DEMOS

The front page of the Mail on Sunday was rather enjoyable today, expressing as it did tangible outrage at the powers of the amended Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The story is a great example of how frustrating online newspaper copy can be; but trying to understand the changes it is referring to give a broader sense of how difficult it can be to unravel legislative changes and their impact. The whole process, from inception to commentary, can be pretty opaque.

The newspaper
First up, the Mail imports the principle of the paper as reporter and commentator; of the copy giving its readers all it needs to digest the news and its implications. It's flat text feels particularly arcane in the world of links and references. Anyone wishing to learn a bit more than how to be outraged at something of a Sunday morning is left to their own initiative. Fair enough - but surely a few links to exactly what the story refers to would be helpful? Actually saying what the legislation is  called might be useful too - just as a helpful leg up. I'm not sure what that reveals about the incentives behind news reports like this; but maybe the number of shocked and horrified comments gives an idea.

The legislation
So it leaves one to scratch around Google and the poorly signposted websites that contain legislation and supporting files - although, in fairness, it took only a few minutes to locate what the Mail was talking about. It takes a bit longer to sift through the legal jargon to uncover exactly what the documents mean.

RIPA
The substance of the complaint in the Mail is that legislation, with its roots in the EU, has been passed that extends government powers to find out about people's communication data.  Or, to 'spy on ALL our phones'. That is correct enough, perhaps.  These seem to be the amendments they are talking about: 1, 2, 3.

The 'RIPA' Act mentioned above will mean that a range of public authorities will be able to find out the 'who, when and where' of data - not the content. So that means the date and time of when you rang for a pizza, but not the fact that you rang for a pizza, or what type of pizza you asked for.

There are a couple of key problems that come to mind with how these powers have come about.

1. Accountability: The Information Commissioner, who is the authority with power to oversee how personal information is used, is given the power only to oversee the security of data where it is held. That means ensuring it is not left on a USB key somewhere, or that people have the right sort of access limits and so on. The more important questions of who can access the data and why is not within in his remit, it seems. So those questions have been left to legislation and senior members of staff in the 'relevant' public authorities. Hardly impartial or independent oversight of some important powers.

2. Legitimacy: The problem with that last point is that public deliberation in these changes has been not only limited but, where it has happened, been run on less than perfect information.  As usual, the amendments have been championed on national security grounds, or on the basis of fighting serious crime.  But the scope of the legislation is far wider, giving lots of different types of authority the ability to use communications data - so claiming. In fact, the scope is almost comically broad, covering such a range of aspects of a vague notion of public good as to be meaningless (see the 'General Extent of Powers' section of the draft code of practice).

The key point is that these are tools that need much greater level of public debate and scrutiny than they are getting, because in the long term they have important implications for how people relate to government and the various departments that offer services.  It's just not good enough to justify them through notions of national security; efficiency; or crime reduction. Maybe the public would be willing to make the trade-offs - but we need the ability to decide first.