The United Kingdoms Approach to Privacy Law - Essay Example

? Company Law Essay April 18, 1843 words of School Introduction The United Kingdom’s approach to privacy law has always beenin contrast to other nations in Europe. In fact, there have been no significant laws to protect private information, despite various attempts by the UK parliament to introduce a general privacy law. Since 1961, bills on privacy have been introduced, but none of them succeeded in enacting a general law on privacy in the UK.1 According to the Great Britain Parliament, House of Commons, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, under the law of England, private information was only protected through alternative legal solutions, since such law only got to be enacted in 2000.2 In 2000, individuals' rights to privacy and family life were recognised, when the European Convention on Human Rights through the Human Rights Acts of 1998 was included in the law of the United Kingdom.3 This leaves the UK lacking a common law outlining the right of privacy. In recent years, UK government measures increasingly impinge on privacy. This was after the enactment of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act of 2000 that has granted more powers to the UK government to intercept different kinds of information. The main reason for the enactment of the RIP Act was to ensure that security and law enforcement agencies in the UK had enough powers granted to them, so as to be able to do their jobs effectively, especially with the growth of new technologies that have raised security concerns. With this, it is clear that “the UK views cyber attacks against individuals and corporations as civil and criminal issues that can be handled accordingly.”4 However, the act has profound effects on organizations and investors associated with the UK. Consequently, there have been concerns raised over the regulation of such powers and the fact that most investors and shareholders would prefer to only have very little of their information intercepted and disclosed. Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act of 2000 This act incorporates monitoring and interception of communications. “RIP dictates that every electronic communication has to be sent to the Government Technical Assistance Center (GTAC).”5 In the case that a warrant for the disclosure of information is issued, the person whom protected material is addressed to is required to disclose the information. Investigatory powers covered by the act include the obtaining of communication data, the interception of communications, hidden surveillance in particular operations, intrusive surveillance, legal right to encrypted information, and the use of undercover officers, informants, and agents.6 Under the RIP Act of 2000, all Internet Service Providers are required to intercept all communications data created, sent, or transmitted through the United Kingdom’s networks, and route it to the Government Technical Assistance Center. The RIP Act 2000 supports tipping-off of employers and companies by employees. Upon request by the government of the UK, any company official is required to surrender any requested information, and the law bares him or her from informing anyone about such an action, including the security staff, senior management, and employers.7 There are punishments for those who violate tipping-off regulations by informing others that they have disclosed private information, and such offenders get up to five years imprisonment. International companies and stakeholders associated with the UK are very uncomfortable with this law, since they might operate assuming that they hold secure company information, while the UK may have gotten well aware about it through interception. Impacts of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act of 2000 The United Kingdom’s RIP Act 2000 is a great invasion of privacy for different parties. This is because the act allows interception of internet communications, gives legal rights to access of encrypted information, and allows surveillance. Companies and individuals are required by the UK government to disclose private information, so long as it concerns national security, can help to detect and prevent crime, and also concerns the welfare of the United Kingdom. According to Tassabehji, “there is much controversy over this Act in the UK, with critics arguing that it is a gross invasion of privacy and is contrary to the European Convention of Human Rights defending employee and individual rights to privacy”.8 the act fails to take the interests of key stakeholders into account by only focussing on how to protect organisations and the nation from potential harm. most employees and investors would wish to have some of their communications and information kept private, but this act is completely contrary to such wishes. In fact, some investors and internet organisations have considered cutting off their ties with Britain. This is because the internet companies are required to always have black boxes that allow monitoring of users over the internet, and these include the emails they send or receive, as well as the chat rooms and websites they visit.9 All internet service providers with services connected to the United Kingdom are required to “maintain a reasonable intercept capability to monitor the flow of data (a highly expensive and almost unmanageable task considering the fast changing nature of the technology and ever increasing volume of internet traffic).”10 Despite the fact that security personnel and organisations involved in intercepting ISP customers data do get warrants from the United Kingdom home office, through a strict criteria outlined in the act, the interests of the ISPs and customers are not considered. failure of companies and individuals to submit any requested information or data decryption keys to the UK government, and tipping-off by employees to their superiors leads to payment of huge fines and jail terms that are not less than two years for failure to submit information, and imprisonment of up to five years for employees who tip off their superiors. From this, it is clear that only compliance is required by the act and no party has a right to question any interception by the UK government. according to Kim, “with RIP, it is the person to whom protected (encrypted) material is addressed who should disclose the material , if a warrant for this purpose is issued.”11 Despite the fact that employees who disclose information upon request by the UK government are protected against any ramifications that may arise immediately or thereafter, for example termination of employment or lawsuits filed by employers, the protection is only valid within the United Kingdom.12 This has been so despite the fact that the UK government may request employees of companies outside the United Kingdom to submit private company information or data decryption keys. An example is a case where a parent company is based in another nation, but with a subsidiary in the UK. The UK government does not protect the employee of such a company, and this is quite unfair given that the employee may immediately be terminated from the company, or it might even file a lawsuit against him, which will cost him a lot of money in the long run. What makes the whole act more sinister is the fact that Claire Powell, who comes from Amsterdam and works with Forester Research, which is a company based in Netherlands, just like any other individual based away from the whole scenario commented that she saw no need for a nation involved with the United Kingdom to worry about the consequences of the act.13 It is clear that since the act has no direct effect to such a person and any other individuals not connected to it do not find the United Kingdom doing anything wrong, but it is clearly an invasion of privacy. The United Kingdom House of Commons argued that the act will not have any negative effect on e-commerce and the main problem is the perception that the people gave to the act, and the way the British and other media gave alarming reports about the repercussions of the act.14 The British Chamber of Commerce had requested amendment or scraping off of the act, due to the huge amounts of capital that involved companies would be required to invest in implementing what is highlighted in the act. Other concerned international organisations included Amnesty International and Consumers International, who felt that the enactment of the act would restrict or even prevent the growth of both the internet and e-commerce. The act definitely has an effect on the internet and e-commerce, since it invades on all forms of communications and business operations conducted via the internet, and related to the United Kingdom. A number of parent companies with subsidiaries in the United Kingdom have had to alter some of their operating policies and practices. On the part of employees and in order for companies to avoid having their private information disclosed more stringent policies on what employees are allowed and what they are not allowed to do have had to be introduced. Some companies have gone to the extent of forbidding their employees from submitting any information or decrypting keys in case they are requested by the UK government, while others implemented processes that allow rerouting of information.15 The huge effect of this are company employees who are blocked from company matters that might be of interest to them, or that might have to do with their welfare. In conclusion, it is clear that despite the fact that the United Kingdom government and other indirect parties see no need for companies and shareholders to worry about the RIP Act 2000, there is a need to worry since there are always interests that need to be protected. It is not the desire of investors and stakeholders to have all their information disclosed. While there are companies that have decided not to pull out of the United Kingdom due to the act, there are those that feel that their interests matter more, and leaving is a better option for them. Both sides are bound to ultimately suffer due to the enactment of the act, but it is yet to be known which side will be the bigger loser. This is because for the United Kingdom, it will be very hard to rectify the situation when the damage is already done, and for the companies, the consequences of pulling out of the United Kingdom might be great losses. Reference List Caloyannides, Michael A., Privacy Protection And Computer Forensics, 2nd edn., Norwood, Artech House, Inc., 2004. Cushing, Steve, GCSE Information and Communication Technology for OCR Specification B, Oxford, Heinemann Educational Publishers, 2001. Great Britain Parliament, House of Commons, Culture, Media and Sport Committee , Press standards, privacy and libel: second report of session 2009-10, London, The Stationery Office, 2010. Hanna, M. and Dodd, M., McNae's Essential Law for Journalists, Volume 3, 21st edn., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012. Hughes, Christopher R. and Wacker, Gudrun (ed.), China and the Internet: Politics of the Digital Leap Forward, London, RoutledgeCurzon, 2003. Kim, Kwangjo (ed.), Public Key Cryptography: 4th International Workshop on Practice and Theory in Public Key Cryptosystems , PKC 2001 Cheju Island , Korea, February 2001 Proceedings, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2001. Kutais, B.G., Internet Policies and Issues, Volume 4, New York, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2002. Rohde, Laura, ‘U.K. Email Law Reaches U.S.’, InfoWorld, 4 Sep 2000. Tassabehji, Rana, Applying E-Commerce in Business, London, Sage Publications Ltd, 2003. Read More