Security services to get more access to monitor emails and social media
By Mark Townsend for The Observer
29th July 2012
The European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (Etsi), the body that sets industry
standards, has agreed measures that analysts say could force internet service
providers to ensure that their systems meet government standards for
intercepting communications. The government's data bill restricts the
authorities to only being able to see who is contacting whom, when, where and
how, while the content of online communications would remain private unless a
court warrant was obtained.
A joint
scrutiny committee of MPs and peers, set up following widespread concerns about
increased intrusion following the unveiling of the draft bill last month, is
understood not to have been informed of the Etsi standards, which critics say
could precipitate an escalation in state surveillance. While the bill does not
authorise interception, experts warn that there is nothing in the proposals
that prevents the authorities from then installing their own hardware capable
of intercepting the communications network.
A draft
report from the Etsi technical committee on lawful interception, dated April
2012, indicates that standards have been agreed that could lead to increased
data interception. It reveals that measures have been agreed to monitor
"nomadic access", which means surveillance of an individual whether
they go online from their home computer, mobile or an internet café. To facilitate
this, service providers "must implement a Cloud Lawful Interception
Function (Clif)" that could mean the installation of a new monitoring
interface "or more likely ensuring presentation of information in a format
recognisable to interception mechanisms".
Etsi has
faced criticism in the past for the pre-emptive inclusion of wiretapping
capabilities, a decision that critics say encouraged European governments to
pass their wiretapping laws accordingly. According to Ross Anderson, professor
in security engineering at the University
of Cambridge Computer Laboratory ,
the institute has strong links with the intelligence agencies and has a
significant British contingent, along with a number of US government advisers.
The
development has led to fears among civil liberties campaigners that the bill
could become a stepping stone towards plans to monitor and control access to
content. Anderson
said: "It's an absolutely massive extension of state surveillance. At
present the government can watch anybody. What they want in the future is to
get into a position where the government can watch everybody. They are saying
this is only about communications data, but in fact it is not. If you build the
infrastructure that Etsi have agreed, it can be used for interception. The
documents show that there is a clear and continuing intention to use it for
interception."
Some experts
believe that allowing the government to install its own hardware at internet
service providers, as currently proposed by the bill, would have to comply with
the Etsi standards and would lead to interception of an individual's online
content. Nick Pickles, director of the privacy and civil liberties campaign
group Big Brother Watch, said: "We're seeing moves at an international
level to make it easier for the content of communications to be intercepted.
For Home Office officials behind the communications data bill, spying on who we
are emailing or Skyping is not their final objective. Officials from Britain are
working internationally to force service providers to ensure that their systems
are easy to tap into."
He said it
was worrying that the Etsi standards had not been disclosed to the committee of
MPs and peers, introduced as one of the safeguards following opposition to the
proposals. The committee will examine all aspects of the draft bill and is
expected to report in November. However, a Home Office spokesman said there
were no plans to collect the content of online data. "It is simply untrue
to suggest we would be able to collect the content of communications data. The
changes we are making only relate to the who, where and when of communications
data. The interception of the content of any communications is a completely
separate matter and continues to be strictly controlled by the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act, requiring a warrant signed by the secretary of state."
[Brick by
brick the Government are quietly laying the groundwork for an all encompassing
surveillance state – in the name of keeping us safe from a largely nameless and
faceless enemy intent on doing us harm. Critics have been called ‘conspiracy
theorists’ because, as we know, our Government cares for us and would never do
anything to endanger innocent people. What could possibly go wrong?]
No comments:
Post a Comment