#IPBill
Oversight or Insight?
Graham Smith, Bird & Bird LLP
@cyberleagle
Public Law Project Annual Conference
12 October 2016
Page 2
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
Article 8 ECHR – privacy protection
No interference by a public authority except such as is:
● in accordance with the law and
● is necessary in a democratic society
● in the interests of
• national security,
• public safety
• or the economic well-being of the country,
• for the prevention of disorder or crime,
• for the protection of health or morals,
• or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others
● Proportionality
Page 3
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
Existence of law
Quality of law
Accessibility
In accordance with the law
Secrecy and quality of law
are natural antagonists
Page 4
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
Accessibility
Secret interpretations
of the law
Page 5
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
Not just a US problem
Page 6
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
Page 7
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
RIPA S8(4) – bulk interception
Page 8
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
RIPA/DRIPA - extraterritoriality
Mrs May: … The position is not changing; what is changing is simply
being absolutely without doubt that the extraterritoriality is there,
because it is now in the Bill, rather than it being asserted by
Government as having been the intention of the previous legislation.
Mrs May: … On the issue of lawful intercept, it has been the contention
of this Government—and, I believe, the previous Government when they
passed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—that that had
extraterritorial application. That has been legally questioned and we
have continued to assert that that is the power that currently exists. The
Bill puts that beyond doubt, by putting it clearly into primary legislation,
so nobody can be in any doubt that the power that we have always said
existed does in fact exist.
Hansard 15 July 2014 (DRIPA)
Page 9
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
Thematic warrants under RIPA
Revealed by Intelligence and Security Committee
March 2015
Hansard 12 April 2016 (IPBill Commons Committee)
Joanna Cherry QC, MP
Page 10
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
S94 Telecommunications Act 1984
A continuing issue
Page 11
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
Page 12
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
#IPBill Technical capability notices
End to end encryption
The government, in seeking to future-
proof the proposed legislation, has
produced definitions of internet
connection records and other terms
which have led to significant confusion
on the part of communications service
providers and others.
Commons Science & Technology Committee
Page 13
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
Page 14
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
Page 15
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
Page 16
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
Content versus communications data
A proposal
Page 17
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
Page 18
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
David Anderson QC’s Bulk Powers Review
Graham Smith
graham.smith@twobirds.com
@cyberleagle
Bird & Bird is an international legal practice comprising Bird & Bird LLP and its affiliated and associated businesses.
Bird & Bird LLP is a limited liability partnership, registered in England and Wales with registered number OC340318 and is authorised and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority. Its registered office and principal place of business is at 15 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1JP. A list of members of Bird & Bird LLP and
of any non-members who are designated as partners, and of their respective professional qualifications, is open to inspection at that address.
twobirds.com
Thank you

IPBillOversightInsight

  • 1.
    #IPBill Oversight or Insight? GrahamSmith, Bird & Bird LLP @cyberleagle Public Law Project Annual Conference 12 October 2016
  • 2.
    Page 2 © Bird& Bird LLP 2016 Article 8 ECHR – privacy protection No interference by a public authority except such as is: ● in accordance with the law and ● is necessary in a democratic society ● in the interests of • national security, • public safety • or the economic well-being of the country, • for the prevention of disorder or crime, • for the protection of health or morals, • or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others ● Proportionality
  • 3.
    Page 3 © Bird& Bird LLP 2016 Existence of law Quality of law Accessibility In accordance with the law
  • 4.
    Secrecy and qualityof law are natural antagonists Page 4 © Bird & Bird LLP 2016 Accessibility
  • 5.
    Secret interpretations of thelaw Page 5 © Bird & Bird LLP 2016
  • 6.
    Not just aUS problem Page 6 © Bird & Bird LLP 2016
  • 7.
    Page 7 © Bird& Bird LLP 2016 RIPA S8(4) – bulk interception
  • 8.
    Page 8 © Bird& Bird LLP 2016 RIPA/DRIPA - extraterritoriality Mrs May: … The position is not changing; what is changing is simply being absolutely without doubt that the extraterritoriality is there, because it is now in the Bill, rather than it being asserted by Government as having been the intention of the previous legislation. Mrs May: … On the issue of lawful intercept, it has been the contention of this Government—and, I believe, the previous Government when they passed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—that that had extraterritorial application. That has been legally questioned and we have continued to assert that that is the power that currently exists. The Bill puts that beyond doubt, by putting it clearly into primary legislation, so nobody can be in any doubt that the power that we have always said existed does in fact exist. Hansard 15 July 2014 (DRIPA)
  • 9.
    Page 9 © Bird& Bird LLP 2016 Thematic warrants under RIPA Revealed by Intelligence and Security Committee March 2015 Hansard 12 April 2016 (IPBill Commons Committee) Joanna Cherry QC, MP
  • 10.
    Page 10 © Bird& Bird LLP 2016 S94 Telecommunications Act 1984
  • 11.
    A continuing issue Page11 © Bird & Bird LLP 2016
  • 12.
    Page 12 © Bird& Bird LLP 2016 #IPBill Technical capability notices End to end encryption
  • 13.
    The government, inseeking to future- proof the proposed legislation, has produced definitions of internet connection records and other terms which have led to significant confusion on the part of communications service providers and others. Commons Science & Technology Committee Page 13 © Bird & Bird LLP 2016
  • 14.
    Page 14 © Bird& Bird LLP 2016
  • 15.
    Page 15 © Bird& Bird LLP 2016
  • 16.
    Page 16 © Bird& Bird LLP 2016 Content versus communications data
  • 17.
    A proposal Page 17 ©Bird & Bird LLP 2016
  • 18.
    Page 18 © Bird& Bird LLP 2016 David Anderson QC’s Bulk Powers Review
  • 19.
    Graham Smith graham.smith@twobirds.com @cyberleagle Bird &Bird is an international legal practice comprising Bird & Bird LLP and its affiliated and associated businesses. Bird & Bird LLP is a limited liability partnership, registered in England and Wales with registered number OC340318 and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Its registered office and principal place of business is at 15 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1JP. A list of members of Bird & Bird LLP and of any non-members who are designated as partners, and of their respective professional qualifications, is open to inspection at that address. twobirds.com Thank you