Generations

The mindset of FBI director, James Comey, appears to be that of someone who believes the lives of all citizens should be on permanent display for government inspection and approval. Privacy, remember, is only for criminals. Apart from the fact that this won't be the first or last time that Apple or other commercial enterprise overstates the potential efficacy of its product features in any particular context, Mr Comey's belief that he has the right, nay, duty to berate the company for its modest implementation of privacy enhancing technology is not one I can share.

It's not a big logical leap for a society that normalises mass collection, processing, analysis and storage of communications (metadata and content, even if the distinction is no longer clear) to consider that those who would wish to opt out, or those that would help them do so, should be considered anomalous and suspicious.

It's not a big logical leap to say we'll collect all the information but don't worry it's only "seen" by the computer, not real people, so it's not real surveillance; and it will only be looked at for evidence of wrongdoing by bad guys... or those linked to bad guys... or those linked to those linked to bad guys...

It's not a big logical leap to say we're not collecting enough information.

Everything will be easier or better or more efficient if only we collect more.

Big data is the future of commerce and government.

We already have mass telephone and internet interception, let's install CCTV cameras in all homes. Oh yes, people already have webcams attached to their computers and we have already collected millions of users' Yahoo webcam images. But that's only in the rooms with computers and the cameras don't cover all corners of the rooms. And, after all, the footage will only be collected and "seen" by computers, not real people, so it's not real surveillance.

And we don't have to record the audio. At least at first. So we don't know what people are actually saying to each other. So it's only metadata. We know where they are and who they are talking to and for how long but not what they are actually saying to each other.  If we surreptitiously use lip reading programs that's only to detect serious criminality.  Ah, you know what, we have to protect people so it doesn't matter if we record the audio too. It will only be 'seen' by computers.

And if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about.

It's not a big logical leap to say, you know all that information in all those giant databases? We should be using it not just to catch terrorists but to catch

• serious criminals
• drug dealers
• child abusers

It's not a big logical leap to say we shouldn't just limit it to these serious criminals. We need to apply use of this information to illegal immigrants, benefit scroungers, criminal youths, burglars, petty criminals, drunkards, louts, vandals, offensive people, inner city sink estates with unruly families who may cause trouble, ethnic minority communities which may have a link to a religion extreme forms of which may be cited as an excuse for murder and mayhem, Romanians (if UKIP ever get a say), the poor, disabled or sick or elderly...

It's not a big logical leap to say we need to use this information to improve public services -

• the NHS
• education
• social welfare
• policing and criminal justice
• intelligence
• defence
• foreign affairs
• economy

So people with a HSCIC database determined genetic predisposition towards contracting certain kinds of cancers may be required to take out private health insurance just in case they become a disproportionate drain on the NHS. Or kids with mental health or special educational or social needs be excluded from good schools so they don't disrupt the normal kids.

Even the most dedicated of public servants, and I have the privilege to know a lot of them, heavily under-resourced and under relentless pressure for outcomes, from management or politicians of varying levels and competence, succumb, with the best of intentions, to the temptation of mission or function creep.

It not a big logical leap to convince ourselves it is ok to use data or facilities gathered or created for one purpose for an additional 'useful' or convenient or target facilitating purpose.

Dedicated people in all walks of life bend/break/ignore/re-interpret/renew the rules because everyone else is doing it, so it's not a big deal.

But this combination of the normalisation of mass surveillance, function creep and (sometimes) well intentioned rule making and rule breaking create the conditions for the poisonous snakes in suits of the world to thrive. And it only takes a handful of them in the wrong places to cause widespread misery and abuse of human rights.

The sad thing is we can and sometimes do design, build, operate and use communications systems, computers and big data in socially, economically and legally enlightened ways, in the public good, when we do so intelligently and ethically. But we're often failing to do so. The seductive attractions of convenience, instant gratification and the ease and power with which all personal data can be collected, processed and stored (the economic agents doing the collection can figure out how to exploit/use/monetize it later), beat intelligence, ethics and the public good, every time.

I was chatting with my elder teen late one evening this week about some of this. I expressed a concern that he and his kids would be asking me, in my dotage, what the hell I thought I was doing when we were building the communications infrastructure of a surveillance state. After all, all that is required for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing.

"Dad," says he, "I can guarantee that's one question I'll never have to ask you."

I'm wasn't sure whether to be flattered that he over-estimates the efficacy of my efforts in this landscape, sad that he may change his mind, concerned that I've burdened him with my worries or optimistic that he and his generation are smarter than me and mine; and they will put those smarts to good effect in building a more equitable and enlightened world.

Magic Markers' take on mass surveillance

Magic Markers' 7 minute video explaining internet surveillance is very well done.

The end of one recorder era

My Panasonic DMR EX75 HDD/DVD recorder has given up on the Freeview signal again. Checking the usual overheating 680 microfarad capacitor, I didn't find obvious signs of failure. It wasn't blowing it's top as the previous failures had done, for example -

But given the inexpert deposit of excess solder I left the last time it's possible the failure was internal or further under the board. I decided to attempt to replace the capacitor again anyway. Unfortunately two attempts to replace it failed, largely due to my incompetent soldering skills, I suspect.

Tinning the soldering iron tip proved unusually problematic this time. So I cleaned it with wire wool before the second attempt (and after it had cooled completely to room temperature). Note that you need to be really careful with this not to strip the iron surface bare or you'll find yourself in need of a new soldering iron.

As I said before, though, if you're thinking of tackling something like this, especially if you are an infrequent actor in such an arena, be sure to snip the legs of the failed capacitor quite high up on the first pass, so that you have a solid base to crimp the legs of the new capacitor to before soldering. My original failure to do this meant successive replacements over the years have been increasingly difficult to crimp/graft and solder.

I seem now to have reached the point of no return, at least as far as my rusty engineering repair skills are concerned.

I blame middle aged eye-sight and the need for reading glasses for close up work too. It's probably just as well I don't have to build flight simulation rigs any more, though I'm pretty sure I could still do the mathematics, the modelling, the design and the testing the parts of aircraft to destruction bit - operating the rigs and running the tests was never as tricky as constructing them.

Well the saga of the Panasonic DMR EX75 HDD/DVD recorder draws to a close. In any case, the machine won't now pick up the Freeview signal and though I can play what was recorded up to losing the signal, I can't record anything else. The old box of electronics is going to have to be retired. It's taken in

• the perils of online purchasing
• the monumental irritating stupidity of DRM
• the dealings with an approved Panasonic repair shop, J.F. Associates
• the stamina required to deal with zombie rule bound "customer service" centres of large companies
• Panasonic's centre will, once the requisite quantities of precisely the correct type of metaphorical bureaucratic blood are donated, and are pushed in the right direction by an independent Panasonic repair centre, replace faulty parts on their machines
• the freedom to tinker (or not) with electronic boxes of tricks like HDD/DVD recorders
• did I mention the monumentally irritating stupidity of DRM
• the power and the economy of the freedom to tinker
• the value of the internet and all those helpful people connected to it, willing to help out those in need of tinkering tips and tricks
• the easy access to cheap electronic components the replacement of which can negate the need to replace an expensive box of electronic tricks unnecessarily
• and not to forget the incredibly monumentally irritating stupidity of DRM

I hope the next recorder finding it's way into the B2fxxx household has a long but less eventful existence.

Virgin Media connection issues

Well, our Virgin Media broadband connection was down again yesterday.  It had apparently been playing up all morning but their was significant angst in the Corrigan household when I got back from my cycle circuit about 10.30am. Connectivity had been erratic but now there was no connecting to anything despite the lights on the hub suggesting it was getting a signal. And despite multiple modem re-boots.

So I phoned the local principle Virgin Media engineer, Jacob, who had asked me to call him as and when we experienced connection problems.  On speaking to him, I immediately felt guilty because it turns out it was his day off. He nevertheless volunteered to go into the office and check the signal from their end. Virgin Media management should take note - that was above and beyond the call of duty - it's committed people who care that make the difference between lousy base standard and decent service.

A little later Jacob called from the office and said he was on the system and noted the network was effectively unusable in the area. Though a signal was just about reaching my modem it wasn't going to be any good for anything and it was the same across the district. So he had called the chief network engineer, Mark, into the picture and was asking that he do what he can to fix the problem.

The connection was down all day but thankfully is back this morning. When I checked the automated recording service fault line later in the evening, the official line was that customers with Ntlworld email accounts were experiencing problems but engineers were working to sort out the issue as soon as they could.

The Corrigan clann are back in the land of the internet for now. I'm not sure for how long this time. But thank you to the front end Virgin Media techies who did eventually get to the bottom of and rectify the network failings and kudos especially to Jacob for going that extra mile and more on your day off.

Update: 12.15pm on day we got connection back.  Connectivity down to a crawl again. Annoyed!
Update 2: 1.30pm on day we got connection back. Connectivity seemingly ok again. Wireless connectivity usable but erratic in the evening.
Update 3: Monday am and early afternoon - connection down/dodgy.

Jennifer Lawrence and the right to be forgotten

Privacy is back in the news because some celebrities, such as the talented Jennifer Lawrence, have had compromising photographs leaked and the police have been accessing a journalist's phone records.

Can the latest scandals throw any light on the mislabeled and erroneously reported Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Google "right to be forgotten" decision?

Well perhaps, at least in the case of the leaked photos. Some of our US cousins, for example, find it hard to understand the ruling and consider it fundamentally incompatible with US First Amendment guarantees for freedom of expression.What the hell do those regressive Europeans think they are doing?

These same horror-stricken people, however, do see that a movie star, who has embarrassing photographs copied or stolen and leaked around the world, should have some means of redress, recovering those photos and/or suppressing their distribution. Likewise the victims of revenge porn or blackmail as in AMP v persons unknown.

It's not the same, but did Mario Costeja González have the right to redress in relation to Google's prominent display in search results of a link to a news article about historical financial difficulties?

Lilian Edwards did a terrific job explaining that EU law requires that yes he should, in the process nailing some of the key myths circulating about the decision.

Having been completely neglectful in not yet analysing the case here, I've been prompted to some brief thoughts by the latest round of stories. Disclaimer: This doesn't constitute a proper analysis (for which, sadly, I have little time at the moment). In any case...

Firstly, everybody makes mistakes and suffers embarrassment.

Fear of same actually constrains some people so much they neglect to do or say anything that in any way might rebound on them or be used as a metaphoric stick to beat them with by the communities within which they exist. This can be incredibly debilitating.

Historically, however, society has enabled "recovery" from mistakes or embarrassment through collective fading and displacement of memories of those events.

We have now, though, spent the best part of the last 30 years enabling, actively and/or passively, the building and operation of a communications mass surveillance infrastructure and 'permanent' digital memory store, unparalleled in the history of the human race. We've been happy to revel in the benefits of these technologies as have governments and large economic actors like Google. But as John Naughton so eloquently puts it, our " indolence is a shocking case study of what complacent ignorance can do to a democracy, and we are now living with the consequences of it."

We are, nevertheless, where we are and it presents us with a complex mess to sort out.  So on the Google case specifically, it's worth at least asking a few questions.

Supposing Google or other economic agents or governments prominently and permanently tags/connects a past mistake or embarrassment to a person's name, so that we cannot "recover" through fading or displacement of collective memory. Supposing also that these agents prominently flag these mistakes through headline search results that, in our world of short attention spans, means we can never escape them. Let's face it we are a society quick to condemn on the basis of flimsy, minimal or non-existent evidence and occasionally don't even bother to click on the link, merely judge by the headline...

Is this a problem?

1. for the individual?
2. for the individual's family, friends, community?
3. for society generally?
4. for Google and other economic agents as collectors, processors and controllers of the personal data at issue?
5. for government and the courts?

I'd answer 'yes' to each of these to a variety of degrees for a variety of reasons. If you answer yes to any of them we have a significant mess that requires sorting out. The part of that mess the CJEU attempted to target in the very narrowly tailored Google Spain v González decision was, on balance,  a tiny step in the right direction.

Even Google have got over their original hissy fit over the decision and are getting on with it. They've stopped 'loudly' indicating results were being censored and anyone wanting to see them could click on a convenient link, provided on the search results page to the US version of Google.

The decision itself requires only the link from the name of the person formally requesting a takedown to the page that name appears in be removed. The webpage with the information about the individual's past remains in place. Someone with semi coherent search skills can still easily find it. Lazy name searches, for those subjects who successfully request it, just don't now lead directly to the equivalent of a digital loudhailer proclaiming the individual, like everyone, has some mistakes in their past that society should accept are spent.

The ruling does not constitute a general 'right to be forgotten' which might itself present all kinds of challenges. The one major problem with it is that it delegates a public interest and fundamental rights decision to a private economic actor, Google in this instance, that should probably sit within the remit of a court, tribunal or at least some other quasi-judicial public authority.

And finally, for the 1st Amendment absolutists, how free to speak is the sensitive man/woman/child terrified that any misspoken comment, mistake or embarrassing situation will be blown up and held against them for the rest of their natural lives? This, given our out of control mass surveillance society, is a 1st amendment issue too, just not necessarily in the way you suppose.

Update: John Naughton's exposé of the ugly side of human nature "celebgate" reveals is essential reading.

Deja vu: Dear VirginMedia executive team - about that poor broadband service yet again

Re-post below of most of the entry from 24 August which disappeared earlier today.

For information for those who might find themselves in a similar predicament, I located this majority part of the post by typing the original url, http://b2fxxx.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/dear-virginmedia-executive-team-about.html, directly into DuckDuckGo. (I was only able to dig out the original url because I had put the link on Twitter).

Google searches proved useless. Dogpile, Yahoo and Bing equally so. Yet DuckDuckGo pointed me at a Google cache version of the post which I've cut and pasted below. I tried Google cache directly with no luck. CachedPages.com found it too, in Google cache. CoralCache and the Internet Archive didn't have it.

In the cached version copied below, there is a missing update from Monday 1/8/'14 and this morning where I thanked the excellent VirginMedia technician, Craig, for his efforts, on Monday, to sort out the connectivity problems. In attendance at the (as ever) wonderful Gikii 2014, I wasn't available on the day but my better half tells me Craig did a thorough hardware and signal diagnostic check inside and outside. He noted that the signal was significantly outside acceptable parameters, tightened all the connections inside and out, noted there may have been neighbouring wireless interference via the splitter outside which is sometimes prone to water leakage, fitted a 10dB attenuator to the modem hub and generally tried to be very helpful and informative. He also upgraded the connection from a 60Mbps to a 100Mbps signal.

Connectivity has been largely ok for the past couple of days (and had actually been pretty ok for the previous two days, over the weekend, for the first time in ages). So hopefully Craig has got to the bottom of the problem and put it right. Though I notice from a couple of speedtest checks that there has been spiky variability on the signal again this evening. It's currently running between 20 and 80 Mbps but that may be down to it being a busy period of the evening.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Dear VirginMedia executive team - about that poor broadband service yet again

My VirginMedia broadband service has been deteriorating and getting erratic again. So I've written to the VirginMedia Executive Team, including a copy of the open letter I sent the CEO the last time it was really bad.

I really can't face the endless telephone tag, the effusive exuberance of the recorded young woman's voice they use on the phone lines, the VirginMedia website mining, the days of superhub channel changing experiments, the plugging the hub out and in, and all the other usual suspects that involve vast expenditure of customer time and energy largely to no useful end. I've kept it short this time. 

Dear VirginMedia Executive Team,

Your broadband service has, yet again, been erratic, wireless connectivity exceptionally so. It has been deteriorating again for weeks. One laptop simply cannot connect wirelessly at all today.

Your “check service status” phone line “confirms” that Virgin Media believe/assert “there are no problems” in my area. Your “check service status” facility on the web -https://my.virginmedia.com/faults/service-status 

says there is “Good service” in my area.

As is regularly the case, they are both wrong.

As before, I'm merely asking for an operational service and now I'm going to repeat myself: 

When there is a problem with my broadband service – it’s slow and/or down and/or erratic and/or there are power fluctuations on the line – I want Virgin Media to know about it, let me know about it in an accessible communiqué, work hard to fix it asap and deliver a reliable service. I don't want to play telephone tag for hours, days or weeks or go on endless, fruitless Virgin Media website mining expeditions, in an effort to find a temporary DIY patch for the prevailing problem to tide me over until the next disruption.

Given that my bills are paid regularly regardless of the standard of service you provide, it really doesn't seem to much to ask that that service be robust and reliable.

Regards,

Ray Corrigan

Open letter to Tom Mockridge, CEO of Virgin Media, (draft originally addressed to Richard Branson before I remembered that Mr Branson sold the company toLiberty Global last year).

Dear Mr Mockridge,

Much though I appreciate the regular opportunity to navigate your Virgin Media broadband service telephone tag maze and engage your stressed call centre staff in friendly conversation, I'm rather busy with other personal and professional things in life at the moment. 

Your broadband service which I subscribe to at home has provided a variable wireless connection to my collection of digital devices for several days and has been deteriorating for several months.  Though the connection to the computer directly wired to the Virgin Super Hub has been more or less ok, apart from the odd day or two or threes interruptions to service here and there, the wireless connection to other devices has been erratic and often slow with download speeds slipping below several tenths of a Mbps.

As when I wrote to Richard Branson in October 2012, I'd just like to point out, again, that this is disrupting my family’s work, education, social activities and access to public and commercial services.

Your “check service status” phone line “confirms” that Virgin Media believe/assert “there are no problems” in my area.

Your “check service status” facility on the web -https://my.virginmedia.com/faults/service-status

says there is “Good service” in my area.

 

They are both wrong.

 

As I believe I explained previously, to Mr Branson when he owned the company, when there are problems it is somewhat irritating if Virgin Media declare/think/pretend there are none.

Your labyrinthine, do-it-yourself (DIY) ‘check and fix your own problems’ approach on the Virgin Media website is quite something.  It assumes customers have the capacity and the skill to hunt down and follow a series of Russian doll like instructions and articles about where you might find instructions which rarely fix anything. This does, however, generate significant angst. I'm at risk of repeating myself here but one of my least favourite activities, when I get home from work, is going through a series of convoluted, difficult to access (via your website or phone helplines) routine processes I know to be futile, in an effort to demonstrate to one of your difficult to access call centre folks that I’ve already tried the stuff on their crib sheet without success.

Your various “helplines” – out of which, these days, positively dance the effusively cheery young woman's recorded voice, seemingly nothing short of delighted to hear from me - are not very helpful. Incidentally the consultants – that advised your people or your people's people that customers, reduced to having to engage in endless telephone tag about a fault, would have their disquietude quelled by an extravagantly high spirited recorded voice – were wrong. 

“Press 1 for…” queuing, canned music, notes that staff are busy (me too) and I'll have to stay on hold for x minutes, opportunities to choose the type of canned music I'd like to hear (my kids thought that was hilarious), more of the excessively upbeat recorded female voice and eventually, at the end of a long wait, connect to a member of call centre staff who can’t help. Apparently I'd been routed to cable services instead of national services. So cable services' Jay therefore had to transfer me to another part of your operation which in its turn can't help because I've been misdirected; so will transfer me to someone who they guarantee, absolutely, this time, will be the right person. None of this is conducive to soothing already fragile customer relations.  

I spent about 40 minutes on the phone yesterday evening and after three false starts got through to a senior technician, Anjan, who seemed pretty stressed and worn out himself. I explained the wifi problem and Anjan declared Virgin could not guarantee a stable wifi connection. Not a promising start and something of a contrast to the response I got from a very helpful lady called Shambhavi when I had an equivalent wifi problem in August of 2013.* 

In any case Anjan re-booted the super hub and changed the wireless channel. Neither activity helped. (They didn't the last time I tried them either.) So he said the best thing to do would be to send a technician round to physically relocate the super hub. Now given the super hub has not moved and we haven't acquired or run any extra digital technologies in the past week, I'm skeptical that the notion of physically moving the hub will make any appreciable difference to the erratic wifi connection. Nevertheless I accept that Anjan, as he said, was at the end of a telephone line and couldn't see the relative layout of where the wireless devices were in relation to the hub.  

So I await your technician to work his/her magic next Tuesday between 1 and 6pm . The restoration of my wireless connections to something in the realm consistent usability and the banishment particularly of that irritating video buffering circle to the annals of history will be most welcome, if it can be achieved. I will, by the way, have to miss an important meeting to be at home to accommodate this visit.

 

To any Virgin Media staff who trip across this open note - if you have, thanks for taking the time to read it thus far. To the Virgin Media call centre staff most of whom are doing your best in the face of problems outside your control - thank you for your efforts and your understanding, when you can muster it up, that I did not call to make your life miserable, merely to ask for an operational service. 

To Mr Mockridge - as I said to Mr Branson, when there is a problem with my broadband service – it’s slow and/or down and/or erratic and/or there are power fluctuations on the line – I want Virgin Media to know about it, let me know about it in an accessible communiqué, work hard to fix it asap and deliver a reliable service. I don't want to play telephone tag for hours, days or weeks or go on endless, fruitless Virgin Media website mining expeditions, in an effort to find a temporary DIY patch for the prevailing problem to tide me over until the next disruption. 

BT write regularly encouraging me to switch broadband provider.  The series of disruptions in Virgin Media services in the past year alone is causing me to wonder whether that alternative would be more consistently reliable, with the additional bonus of access to BT Sport.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ray Corrigan

Update 28/8/'14: I've had an email from the CEO Case Manager at Virgin Media, Alex Poole, on 26/8 indicating my case would be assigned to a specialist complaints agent within 24 hours. I did indeed get a call from a very helpful Virgin Media member of staff, Andy, yesterday who I talked through the problem of the erratic connectivity. He suggested sending a technician out to diagnose and hopefully resolve the problem next Monday.  Additionally I've had another call today from the principle engineer, Jacob, who also tried to be very helpful and is keen to resolve the problem. Jacob mentioned that they had not spotted any network problems in my area through their diagnostics. I noted that my connection was down completely for about 30 minutes yesterday, so he's going to recheck the logs for the past 24 hours or so. In any case, hopefully this encouraging willingness on the part of Virgin Media's staff means I'll have a robust reliable connection by early next week.

Dear Blogger, Why has my post on Virgin Media disappeared?

Dear Blogger,

A recent post on this blog on my experiences with Virgin Media home broadband service, (which, incidentally, I updated this morning to thank the excellent member of staff who called and attempted to sort out the problems), has disappeared.

The link was http://b2fxxx.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/dear-virginmedia-executive-team-about.html

Why has this happened?

What prompted it?

Has it been deleted in error or deliberately or upon request by person/persons/economic-agents unknown?

If so can said requester/s be identified and the purpose of their request for deletion/take-down made known?

Have I inadvertently deleted the post? I have been using Blogger for a long time so I do believe this is unlikely but I'd appreciate knowing what I might have done to lose the post, the first of 4626 I would have lost in my well over a decade's use of Blogger.

Regards,

Ray Corrigan

Workshops on key economic issues wrt IPR enforcement in EU

The European Commission is holding a series of workshops on the economics of IPR enforcement.

I've been invited to attend the first of these scheduled for 19 September at Directorate General for Internal Market and Services in Brussels. The focus of this first session is -

"the question whether the concept of 'commercial scale' or 'commercial purpose' provide useful guidance in IPR infringement cases from an economic perspective and whether there are economic concepts that could be used to make the concept more precise and operational."

Additionally the EC is interested in  how best to design this workshop series

"and to learn about your views regarding IPR enforcement issues that should be addressed in future workshops"

My views on the need for evidence based intellectual property policy across the whole IPR landscape are familiar to readers of this blog but I'm happy to consider any comments, suggestions or views on the issues anyone would like to send me in advance of the workshop.

Dan Greer: Cybersecurity as realpolitik

Dan Greer's talk at Black Hat 2014.



Transcript available here.

Parody, quotation & format shifting exceptions coming to UK

This blogger is not known for his unstinting praise of government policy in the intellectual property arena.

However, little noticed by the wider world and much to the collective chagrin of the big music labels, changes to copyright exceptions were approved by Parliament this week. After a hiccup earlier in the summer when they were postponed by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI), the

Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014

and the

Copyright and Rights in Performances (Quotation and Parody) Regulations 2014

were approved by the House of Lords shortly before 6.30pm on Tuesday, 29 July. The regulations are now due to be implemented on 1 October 2014.

Debate commenced 4.42pm (at column 1553) and there was a further last minute attempt, by members of the Lords sympathetic to traditional big music labels' interests, to undermine the format shifting exception. It nevertheless passed unscathed.

It means that from 1 October, for the first time in the UK, we will be lawfully permitted to copy our CDs to our digital music players and from old to new music players, for private use. Though most people don't realise this common act is not currently allowed under UK copyright law. Likewise it comes as a surprise when people find out that parody is also not a currently recognised exception to copyright in the UK.

These regulations are important additions to the IP policy framework that bring the UK closer into line with international norms, although the parody exception is quite narrowly construed to allow only 'fair dealing' use of the original work.

So it is well done to -

Lord Younger of Leckie, the previous intellectual property minister, who saw these regulations through at government level for most of the past 18 months

and

Baroness Neville-Rolfe, the very new IP minister, who steered the regulations through their final hurdle.

Most especially, however, significant praise is due to Matthew Williams and the copyright team at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Tony Clayton and his team of economists at the UK Intellectual Property Office, all of whom have been working tirelessly for years on improving the UK's IP policy.

There are a lot of very smart, hard working officials in public service attempting to educate the government on the need for evidence based policy making in the intellectual property and wider technology, security, economics, social, environmental and human rights policy arenas.  They deserve our respect and thanks and so, for once, I'd like to make an effort say thank you, especially to everyone involved in bringing these regulations to fruition.

Thanks also for listening and taking account of the work of my old friend, Mark Rogers. Mark would have been pleased but he'd also have been the first to remind us, gently but firmly, that we still have a lot of work to do. The road to sustainable enlightenment in policy involves unfailing care, hard graft and eternal vigilance.

Response from MP on DRIPA

On the first Monday of her summer holidays and after the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act had become law with her support the previous week, my MP, Nicola Blackwood, responded to my notes to her expressing concerns about the then DRIP Bill. Copy of her response below which essentially repeats the Conservative Party line.

"Dear Mr Corrigan,

Thank you for your emails about the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, which has now received Royal Assent, and for your telephone call to my office. My staff passed on your message, and I know this is a subject you feel strongly about.
 I do understand the concerns that have been raised with regard to this legislation, in particular that it has come before the House as emergency legislation, and I share your desire to ensure that people’s civil liberties are protected at all times. I have consistently said it is absolutely essential that powers to monitor communications are confined to what is entirely necessary and proportionate to protect our national security, and also to be accountable.
 To be clear, this legislation goes no further than regulations which are already in place. Rather, it brings clarity to existing law following a ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in April. The ECJ’s ruling would have struck down regulations that let internet and phone companies retain communications data for law enforcement purposes for 12 months, and therefore a clearer legal framework was needed to underpin companies’ cooperation with law enforcement and intelligence agencies to intercept the communications of serious organised criminals and terrorists. I understand that some companies had already made clear to the Government that they would be unable to work with the UK on this unless that law was consolidated and made clear.
 That is why the Act brings together our data retention regulations in primary legislation, where at present it is under secondary legislation, and enables agencies to maintain their existing capabilities. In addition, it makes clear that the requirements include companies based abroad, whose phone and internet services are used in the UK. These powers, already in place, are held through not only the data retention directive and regulations, but also in relation to lawful intercept provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000).
 As you may know, the Home Secretary, Rt Hon Theresa May MP, came before the Home Affairs Select Committee, of which I am a member, last week to discuss the provisions of the Act. The Government has stated that communications data and interception plays an important role in prosecuting cases of serious organised crime. Therefore, whilst before the Committee, I took the opportunity to ask the Home Secretary about this and she clarified that such data is used in 95% of cases that the Crown Prosecution Service deals with in relation to serious and organised crime; it has been used in all major counter-terrorism investigations over the last decade.
 Theresa May MP also explained that the Government had carefully considered how to respond to the ECJ ruling, and I was reassured by her clear statement that no more powers are being sought. I agree with the statement made by the Home Secretary that these powers are only to be used ‘with very carefully controlled access arrangements to ensure that any request is necessary and proportionate to the investigation that is taking place’. The existing EU directive, which was overturned by the ECJ, had meant that the period of data retention was an ‘absolute period’ of 12 months and there was no flexibility within this. By contrast, the new regulations will mean that data can only be held for a maximum of 12 months.
 Crucially, alongside the introduction of this legislation the Government is further strengthening the oversight of intelligence capabilities. Between now and 2016, the Government will review the Regulation of Investigatory Power Act (RIPA) to make recommendations to reform and update it- this has now been reaffirmed in the wording of the Act. Ministers are also establishing a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board which I understand will work to ensure civil liberties are properly considered when the Government sets counter-terrorism policy. I have received assurances from Ministers that the Government is also restricting the number of public bodies that can ask for communications data and will be publishing annual transparency reports. This will make more information publically available than ever before.
 The Home Affairs Committee expressed our view to the Home Secretary that we supported the Bill as a whole, and particularly welcomed Clause 6(3), or the ‘sunset provision’, which means that the legislation will ‘expire’ on 16th December 2016 and will therefore be repealed or renewed at this point. Further, on the day of the vote, the Government accepted new amendments to the Bill which bind us to six-monthly reviews of its operation by the Interception of Communications Commissioner.
 Ministers are mindful that without legislation, we face the prospect of a serious degradation in the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to do their jobs. It is for the reasons detailed above, i.e. that the Act does not extend existing powers and that safeguards and oversight mechanisms are expanded, that I voted for it in the House of Commons last week. The ECJ ruling disbanded the existing EU directive on the basis that it lacked sufficient safeguards, allowing phone and internet companies to store data but did not establish how this data could be accessed or for what purposes. Whereas this new legislation makes clear that the legal framework in which companies must work within, and the circumstances in which this data can be used for vital law enforcement and for our national security.
 I have attached above a copy of the letter I received from Home Office Minister, James Brokenshire MP, which explains the Act in full. I do hope this response is helpful, and thank you, once again, for taking the time to contact me on this important issue.
 Kind regards
Nicola"

The letter from Security Minister James Brokenshire which Ms Blackwood attached to her response read -

"HOUSE OF COMMONS

LONDON SW1A 0AA 10^th July 2014
 Dear Colleague,
 COMMUNICATIONS DATA AND LAWFUL INTERCEPTION
It is the first duty of Government to protect the public and we are today introducing emergency legislation to ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have access to the tools they need to keep us safe.  Access to information relating to communications, subject to robust safeguards, is vital in the fight against crime and terrorism and has been used successfully for many years.

Communications data – the who, where, when and how of a communication but not its content – is a vital tool in the investigation of crime and safeguarding the public.  It has been used in 95% of serious and organised crime investigations handled by the Crown Prosecution Service and every major Security Service counter-terrorism investigation over the last decade.

The interception of the content of communications is of critical importance to the preservation of national security. Since 2010, the majority of the Security Service’s top priority UK counter-terrorism investigations have used intercept capabilities in some form to identify, understand or disrupt plots seeking to harm the UK and its citizens.  However, two recent developments have put these crucial capabilities at risk.  Without legislation, we face the real prospect of a serious degradation in the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to do their jobs.

Firstly, the European Court of Justice judgment of 8 April declared the EU Data Retention Directive (2006) invalid.  This Directive required Member States in Europe to provide for a mandatory communications data retention framework covering certain data for the purpose of the investigation of serious crime.  Following the judgment, our domestic Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009, which transposed the Directive, remain in force.  However, we need to legislate to maintain an effective mandatory communications data retention framework, and to address the ruling unambiguously and immediately.

If companies could no longer be required to retain communications data, law enforcement’s capability to prevent and detect crime and protect the public would be severely degraded; many investigations would be delayed and some would cease entirely.

The second component of the Bill will put beyond doubt that companies providing communication services to customers in the UK must comply with lawful requests under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 irrespective of where those companies are located.    A number of overseas communication service providers have questioned whether they are required to comply with obligations under the Act in relation to the interception of communications.
 With the increasing globalisation of communications, any decrease in cooperation from overseas providers could have a devastating impact on national security.  If we lose visibility of what terrorists are saying to each other, we will lose the ability to understand and mitigate the threat that they pose.

This Bill will ensure that communications data continues to be available when it is needed.  Whilst most of the European Court’s criticisms are already addressed in UK law, the Bill will also respond to the judgment.  The European Court’s judgment did not take into account national laws on access to communications, and in particular the UK’s access regime with its robust safeguards.  Our communications data regime is internationally respected, and already addresses most of the criticisms made in the judgment.  However, we are introducing a number of new safeguards to respond to the judgment, such as enhancing our data retention notice regime, and formalising the requirements placed on communications companies to safeguard this crucial data.  We will also create a Code of Practice on Data Retention, which will put best-practice guidance on a statutory footing.  Furthermore, the Bill will also put beyond doubt the extra-territorial application of RIPA to ensure that companies, irrespective of where they are based, can comply with their obligations.

The legislation does not create any new powers, rights of access or obligations on communications companies beyond those that already exist. It does not seek to replicate the proposals that were included in the Draft Communications Data Bill, published in 2012. And it would sit aside the already robust regime RIPA provides to regulate access to retained data.

We must act now to ensure that the capability of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to prevent and detect crime, protect the public and ensure national security does not rapidly and seriously diminish.  The need to act is made all the more pressing because the threats we face remain considerable, not least the collapse of Syria, the emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, organised crime that crosses national boundaries and the expanding scope of cybercrime.

All these threats and many more should remind us that the world is a dangerous place and the United Kingdom needs the capabilities to defend its interests and protect its citizens.

The proposals on communications data and investigatory powers which I have set out above are necessary to ensure that law enforcement and security agencies are able to continue making use of these essential tools. These provisions are not intended to fill the gap which we were looking to close with the draft communications data bill but to ensure that law enforcement can continue to access the material which they currently have access to.

JAMES BROKENSHIRE "

I've responded briefly -

Dear Nicola,

Thanks for taking the time to send a response on the first day of your summer holidays. I can only repeat that for something as serious as an emergency law that requires blanket, indiscriminate communications data retention, targeted not at criminals but  the entire population, every single MP should take notice and make the requisite time to read the proposed legislation and associated documents.

It is incumbent upon MPs to understand what the laws that you are passing actually say, rather than what the party briefing or ministerial assurances might be telling you they say. When the time comes to apply the law, ministerial assurances are not worth the paper they are written on.

Without going through the process of matching each government assurance with contradictory evidence, something I suspect would be of little interest, I would like to draw your attention to one important misunderstanding. It seems increasingly to be the belief amongst MPs that blanket data collection and retention is acceptable in law and that the only concern should be the subsequent access to that data. Assertions to this effect are simply wrong.

The April European Court of Justice(ECJ) judgement restated the position clearly that mass indiscriminate data retention "constitutes in itself an interference with the rights guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter." (Para 34 of the decision). Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental rights, as you know, guarantees everyone “the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications”. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) laid down the same prohibition of blanket retention in the S. and Marper v UK case in December 2008.

Please do not be misled into the erroneous belief that retention is acceptable and access is therefore the only problem. Underpinning any future regulatory framework in this area with such a fundamentally flawed assumption would be a big mistake on many levels. Both retention and access in and of themselves present serious article 7 and article 8 challenges, as the ECJ, the ECtHR and many other national courts have made clear.

Have a good holiday.

Regards,

Ray

Another letter to my MP on DRIP

I've written to Nicola Blackwood, MP, again about the Data Retention and Regulatory Powers (DRIP) Bill, this time directly criticising MPs' approach to it. I phoned and wrote to her prior to the debate in the Commons on Tuesday but have had no substantive response, as of yet. Ms Blackwood does usually take the time to respond and I do expect to hear from her. It will by then, however, be much too late to do anything about the legislative plane crash that is DRIP with MPs currently fast asleep at the controls.

Nicola,

I was disappointed to see you didn’t attend the debate on the Data Retention & Investigatory Powers (DRIP) Bill on Tuesday, 15 July, yet showed up to vote it through.

It’s inspires little confidence in the integrity of Parliament when MPs just vote as instructed by the party leadership without any apparent evidence of engagement with the substance of the proposed legislation. I appreciate MPs are busy but for something as serious as an emergency law that requires blanket, indiscriminate communications data retention targeted not at criminals but  the entire population, every single MP should take notice and make time.

I would make one final request that you do take the requisite time to read the Bill and associated documents at http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/dataretentionandinvestigatorypowers/documents.html

In order to understand what the Bill actually says rather than what the party briefing might be telling you it says.

And then take a principled stand against the Bill when the it comes before the Commons for confirmation later today.

Regards,

Ray

PS For information, I’m a co-signatory of the letter from UK academics to MPs asking that full and proper parliamentary scrutiny by (sic) applied to DRIP to ensure Parliamentarians are not mislead as to what powers this Bill truly contains. Our opposition to the Bill has been noted by Lord Knight in the House of Lords debate on DRIP yesterday and widely reported in the mainstream media by The Independent, The Guardian, the technology press such as Wired, also in The Wall Street Journal and several other prominent overseas media outlets.  Copy available at

http://b2fxxx.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/open-letter-to-mps-re-drip-from-uk.html

Ray Corrigan 

Typo in the PS corrected in follow upmail.

DRIP debate in House of Commons

Data Retention & Investigatory Powers (DRIP) Bill debate in House of Commons (begins 12:45:37)

Not to be recommended for those of a quesy disposition

Open Letter to MPs re DRIP from UK academics

Open letter to MPs on the emergency Data Retention and Investigatory Powers (DRIP) Bill being rushed through the House of Commons today. (Full disclosure - I'm a co-signatory)

"Tuesday 15^th July 2014 

To all Members of Parliament, 

Re: An open letter from UK internet law academic experts 

On Thursday 10 July the Coalition Government (with support from the Opposition) published draft emergency legislation, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (“DRIP”). The Bill was posited as doing no more than extending the data retention powers already in force under the EU Data Retention Directive, which was recently ruled incompatible with European human rights law by the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the joined cases brought by Digital Rights Ireland (C-293/12) and Seitlinger and Others (C-594/12) handed down on 8 April 2014. 

In introducing the Bill to Parliament, the Home Secretary framed the legislation as a response to the CJEU’s decision on data retention, and as essential to preserve current levels of access to communications data by law enforcement and security services. The government has maintained that the Bill does not contain new powers. 

On our analysis, this position is false. In fact, the Bill proposes to extend investigatory powers considerably, increasing the British government’s capabilities to access both communications data and content. The Bill will increase surveillance powers by authorising the government to;

• compel any person or company – including internet services and telecommunications companies – outside the United Kingdom to execute an interception warrant (Clause 4(2));
• compel persons or companies outside the United Kingdom to execute an interception warrant relating to conduct outside of the UK (Clause 4(2));
• compel any person or company outside the UK to do anything, including complying with technical requirements, to ensure that the person or company is able, on a continuing basis, to assist the UK with interception at any time (Clause 4(6)).
• order any person or company outside the United Kingdom to obtain, retain and disclose communications data (Clause 4(8)); and
• order any person or company outside the United Kingdom to obtain, retain and disclose communications data relating to conduct outside the UK (Clause 4(8)).

The legislation goes far beyond simply authorising data retention in the UK. In fact, DRIP attempts to extend the territorial reach of the British interception powers, expanding the UK’s ability to mandate the interception of communications content across the globe. It introduces powers that are not only completely novel in the United Kingdom, they are some of the first of their kind globally. 

Moreover, since mass data retention by the UK falls within the scope of EU law, as it entails a derogation from the EU’s e-privacy Directive (Article 15, Directive 2002/58), the proposed Bill arguably breaches EU law to the extent that it falls within the scope of EU law, since such mass surveillance would still fall foul of the criteria set out by the Court of Justice of the EU in the Digital Rights and Seitlinger judgment. 

Further, the bill incorporates a number of changes to interception whilst the purported urgency relates only to the striking down of the Data Retention Directive. Even if there was a real emergency relating to data retention, there is no apparent reason for this haste to be extended to the area of interception. 

DRIP is far more than an administrative necessity; it is a serious expansion of the British surveillance state. We urge the British Government not to fast track this legislation and instead apply full and proper parliamentary scrutiny to ensure Parliamentarians are not mislead as to what powers this Bill truly contains. 

Signed,

Dr Subhajit Basu, University of Leeds
Dr Paul Bernal, University of East Anglia
Professor Ian Brown, Oxford University
Ray Corrigan, The Open University
Professor Lilian Edwards, University of Strathclyde
Dr Theodore Konstadinides, University of Surrey
Professor Chris Marsden, University of Sussex
Dr Karen Mc Cullagh, University of East Anglia
Dr. Daithí Mac Síthigh, Newcastle University
Professor David Mead, University of East Anglia
Professor Andrew Murray, London School of Economics
Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex
Julia Powles, University of Cambridge
Professor Burkhard Schafer, University of Edinburgh
Professor Lorna Woods, University of Essex

Update 17/7/'14: I'm pleased to say Dr Andres Guadamuz, University of Sussex and Professor Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, Oxford University have joined as signatories to the letter.

Note to MP re Data Retention & Investigatory Powers (DRIP) Bill

In addition to phoning my MP, Nicola Blackwood, yesterday I emailed her asking that she consider voting down the Data Retention & Investigatory Powers (DRIP) Bill.

Dear Nicola,

Sorry I missed you when I phoned your office earlier today. I'm writing to you about the complex emergency data retention and investigatory powers (DRIP) Bill the Government are rushing through Parliament this week.

I understand you may be compelled as a member of the Conservative Party into agreeing with the contents of this Bill. However, I would urge you at the very least to

·         push back on the timeframe on this legislation (there is no real emergency that requires it be passed this week)

·         advocate the deletion of clause 5 which expands the definition of “communications service” exponentially

·         advocate the amended date for the repeal of the legislation (clause 6(3)) be brought forward to three months from today or at the very latest 31 December this year – if the government are serious about this being an emergency so there can be a debate then 6 months should provide adequate time for this

·         advocate the deletion of the really complex investigatory powers amendments to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (clauses 3 and 4)

As I see it, the primary threat is the Government is concerned about is a lawsuit for failing to comply with the European Court of Justice ruling in April (in joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12) that existing Data Retention laws are incompatible with human rights.

I would welcome comprehensive public and parliamentary debates about the issues connected to the Bill, in which you and all MPs are involved.

I appreciate you are busy so have not loaded this email with an analysis of the Bill but if you are interested in further details I have expanded on some of the problems at

http://b2fxxx.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/data-retention-investigatory-powers.html

I’d appreciate it if you would oppose(sic) against this legislation being rushed through in a day and as always thanks for taking time to consider my perspective on this kind of legislation.

Regards,

Ray

"...oppose..."  in that final sentence should, of course, read "...vote..."

Data Retention & Investigatory Powers (DRIP) Bill: a significant change in the law

The "emergency" Data Retention & Investigatory Powers (DRIP) Bill being rushed though Parliament this week sets out to -

• make provision for data retention, now that the Court of Justice of the European Union has annulled the data retention directive; the asserted intention (of the Home Secretary) being to "maintain the status quo" by essentially re-enacting the Data Retention Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/859)
• amend the grounds for issuing interception warrants or granting or giving certain authorisations or notices under Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 
• make provision to apply data retention and investigatory powers extra-territorially
• expand the meaning of "telecommunications service

These stated intentions on the front page of the draft Bill alone create a clear impression that this measure goes significantly beyond an effort to "maintain the status quo". Reading the Bill itself, along with its associated 10 pages of draft regulations and 15 pages of explanatory notes only confirms this impression. The number of times the Home Secretary repeated last week that the new law was just about maintaining the status quo on data retention, in the face of those disagreeable European Court judges, was undermined by the lady herself adding that there is allegedly an

" increasingly pressing need to put beyond doubt the application of our laws on interception, so that communication service providers have to comply with their legal obligations irrespective of where they are based" (final para, Hansard, 10/07/14 Col 456)

If re-enacting the 2009 data retention regulations, this time as primary legislation, was all the government intended this could be done in significantly less than 32 pages of statute, regulations and explanatory notes. Whether to protect the UK from the EU law, as David Allen Green suggests, or otherwise, a new Bill could just say it was enacting the 2009 regulations as primary legislation. Job done.

Given how comprehensively the European Court of Justice dismantled the data retention directive that those regulations are based on - blanket indiscriminate data retention is a disproportionate interference with rights guaranteed under Articles 7 & 8 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union -  that short cut to making the 2009 regs primary legislation would still be incompatible with the Charter. But it would be known law, just with brand spanking primary statute new foundations. (Even though it would be a law that the European Court has clearly stated is incompatible with those lily-livered human rights abhorrent to all true Brits, if prominent parliamentarians are to be believed). The extra provisions beyond that intent just make the Bill even more complex.

What if DRIP was just shoring up the 2009 regulations? Well blanket indiscriminate data retention has been outlawed by every high court that has considered it, including courts in Germany, Slovenia, Romania, Austria, Bulgaria, Sweden, Czech Republic and Cyprus and of course the European Court of Justice in April this year.

Yet the UK coalition government and their agreeable main opposition party don't stop just at giving our likely defunct data retention regulations the protection of parliamentary supremacy, to protect us from those big bad Europeans and their terribly un-British human rights that only protect pedophiles and terrorists. They go much further -

• expanding data retention
• providing the Secretary of State with Henry VIII powers to amend the law
• expanding the reach of data retention and access, extra territorially
• amending and expanding the scope of the incredibly complicated Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000
• amending and expanding the scope of what constitutes a "telecommunications service"

Clause 1 of DRIP, for example, attempts to re-enact the 2009 regulations, in addition to giving the Secretary of State, under sections 1(3), 1(4) and 1(7) wide ranging Henry VIII clause powers to amend the law, essentially as and when she likes. Section 1(1) puts a nominal brake on data retention by stating the Secretary of State can only order retention she considers "necessary and proportionate". However, given successive UK governments are repeatedly on record as claiming blanket surveillance is not just necessary and proportionate but "essential" to "save lives" that's not much of a practical restraint.

Some of the provisions of DRIP are seriously far reaching but mind numbing and I'd refer you in particular to excellent legal analyses by Steve Peers, Graham Smith, Liberty, the Open Rights Group, Privacy International, Big Brother Watch, Article 19 and English PEN and Tom Hickman who all do the job much better than I can on this.

If legalese leaves you cold there are quite a lot of nicely digestible articles floating around various corners of the web outlining the issues including those from the following cast of characters -

• Paul Bernal
• David Allen Green
• Jim Killock 
• Mike Harris
• David Davis (must be good I don't often link to the Daily Mail)
• Ewan MacAskill and Edward Snowden
• Ian Dunt
• Glyn Moody
• Alex Marsh
• Privacy International and Amnesty
• ORG's DRIP myth list and other posts on ORG's blog from 7th July to date
• Dominic Crossley
• Shami Chakrabarti
• Alan Travis and James Ball in The Guardian
• Pirate Party UK
• Amberhawk
• Steve Peers
• Mathew J. Schwartz
• Ian Dunt again
• Tom Hickman
• Graham Smith
• Tom Watson
• and there are lots more if you care to look (if anyone would like me to update the list send me a link and I'll endeavour to include when time allows; or just stick it in comments below. Someone suggested I include a earlier post from this shady renegade...)

I should here, though, before closing draw your attention to Clauses 5 and 6 of DRIP. Clause 5 states:

"5 Meaning of "telecommunications service"

In section 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (meaning of "interception" etc), after subsection (8) insert - 

"(8A) For the purposes of the definition of "telecommunications service" in subsection (1), the cases in which a service is to be taken to consist in the provision of access to, and of facilities for making use of, a telecommunication system include any case where a service consists in or includes facilitating the creation, management or storage of communications transmitted, or that may be transmitted, by means of such a system."

It seems that in attempting to bring services like Twitter and Facebook further into the data retention and investigatory powers fold, the government has managed to expand the scope of what is meant by "telecommunications service". It would now seem to encompass email listservs, webmail servers (as it says in the explanatory notes), social media providers like Facebook, app providers, retailers, gaming sites, the whole spectrum of website controllers/operators, bloggers, broadcast, print and online media and you can probably think of many more. I wonder if they'll try to use it as leverage on the good folk at the Guardian

Dear Mr Rusbridger,
Subject to the provisions of the DRIP Act 2014 we require that you retain and provide us with access, in the first instance, to the metadata and content of all your primary sources on GCHQ surveillance ...

I suspect even Mr Rusbridger's adversaries in the bulk of the mainstream press might suddenly find themselves on his side on the mass surveillance debate were that to happen.

Clause 6(3) of the Bill is the so-called sunset clause which says the law times out aka gets repealed on 31 December 2016. The history of such sunset clauses is that they get continually renewed - especially with nominally labelled anti-terrorist legislation. No politician can risk being accused of being soft on terrorism. If the government were serious that this is a temporary emergency measure to allow for a free and full debate on the matters it addresses the sunset clause would be three months, or at the very longest, expire at the end of this year. Not 2 and half years from now, when whichever government is in power can, if I may mix my metaphors, kick the sunset clause into the long grass with little concern about  political opposition.

Bottom line

The bottom line on DRIP is

• DRIP is a major change in UK data retention, surveillance and investigatory powers laws
• it involves the cementing into statute blanket indiscriminate data retention and therefore affects everyone in the UK
• this blanket indiscriminate data retention activity was considered a serious and disproportionate breach of the right privacy by the European Court of Justice
• I consider this an abuse of the rule of law
• this data retention element of DRIP alone undermines UK citizens rights in the context of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and must presumably, therefore, as a direct challenge to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling (in joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12) declaring the data retention directive invalid, be open to legal challenge at European level.
• DRIP additionally expands the immensely complex Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 interception powers, including the extra-territorial reach of those powers
• DRIP, having been agreed behind closed doors by the leadership of the three biggest political parties, is being rushed through Parliament without proper parliamentary scrutiny 
• the Home Secretary has admitted in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee today that MPs will not know the full details of the law they are being asked to pass this week
• this appears to me to be an affront to the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty
• clause 5 expands the scope of the meaning of "communications service" to a degree that it could be interpreted to mean any entity using a computer and the internet
• there is no emergency that justifies rushing this ill thought out law through - no ongoing serious crime investigations will be put at risk, as communications service providers have a long history of cooperating willingly with the police on such matters; I suspect as in the past they would be perfectly willing to continue to retain and provide access to communications of suspects about whom law enforcement authorities have reasonable cause to harbour suspicion
• the "be afraid of terrorists and pedophiles" line is wearing very thin

The entire DRIP enterprise is a mess which if it does, as is likely, get passed in haste this week, we will all come to regret at our leisure. Some commentators have amusingly labelled it the Dangerous Logs Act. The sad thing about that particular joke is that many of the MPs, following their party line and voting DRIP through in the next few days, will not get it.

Mass surveillance and scared politicians

So the latest UK government shambles on communications surveillance is the emergency Data Retention and Investigatory Powers (DRIP) Bill to be rushed through next week in a single day. "Explanatory notes" on the draft Bill are available here.  The official text of the Home Secretary's statement in Parliament yesterday about the Bill is here.

In short, the latter says -

Be AFRAID... terrorists... child abusers... serious criminals might get away... because of those idiot European Court judges ... BE AFRAID ...Our data retention regulations are A1, super duper, OK ... but just in case they're not we need to pass this new emergency law... just to let us do what we've always been doing... BE AFRAID... but don't worry we'll protect you with this new emergency law that even that Labour gang agree is wonderful... oh and just in case I didn't mention it... BE VERY AFRAID!

Prior to that David Cameron and Nick Clegg had made a big announcement about it at an earlier specially trailored press conference. The telling point for me in this session was when the BBC's Nick Robinson, generally totally clueless about digital rights whilst on air at least, decided to go for the standard journalistic trolling approach, perhaps since he didn't really have any informed questions to ask. Mr Robinson accused Mr Cameron of rushing through an emergency law in haste which we would all repent at leisure. To which the Prime Minister responded with a cracking voice and a face like a toddler on the verge of tears -

"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."

There you have the whole story of the political interest in the construction of our mass surveillance infrastructure in a single sentence.

Our political leaders are scared.

They are not scared of the terrorists.

No.

They are scared that the next time there is a terrorist attack they will be accused of having not done enough to prevent it.

So they have to DO SOMETHING.

It doesn't matter if that something causes untold damage of immeasurable proportions.

In fact it is better if it is immeasurable, preferably complex, costly, involving computers; and accompanied by a selection of misleading 2 to 3 second soundbites carefully crafted for promotional purposes which come with bonus points if they can include sniping at Europe or human rights.

That way critics cannot easily pin them down.

But they must, at all costs, DO SOMETHING.

It is also better if that something involves everyone, plus large sums of public money, plus computers.

Then when the inevitable happens they can hit the broadcast circuits with pride "We did everything we could and we're going to try harder and spend more money on high tech security and never let the terrorists win..."

And you know what's so sad about this disastrously damaging cycle? The fear driving the politicians to get things so completely wrong will not save them from accusations of incompetence. When the time comes the media will still attack the government for not doing enough.

The parliamentary debate on DRIP yesterday was a parody of itself (Begins at 11:18:53)

TheyWorkForYou have the transcript of the debate.

Analysis of DRIP later if I get the chance but what is very clear is that it much more than a re-assertion of the data retention regulations.