This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/01/technology-firms-hopes-dashed-by-cosmetic-tweaks-to-snoopers-charter

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Technology firms' hopes dashed by 'cosmetic tweaks' to snooper's charter Technology firms' hopes dashed by 'cosmetic tweaks' to snooper's charter
(about 20 hours later)
Here comes the new snooper’s charter, same as the old snooper’s charter.Here comes the new snooper’s charter, same as the old snooper’s charter.
Many in the technology sector had been hoping that the final version of the investigatory powers bill, released on Tuesday, would backtrack on some of the more controversial aspects of October’s draft bill. But the final version, which will now be presented to parliament, contains only the mildest of tweaks, and even doubles-down on some areas.Many in the technology sector had been hoping that the final version of the investigatory powers bill, released on Tuesday, would backtrack on some of the more controversial aspects of October’s draft bill. But the final version, which will now be presented to parliament, contains only the mildest of tweaks, and even doubles-down on some areas.
A fierce lobbying effort over the winter, from firms including Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Twitter, had focused on three specific parts of the legislation where the Home Office bill looked set to do real damage to the technology industry.A fierce lobbying effort over the winter, from firms including Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Twitter, had focused on three specific parts of the legislation where the Home Office bill looked set to do real damage to the technology industry.
The draft bill had concerned the major US technology companies for a number of reasons.The draft bill had concerned the major US technology companies for a number of reasons.
The new version of the bill does soften that last requirement, just. It offers a “pragmatic approach” on the part of the government, and makes clear that no company will be required to remove encryption of their own services if it is not technically feasible. The definition of what, exactly, constitutes technical feasibility is, however, left as an exercise for the reader – and for a lot of lawyers in the future.The new version of the bill does soften that last requirement, just. It offers a “pragmatic approach” on the part of the government, and makes clear that no company will be required to remove encryption of their own services if it is not technically feasible. The definition of what, exactly, constitutes technical feasibility is, however, left as an exercise for the reader – and for a lot of lawyers in the future.
But on the other areas, no changes were made.But on the other areas, no changes were made.
In its response to the bill committee’s recommendations, the government said that concerns over extraterritoriality were already dealt with. “The government is engaging in preliminary discussions with international partners on how a new international framework for access to data across jurisdictions might operate in principle. This would be based on strong, human rights-compliant domestic regulatory oversight,” it said.In its response to the bill committee’s recommendations, the government said that concerns over extraterritoriality were already dealt with. “The government is engaging in preliminary discussions with international partners on how a new international framework for access to data across jurisdictions might operate in principle. This would be based on strong, human rights-compliant domestic regulatory oversight,” it said.
And the bill actually extended the proposed powers for the state to hack computers. Previously, the draft bill had only allowed the security services to carry out computer hacking (enshrining into law an ability believed to already be widely used). But the new version of the bill also allows the police to start hacking when they are dealing with a “threat to life” or missing persons, as well as the security services.And the bill actually extended the proposed powers for the state to hack computers. Previously, the draft bill had only allowed the security services to carry out computer hacking (enshrining into law an ability believed to already be widely used). But the new version of the bill also allows the police to start hacking when they are dealing with a “threat to life” or missing persons, as well as the security services.
The Open Rights Group’s executive director Jim Killock concluded that “the revised bill barely pays lip service to the concerns raised by the committees that scrutinised the draft bill.The Open Rights Group’s executive director Jim Killock concluded that “the revised bill barely pays lip service to the concerns raised by the committees that scrutinised the draft bill.
“If passed, it would mean that the UK has one of the most draconian surveillance laws of any democracy with mass surveillance powers to monitor every citizen’s browsing history.”“If passed, it would mean that the UK has one of the most draconian surveillance laws of any democracy with mass surveillance powers to monitor every citizen’s browsing history.”
Eric King, the director of the Don’t Spy on Us coalition, warned that “Rather than a full redraft, we’ve been given cosmetic tweaks to a heavily criticised, deeply intrusive bill.” Eric King, the director of the Don’t Spy on Us coalition, warned: “Rather than a full redraft, we’ve been given cosmetic tweaks to a heavily criticised, deeply intrusive bill.”
King added: “There simply isn’t time for proper scrutiny of all these powers in the timeframe proposed.” On that, he was backed up by the Web Foundation, founded by the inventor of the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee, which called the final bill “a slap in the face for British democracy”.King added: “There simply isn’t time for proper scrutiny of all these powers in the timeframe proposed.” On that, he was backed up by the Web Foundation, founded by the inventor of the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee, which called the final bill “a slap in the face for British democracy”.
The time-frame is, according to the Foundation, “not only unrealistic, but dangerous.” The timeframe is, according to the Foundation, “not only unrealistic, but dangerous”.
One major US technology firm told the Guardian that it was “hugely disappointing that the government hasn’t moved on any of the core issues, despite a wealth of evidence”. As the bill moves through parliament, that opposition is likely to intensify.One major US technology firm told the Guardian that it was “hugely disappointing that the government hasn’t moved on any of the core issues, despite a wealth of evidence”. As the bill moves through parliament, that opposition is likely to intensify.