Making online accountability a one-sided deal
IN THE same week that ministers have been sounding off about Chinese online influence, so the UK tech industry was highlighting worrying contradictions in the government’s own plans to amend its so-called “Snooper’s Charter”.
The Investigatory Powers Act currently allows the intelligence agencies to access large amounts of our data from various sources, including electronic devices.
It also gives them the power to access messages and listen in to phone calls. In addition there is a requirement put upon internet service providers to keep data about their customers’ internet browsing for one year.
The data is accessible to the police, government departments and some emergency services.
Proposed amendments discussed in parliament this week will require messaging platforms to inform the Home Office about security updates before they are released. This applies to any firm having UK customers, even if the business is not based here.
There’s also a new category of activity that talks about accessing “less sensitive data”, although any definition of what this actually means remains a bit fuzzy.
As you would expect, ministers insist their “moderate” changes are intended to keep UK citizens safe.
This view is largely echoed by the main opposition party.
Equally predictably, the trade bodies representing the tech industry reckon the approach is neither balanced nor proportionate.
Leading outfit, Techuk, warns that it’s not just citizens’ privacy and safety that could be put at risk. A statement they provided, signed by more than a dozen bodies and individuals from the tech industry and human rights groups, say the moves could weaken current resilience against hostile interference.
It’s not the first time that the government’s plans to upgrade investigatory powers via amendments to existing law have been greeted with acrimony. Tech giant Apple earlier declared the idea of governments pre-approving new proprietary security features as “unprecedented overreach”.
That’s pretty good for an outfit with a reputation for (allegedly) implementing burdensome software restrictions on customers while fending off a raft of claims and counter claims from competing operators – but I guess it takes one to know one.
The Home Office described the amendments as a means of seeking to “protect the country from child sexual abusers and terrorists”.
A number of observers have pointed out that the existing powers were originally supposed to achieve the same goals.
Other critics of the move contend the result will be a weakening of safeguards on personal data with intelligence services potentially harvesting millions of facial images and social media info.
The bottom line is that the privacy and conditions that we all scroll through without actually reading will no longer guarantee the basic level of protections expected by users and those who regulate the industry.
As one major operator pointed out, it could also make the UK a weak link in the chain of global online security – thus assisting malicious cyberattack campaigns by state-affiliated actors.
Then again, given the propensity of our politicians to “lose” Whatsapp messages whenever the prospect of some public inquiry arises, maybe we shouldn’t be too surprised that the aim is to make online accountability a one-sided deal.