons why there now appears to be an urgent need for Gibraltar to have these laws looks very much clock-and-dagger, as information is being kept very close to the Governments chest. But Why all the secret? Answering questions from Panorama the Government has only limited itself in saying: “The Government will make a detailed a statement at the time of publication of any Bill for these purposes. We do not believe it is appropriate to say any more at this stage when a Bill is in the process of being drafted.” The Government has the prerogative to remain quite and say nothing until the pertinent Bill is presented in Parliament… Personally I am not happy, as these are no ordinary laws, these are powers designed to hack into our private lives. And in my opinion some prior information as to the reasons is more than justified! I know how important it is nowadays for the police and security services to be able to have access and obtain communications data, and in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism to protect the public. Is it Crime, Security or Defence UK Has Opposite Approach on Information? But all this has been suddenly thrust on the local public. Do we really need it? Has anyone conducted a ‘Strategic Defence, Security and Crime Review’ or an in-depth inspection of the local Police Services to determine whether the present structure and general operational deployment systems are up to the task of working and implementing such a controversial and sensitive piece of legislation. This is in total contrast and approach by David Cameron, who very recently said in a press conference when explaining why the UK Government was creating and updating similar laws, said “We face real and credible threats to our security from serious and organised crime, from the activity of paedophiles, from the collapse of Syria, the growth of Isis in Iraq and al-Shabaab in East Africa. I am simply not prepared to be a prime minister who has to address the people after a terrorist incident and explain that I could have done more to prevent it.” A different scenario to Gibraltar who is being kept in the dark why these laws are now needed! Already Skeptical about the ‘Stringent Safeguards’ Announced! As far as providing safeguards are concerned, well, even without seeing the Bill in question, I am already overly skeptical when it comes to safeguards. This if other running issues already in the public domain are anything to go by! Particularly at a time when Senior Supreme Court Judge Barrington Black six months ago, announced in open court and before leaving Gibraltar that the Royal Gibraltar Police, ‘tamper and interfere with evidence’. It can’t get more serious than that. Who picked up on Judge Barrington Blacks comments and acted on them and provided assurances to the public. Because it seems absolutely no one took these comments seriously or even thought of doing anything about it! Which for me has put a black, if not suspect mark on the local Criminal Justice System! Is the type of ‘Stringent Safeguards’ society can also expect from the Governments proposed ‘Interception of Communication Bill’ which the Justice Minister announced would included strict protection! But what is the legislation the Government actually proposing in the new Bill? The Proposed UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 also known as (Ripa) makes provisions for covert surveillance and access to communications records by public bodies. The aim of the law in the United Kingdom is “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; also to provide for commissioners and a tribunal with functions and 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” The aims locally if the proposed law is passed will be similar - one would expect? If the Government is to follow the UK legislation as they have suggested they will, where the main provisions in the UK of these intrusive laws are the following: Main Provisions of UK Investigatory Powers Act 2000 The following are the main provisions of the proposed laws as per the UK: • To regulate the circumstances and methods by which public bodies may carry out covert surveillance. • Lays out a statutory framework to enable public authorities to carry out covert surveillance in compliance with the requirements of the Human Rights Act. • Defines five broad categories of covert surveillance: directed surveillance (includes photographing people); intrusive surveillance (includes bugging); the use of covert human intelligence sources (informants and undercover officers, including watching and following people); accessing communications data (record of emails sent, telephone calls made) and intercepting communications (i.e. reading content of emails, listening to calls). • Allows the secretary of state (UK) to issue an interception warrant to examine the contents of letters or communications 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. This is the only part of the act that requires a warrant. • Prevents the existence of interception warrants, and any and all data collected with them from being revealed in court. • Allows the police, intelligence services, HM Customs (and several hundred more public bodies, including local authorities and a wide range of regulators) to demand telephone, internet and postal service providers to hand over detailed communications records for individual users. This can include name and address, phone calls made and received, source and destination of emails, internet browsing information and mobile phone positioning data that records user’s location. These powers are self-authorised by the body concerned, with no external or judicial oversight. • Enables the government to demand that someone hands over keys to protected information; and makes it a criminal offence to refuse to supply actual encrypted traffic or refuse to disclose an encryption key. • Enables the government to force internet service providers to fit equipment to facilitate surveillance. • Allows the government to demand an ISP provider provide secret access to a customer’s communication. • Makes provisions to establish an oversight regime, creates an investigatory powers tribunal and appoints three commissioners. The UK Government argued at the time that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was essential to allow law agencies to catch up technologically with the increasingly sophisticated tools used by terrorists, drug smugglers and organised criminal gangs. The act also granted public bodies wide-ranging powers to conduct surveillance including intercepting emails, accessing private communications data, and planting and monitoring surveillance devices. It will be interesting to hear and read the arguments for-and -against once the Bill becomes public. Since the UK law was introduced in 2000 the legislation has become highly controversial and has been criticised for being overused. In it’s first annual report on the legislation last year Sir Anthony May the ‘Commissioner for Interception’ remarked that ‘Police may be overusing their power to gather people’s communications data’ The UK report by the Commissioner highlighted there are two strands to the legislation. One strand is “interception”, when a warrant is issued for the full content of someone’s communications to be listened into. The second strand is the ‘communications data’, which is a much broader category. This involves address and subscriber information relating to phone calls, such as what other numbers a phone was in contact with (but not what was said), who owns a phone and similar details about emails and computer IP addresses. Sir Anthony May pointing out in the report, that “it really does require to be investigated whether there may not be an institutional overemphasis in police forces on progressing their criminal investigations and an institutional underemphasis on the privacy side of it” Another safeguard in the UK is the ‘Intelligence and Security Committee’ a Parliamentary Committee appointed to oversee the work of the intelligence machinery of the United Kingdom, a committee similar to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Currently there is a big push by the UK Government to widen the law even further. However, for a number of years, UK group ‘Liberty’ also known as the ‘National Council for Civil Liberties’ a cross party, non-party membership organisation who has been at the heart of the movement for fundamental rights and freedoms in the UK. Liberty recently announced it will seek a Judicial Review of the Government’s new “emergency” surveillance law known as the ‘Communications Data Bill’ and nicknamed the Snoopers’ Charter it is legislation which would require Internet service providers and mobile phone companies to maintain records of each user’s internet browsing activity (including social media), email correspondence, voice calls, internet gaming, and mobile phone messaging services and store the records for 12 months. Retention of email and telephone contact data for this time is already required. The legislation has not yet been enacted Liberty is arguing that the new legislation is incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights Importantly the European Courts of Justice, in a judgment made clear that existing UK legislation, including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), (the legislation the Government now wants to introduce locally) required urgent review. So I hope this latter point, is being noted by whoever at the moment, is drafting the Bill to snoop into people’s private lives! 06-11-14 PANORAMAdailyGIBRALTAR
Posted on: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 23:17:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015