In a day of debating mostly minor parts of the Bill, Lord Cope
noted, “that the Bill has achieved the rare, if not unique,
distinction of having The Times, the Financial Times and the
Guardian all call for the Bill to be withdrawn and
reconsidered.”
Lord Cope also referred to the report recently published by the
British Chamber of Commerce, “which concludes, among other things,
that the costs to service providers of compliance would be £650
million over five years, and continuing thereafter. It has also
concluded that the effects on the economy would be well over £35
billion over five years in the transfer of business to overseas
jurisdictions. These are very serious figures.”
However, Lord Bassam replied that, “the public debate has
revealed some very serious misunderstandings about the Bill.” He
described these as ill-judged or misconceived. He continued, “we
shall not be deflected from our course; nor shall we withdraw the
Bill, as suggested in some of the wilder public comments. None of
our industry contacts asks us to withdraw the Bill. They ask for it
to be amended in many and various respects. We shall see what we
can do in that regard.”
Lord Bassam referred to a letter written by Jack Straw, the Home
Secretary, in response to an editorial in The Times:
"The first myth is that the Bill requires
all Internet service providers in the UK to install black boxes
with a link to the Security Service to monitor traffic. This is
completely untrue. The Bill introduces comprehensive statutory
controls for the first time governing access to data, such as
billing records. Access must be properly authorised for specified
purposes only. This is subject to independent oversight ...
"The second myth is that the Bill
criminalises the innocent user of technology. Again, this is wholly
wrong. It targets the serious criminal. There is a sanction for not
complying with a decryption notice. But the burden is on the
prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person has, or
has had, possession of a decryption key. Forgetting passwords or
keys is a reasonable thing to do, so the Bill includes statutory
defences for such cases".
Lord Bassam said the Home Secretary then goes on to look at a
third myth; namely, that companies will be required to surrender
private keys to their entire network and will be prevented from
divulging this. Quoting from the Home Secretary’s letter:
"But we have made it clear that, where
legitimate businesses are concerned, we fully expect that
disclosing material in an intelligible form rather than a key will
normally be sufficient. The Bill reflects this. It contains
restrictions on when keys may be required and when the 'tipping
off' provision may come into play".
"We do not want to see the burgeoning
e-commerce market overrun with high-tech criminals against whom law
enforcement finds itself powerless; neither does industry with
which we have actively engaged in consultation. So we need to
update our laws. But we also need to ensure that we protect
citizens' legitimate rights and that we do not overburden business.
It is all about balance. I believe that the Bill strikes the right
one.”
Lord Bassam added that officials of the House of Lords have met
with a representative of the British Chamber of Commerce, to
discuss the issues raised by them.
