May: UK data slurp law is fine, but I still need EMERGENCY powers

UK.gov worried about foreign companies it taps without consent?


Home Secretary Theresa May was in combative mode during a hearing with politicians on Monday afternoon as the government's rushed through data retention and investigation powers bill (Drip) was briefly scrutinised.

May, pressed by Liberal Democrat MP Julian Huppert as to why the Tory-led coalition had insisted late last week that emergency legislation had to be passed before the summer recess, said that it was "genuinely about making sure that the existing powers remain in place."

She declined to comment on whether the new law would allow spooks to widen Britain's surveillance net and apply it to non-US undersea cable companies.

Huppert, who surprised many privacy campaigners by backing the Drip bill, said he was baffled by the government's insistence that there is an emergency requirement to bring in new legislation before MPs break for the summer.

He quizzed the Home Sec on why she hadn't decided to wait until September to put the bill through parliament, given that - according to May's claim - the UK's current data retention law remains sound. That's in spite of April's European Court of Justice ruling on the EU Data Retention Directive, which was found to be "invalid" because it interfered not only with data protection rules, but also with fundamental human rights to a private life.

"Our data retention regulations do still stand, but they were drafted in relation to the Data Retention Directive," May said.

She added that the government wanted to put the UK's position "beyond doubt."

May said: "It is important we put this in place as soon as possible before we have the possibility of legal questions in relation to the issues that are put before us."

Huppert wanted to know why amendments to the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) were included in the bill. He asked the Home Sec to tell the home affairs committee if any overseas comms providers had ever complied with a Ripa request.

May eventually said that the government had "compliance with a number of providers".

She added: "We have consistently been of the view ... that Ripa did apply, had that extra-territoriality, this has been questioned, I think it's right to put this beyond question."

The cabinet minister appeared to be inferring that the government was keen to avoid legal action from communications providers outside the UK following the recent ECJ ruling. It's well known, following disclosures by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, that the British government's intelligence agencies tap into communications cables owned by overseas companies, in some cases without their knowledge or consent. May said that Whitehall wanted to avoid reaching a "cliff edge" on the issue.

But she failed to clarify exactly why the bill was urgent, beyond the suggestion that there was a perceived threat from foreign companies ripping the government's current regulations to shreds. ®

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • Prisons transcribe private phone calls with inmates using speech-to-text AI

    Plus: A drug designed by machine learning algorithms to treat liver disease reaches human clinical trials and more

    In brief Prisons around the US are installing AI speech-to-text models to automatically transcribe conversations with inmates during their phone calls.

    A series of contracts and emails from eight different states revealed how Verus, an AI application developed by LEO Technologies and based on a speech-to-text system offered by Amazon, was used to eavesdrop on prisoners’ phone calls.

    In a sales pitch, LEO’s CEO James Sexton told officials working for a jail in Cook County, Illinois, that one of its customers in Calhoun County, Alabama, uses the software to protect prisons from getting sued, according to an investigation by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

    Continue reading
  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading
  • American diplomats' iPhones reportedly compromised by NSO Group intrusion software

    Reuters claims nine State Department employees outside the US had their devices hacked

    The Apple iPhones of at least nine US State Department officials were compromised by an unidentified entity using NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, according to a report published Friday by Reuters.

    NSO Group in an email to The Register said it has blocked an unnamed customers' access to its system upon receiving an inquiry about the incident but has yet to confirm whether its software was involved.

    "Once the inquiry was received, and before any investigation under our compliance policy, we have decided to immediately terminate relevant customers’ access to the system, due to the severity of the allegations," an NSO spokesperson told The Register in an email. "To this point, we haven’t received any information nor the phone numbers, nor any indication that NSO’s tools were used in this case."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021