4 ms·

For me, this is the worst bit: 4 Extra-territoriality in Part 1 of RIPA (1) Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (com

For me, this is the worst bit: 4 Extra-territoriality in Part 1 of RIPA (1) Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (communications) is amended as follows. (2) In section 11 (implementation of interception warrants), after subsection (2) insert – - (2A) A copy of a warrant may be served under subsection (2) on a person outside the United Kingdom (and may relate to conduct outside the United Kingdom). (3) In subsection (4) of that section, after "that person" insert "(whether or not the person is in the United Kingdom)". (5) In subsection (8) of that section, after "enforceable" insert "(including in the case of a person outside the United Kingdom)". (6) In section 12 (maintenance of interception capability), after subsection (3) insert – - (3A) An obligation may be imposed in accordance with an order under this section on, and a notice under subsection (2) given to, persons outside the United Kingdom (and may be so imposed or given in relation to conduct outside the United Kingdom). I did some snipping to get rid of admin stuff, but those terms extend the authority of the UK home secretary to give him jurisdiction on ordering wiretapping outside of the UK. Section 11 of RIPA is about wiretaps, section 12 is about ensuring the ability to have wiretaps. If this passes, the following will be law in the UK: (4) Where a copy of an interception warrant has been served by or on behalf of the person to whom it is addressed on— (a) a person who provides a postal service, (b) a person who provides a public telecommunications service, or (c) a person not falling within paragraph (b) who has control of the whole or any part of a telecommunication system located wholly or partly in the United Kingdom,it shall (subject to subsection (5)) be the duty of that person (whether or not the person is in the United Kingdom) to take all such steps for giving effect to the warrant as are notified to him by or on behalf of the person to whom the warrant is addressed. (8) A person’s duty under subsection (4) to take steps for giving effect to a warrant shall be enforceable (including in the case of a person outside the United Kingdom) by civil proceedings by the Secretary of State for an injunction, or for specific performance of a statutory duty under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988, or for any other appropriate relief. To put it plainly, this act, if it passes, will allow the UK to seek civil redress against companies that have no link to the United Kingdom if they refuse to spy on their users, so long as they can argue that some part of the communications system is in the UK. To me, that reads like it will be valid if there are users in the UK.

masklinn 12y ago
> To me, that reads like it will be valid if there are users in the UK. There's even better: applying it if the company's packets ever transit through the UK (since that means "[some] part of a telecommunication system partly in the United Kingdom"). And IIRC it just happens that most of the backbone capacity between US and EU goes through the UK.
- MatthewWilkes 12y ago
  Yeah, there's a clever trick hidden in there. You can be liable if you control part of a system that is partially located in the UK. It doesn't actually say you have to control the part located in the UK.
madaxe_again 12y ago
To me, this reads like they're declaring their own ability to carry out acts of war in sovereign states at will, as their only recourse will be force.
- pjc50 12y ago
  A power the US has claimed as its own for some time. In practice, extradition will cover most cases. It will be used against Gmail and Yahoo in the first instance.
pbhjpbhj 12y ago
>will allow the UK to seek civil redress against companies that have no link to the United Kingdom // No, not "no link" as you assert. Instead the S8 you quote says they must have whole or partial control of a telecoms system located at least partially in the UK. [There's clearly no point in having powers over those who don't control the system as they're useless in getting information/control from that system.] It's right that a company acting in the UK - eg offering a service to users, those users being in the UK - should come under UK law IMO, that's sovereignty. I'm not comment on the other aspects only the jurisdiction aspect here.
- 12y ago

masklinn 12y ago

> To me, that reads like it will be valid if there are users in the UK. There's even better: applying it if the company's packets ever transit through the UK (since that means "[some] part of a telecommunication system partly in the United Kingdom"). And IIRC it just happens that most of the backbone capacity between US and EU goes through the UK.

MatthewWilkes 12y ago
Yeah, there's a clever trick hidden in there. You can be liable if you control part of a system that is partially located in the UK. It doesn't actually say you have to control the part located in the UK.

madaxe_again 12y ago

To me, this reads like they're declaring their own ability to carry out acts of war in sovereign states at will, as their only recourse will be force.

pjc50 12y ago
A power the US has claimed as its own for some time. In practice, extradition will cover most cases. It will be used against Gmail and Yahoo in the first instance.

pbhjpbhj 12y ago

>will allow the UK to seek civil redress against companies that have no link to the United Kingdom // No, not "no link" as you assert. Instead the S8 you quote says they must have whole or partial control of a telecoms system located at least partially in the UK. [There's clearly no point in having powers over those who don't control the system as they're useless in getting information/control from that system.] It's right that a company acting in the UK - eg offering a service to users, those users being in the UK - should come under UK law IMO, that's sovereignty. I'm not comment on the other aspects only the jurisdiction aspect here.

12y ago