UK Legislators Want To Toss Tech Company Officials In Jail If They Inform Users About Government Surveillance Efforts
from the this-won't-make-it-far dept
Default mode at tech companies these days is to inform users of government surveillance. Unless explicitly forbidden to do so, multiple companies have stated they will inform users of requests for data or suspected state-sponsored hacking attempts.
The mechanisms inherent in US law usually prevent notification. Requests made by foreign governments, however, operate in a much grayer area. UK legislators are trying to close perceived loopholes with new legislation that would make it illegal to notify users of UK agencies' requests for data. (via Boing Boing)
Bosses at Twitter and other communications companies face up to two years in prison if they tip off customers that spies or the police are monitoring them under a proposed new law.Even if this dubious proposal becomes law, it's unclear exactly how the UK plans to enforce this. Does it send cops to arrest the top exec at the offending company? Or would it go after a lower-level representative -- one that hopefully resides in UK to better avoid the diplomatic awkwardness of extradition proceedings? In all likelihood, if this proposal survives, the jail term will be replaced with a suitably large fine.
Ministers want to make it a criminal offence to notify the subject of a surveillance operation that requests of their data have been made, unless expressly allowed.
The move follows concerns some communications and social media firms will alert users if MI5, MI6, GCHQ or the police have asked for their records.
This stipulation has been added to the draft version of the Investigatory Powers Bill -- another attempt to broaden the UK's surveillance powers while codifying the quasi-legal spy efforts GCHQ and others already engage in.
This addition would close the "loophole" tech companies are using by shifting the legal burden. Tech companies say they'll notify users unless "expressly forbidden" to do so. The draft bill addition says companies can only notify users if they're "expressly permitted" to do so. With everything hanging on the government's permission, agencies will rarely have to provide justification for secrecy. Instead, the onus will be on tech companies to remain tight-lipped unless the UK government gives them the nod -- something that will undoubtedly be a rarity.
On the plus side, it's not just tech companies being targeted by additions to the draft bill. Similar consequences await those who abuse their surveillance powers.
The bill also proposes a new offence of knowingly or recklessly obtaining communications data without lawful authority.Of course, enforcement of this proposed addition sounds just as unlikely as UK police officers handcuffing Google execs for informing a surveillance target of the UK government's interest in them.
The measure is aimed at ensuring those officials, officers and spies who access the personal data do so legitimately and appropriately.
Those who break the law will also face up to two years in prison.
I'd say we'll just have to wait and see, but the draft bill is becoming a dumping ground for every wild-eyed legislator's idea on how to better "secure" the UK against the threat of terrorism. There are certainly more, equally-terrible ideas on the way. The only hope is that most of these will be discarded as the bill moves forward. It's a given that far too many bad ideas will still survive, but with any luck, the worst suggestions won't make it into the final version.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: gag orders, surveillance, tech companies, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yeah, that's what Kim Dotcom said, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kim Dotcom had a corporation with several hundred million users. His home were attacked with armed goons. The MAFIAA were behind the SWATing call. The claims consisted of such nonsense as he were willfully infringing because he had not deleted files the FBI had ordered him not to delete.
For Google it is worth noting that size of the company or usefulness to the citizens of the world don't protect your home. Nor is it easy to defend yourself if you are robbed.
Google choose to do nothing to defend Kim Dotcom
For Google it is also worth noting that the investigations were complete farces, so it does not matter if Google bends over to any requests the AA's make. In the TPB case the lead investigator were hired by one side in the case, the AA side. The judge self-selected himself, an act that is illegal in Sweden. The judge were a member of an organization that works for more aggressive copyrights.
This should remind Google of Jim Hood.
Google did nothing to defend TPB.
Now Google stands alone, next in line. They did not defend the search organization, nor the cloud company
The AA's harm Google, and Sony and Disney say:
Google, headbutt with the Hammer
Google, headbutt with the Hammer
and stupid Google does as it is told.
Google must understands that unless it fight Sony, Disney and Jim Hood and win, soon, any night can be the moment they're SWATed into next Dotcom. Mercy on their families.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Happened before
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Happened before
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you tell your fellow citizens we are abusing and violating the rights we say we give them we shall use all our powers to silence you out of spite. Sounds like treason to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Lets just replace "National Security" with "Nazi." It's simpler and more honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New canary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New canary
I think something similar to this should be implemented for retrieving data for the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> Using my advanced knowledge of arcane applications of analytical mathematics, I can't help but notice that 'up to two years' includes 'zero'.
Using my advanced knowledge of credit card terms and conditions, I can't help but notice that 'up to two years' does not mean that anything less than two years is ever going to be sought by those on the superior power side of the stick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lawful authority
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whatever the answer, he is systematically destroying the very things the UK was so famous for and so adamant about keeping, PRIVACY AND FREEDOM!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, poo. That was only for the upper classes, not the peasants like you. Do enjoy your addition to the GCHQ's priority watch list. The NSA is currently grepping every haystack they have for your on-line activity which will be forwarded post haste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doubt it - that particular pig has already squealed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-most-shocking-thing-about-piggate-is-that-it-wouldn t-be-the-worst-thing-david-cameron-has-done-10510916.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secret for Me, Prison for Thee
What happens to UK government officials who break the law under the guise of national security and then hide their crimes behind the Official Secrets Act of 1989?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The five eyes and Sweden
Already corporations and people (and governments) shy away from software, services, and cloud offerings from the five eyes and Sweden.
I wonder when a European government make an official recommendation to avoid the surveillance states for confidentiality and privacy. The petroleum spy scandal were a chock for Brazil!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However due to National Security this will never come about & the spy-person will get off scot-free & be able to continue to do the wrong things well into the future & receive bonuses & promotion, along with their colleagues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Political Prisoners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The infinite loop:
"I can almost see the headlines - if there were going to be any - 'Existence Erased - Thanks to some prick in a scarlet cape.' --Dogma
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]