Most of the stories came out of a recent open meeting of the ISPA (Internet Service Providers Association) Parliamentary Forum; so attending were an MP from each party, quite a lot of ISPs, several officials (lots from Home Office as it was their topic of discussion this time around) and other ISPA members.

There was quite a lot of discussion about ISPs being paid properly for supplying information(!?), but I don't think that is the point. The real issue is that the users have no one representing them and there are no proper checks that the police aren't going beyond their powers, even as defined in RIP. Under RIP, the ISPs now have indemnity against British legal action over information they supply the police, so they don't seem to be worrying too much what they give them. They were complaining that they wanted this indemnity to be extended to cover them under international law too.

As has been shown on the web censorship issue, most of the ISPs don't give a damn about the rights of their users and certainly aren't acting as guarantors of their rights on the privacy issue either.


> >I was at that meeting. A far more pernicious aspect of the sudden stream of
> >questions police are addressing to ISPs, since RIP, emerged than is in this
> >report. It is clear that the police are often asking for, and getting,
> >information from ISPs about users far beyond what even RIP entitles them
> >to, in some cases by lying about what the ISPs are required to give. The
> >police are seeing RIP as a licence to request just about anything they want
> >from ISPs - "stupid questions", technical advice, user information they are
> >not entitled to, etc, etc.
> >
> >Certainly, the ISPs complained that their businesses were being affected by
> >the amount of time wasted on this, but the real issue, the rights of
> >Internet *users*, was not touched on at all. The whole tone of the meeting
> >was one of cooperation between the police and the ISPs. The head of the
> >Home Office RIPA Implementation Team made clear that "we cannot operate
> >this Act without your support and cooperation" and the ISPs expressed their
> >willingness to provide this, as long it wasn't going to affect their
> >business costs too much.


Related 'news' stories

Independent
21/1/01: Demon sees devil in the detail of RIP Act

Wired
19/1/01: ISPs 'RIP' Into British Police

Silicon.com
18/1/01: ISPA labels police 'inept' in privacy row

ZDNet UK
17/1/01: ISPs blast police ignorance

Financial
Times 17/1/01: Internet companies hit at police ignorance of e-mail

Register
17/1/01: RIP not a problem thanks to police stupidity

VNUnet 17/1/2001:
ISPs draw up 'say and pay' list for police


*ALSO* of note:

Privacy Tools and Advice

EPIC Online Guide to Privacy Resources
 http://www.epic.org/privacy/privacy_resources_faq.html

EPIC Online Guide to Practical Privacy Tools
 http://www.epic.org/privacy/tools.html


Info on RIP Bill
 http://www.fipr.org