The Internet About Prosecutions Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act - Assignment Example

RIPA Report Introduction There is increased fraud in modern world and it is turning out to be a major challenge for law enforcers. Initially, dealing with fraud was something easy for law enforcers since it was not carried out by use of sophisticated methods. Dynamism in the communication world and improved knowledge when it comes to the use of computers has greatly increased fraud carried out using computers, through the internet and over private data transmission lines. It is quite hard for one to control the amount of information that flows in and out of the internet which also makes it hard for law enforcers to determine where to start from when a certain crime occurs. Data interception rules and regulations were not there initially and if there was they were not as strict as they are today. There is increased interest to protect data transmitted over a network. This has been done as a way of dealing with internet fraud and illegal data interception. There are certain improvements that the world currently enjoys as a result of increased cyber activity. For example, E commerce, more and more business are going ‘E’ with increased online stores and online shoppers. However, such businesses and business transactions still have to deal with the biggest risk which is fraud. It is still unclear who bears this risk. At the same time, there is increased business competition and competition for popularity in the industries for example the Media industry. Recently, a case has been reported where employees of New of the World were charged for hacking information form a private transmission line. The employees were then charged in the court of law, found guilty then convicted. Such activities have increased the need for cyber laws and data access rules. This report is going to focus on cyber laws enacted in the United Kingdom and around the globe to govern data access and fraud. Illegal Data Interception The United Kingdom laws defines a private communication system as a none public network one which meets the following criteria “it is attached, directly or indirectly and whether or not for the purposes of the communication in question, to a public telecommunication system; and there is apparatus comprised in the system which is both located in the United Kingdom and used (with or without other apparatus) for making the attachment to the public telecommunication system (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, p. 4)” The interception of data in transmission is illegal in the United Kingdom if done without following the required legal procedures. This includes interception of data in transmission via a telecommunication line or through postal means. It is not acceptable by law for any individual to intercept data through a private communication link unless the person is authorized by law (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, p. 4). This is also the case in many other countries where data under transmission should be protected at all times keeping in kind all the interests of the owner (Access to Communications Data 2003, p. 56). A person found tapping data under transmission through a private communication may be charged guilty and convicted and found guilty in a court of law. Looking at the newspaper company case, hacking into the system to secure data can be termed as unlawful interception of private information which led to their conviction. It is also important to understand the fact that, the information was accessed without the permission of the owner (American Civil Liberties Union 1998, p. 45; Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties 2010, p. 142). According to the crown laws “To intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of a private telecommunication system (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, p. 4)” The data intercepted by ‘News of the World’ employees was in transmission through a private communication channel. Given that the employees hacked through the communication system to obtain information, they have broken the law and hence the need for prosecution. If the information under transmission was carried through a public channel then its interception is acceptable by law (Access to Communications Data 2003, p. 56). At the same time, there are many other international directives governing private information, this includes copyright laws. Despite the fact that producing illegal copies of copyrighted art work cannot be termed as interception, it is quite important to understand the fact that there is need to ensure that private information is protected, this includes obtaining permission before producing copies of private information (American Civil Liberties Union 1998, p. 45). This includes private data under transmission, this form of data should never be released to unauthorized parties unless under the permission of the owner (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, p. 4). Legal Data Interception The laws also come down to provide the guidelines to be followed by an individual or authority when making such an interception based on an international agreement (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, p. 23). It is a MUST for the intercepting party to get a warrant from the court of law or any relevant authority before intercepting data or information being transmitted through a private communication channel (American Civil Liberties Union 1998, p. 45). At the same time the party seeking interception must be within a jurisdiction which qualifies under the law to carry out such an interception. Looking at the news of the world case, the employees went ahead to carry out the interception without consulting the relevant authority for a warrant, at the same time, the employees did not carry out the operation via legal methods. This involves hacking which is an international computer felony (Access to Communications Data 2003, p. 56). Many countries around the world do not entertain hacking as a way of obtaining information. In the United States hacking through a communication system is viewed as a federal offence and defaulters are heavily prosecuted (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, p. 23). However, the crown laws exclude certain parties from baring liability in case found intercepting data in a private communication system. This involves a person responsible for maintaining the communication system. This is a person whose interception of such information eliminates hi from liability (Access to Communications Data 2003, p. 56). This is due to the fact that, he is there to his job but not to intercept information. If found with such kind of information, the law exempts the party from prosecution, at the same time, a person who has been given consent by the owner directly or impliedly, such a person is perceived to have received consent from the information owner (American Civil Liberties Union 1998, p. 45). This is also the case with other international communication laws, information collected through the owner’s permission cannot be charged as illegally intercepted. If the owner expressly or impliedly allows another party to access information through the private communication channel then the interceptor does not bore any liability (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, p. 23). When it comes to copyrighted information, the artwork owner has the power to order production of other copies of such information. It is therefore clear that if a person produces illegal copies of copyrighted software or artwork with the consent of the owner or under the permission of the owner then the person is excluded from liability. It is also important to consider the fact that an individual may intercept information by virtue of his position (Access to Communications Data 2003, p. 56). For example, an employee working in an organization who accidentally comes across a piece of managerial information that is out of his jurisdiction, the employee cannot be charged for interception of information (American Civil Liberties Union 1998, p. 45). At the same time, a system analyst who accidentally comes across information being transmitted through the system is excluded from liability in case the analyst is sued for interception of information (American Civil Liberties Union 1998, p. 45). However, after acquiring such information, it is important for the party in question to look for the correct place where he/she can take such information. It is illegal for someone to intercept the information and use it for another offence (Bohm et al. 2000, p. 161). For example, a person responsible for maintaining a website who accidentally comes across a bunch of credit card numbers, it is illegal to start using the numbers since they are not under the name of the person. It is important to understand the fact that none of the convicted news world employees were under the two jurisdictions (American Civil Liberties Union 1998, p. 45; Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties 2010, p. 142). Te fact that the information was obtained through illegal means completely excludes the employee from the two groups mentioned above. The two employees were not within the two jurisdictions, according to the public statement, the two employees’ accessed information that was in transmission via a private channel (Carter and Katz 1997, p. 549). They did not come across this information by virtue of their position or by consent form the owner (Access to Communications Data 2003, p. 56). This makes them liable for the information they accessed on a private communication channel. It is also important to understand the fact that access of such information from the system was done through a means that is perceived as a crime which make the accused felons to face two charges which include access of information via illegal means and access of information that they are not authorized to access (American Civil Liberties Union 1998, p. 45; Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties 2010, p. 142). Penalty for Illegal Data Interception According to the laws, when one is found guilty of illegal interception, then he is charged in court of law where the penalty is an indictment or imprisonment of not more than two years or a fine or both. However, no proceedings of this kind should be carried out in England unless under the order of the director of public prosecutions. This is a clear indication that people found in England violating the communication laws above are punished at the director of prosecution’s discretion. At the same time the penalty is not stated clearly (American Civil Liberties Union 1998, p. 45). This means that there is a flaw in the United Kingdom laws governing illegal data interception (Eisner 2002, p. 381). At the same time, it is quite important for one to understand the fact that such offences exist and are constantly practiced, it is therefore important to come up with a general way in which proceedings for illegal data interception can be carried out (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, p. 23). Looking at the case involving employees from new s of the world, the proceedings must have been carried out after the call by the director of public prosecutions (American Civil Liberties Union 1998, p. 45). At the same time, there is needed to keep in mind the fact that the jury was not bound by the directives stated in the communications Act of Parliament (Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties 2010, p. 142). This is a clear indication that the final judgment depended on common law or already decided cases (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, p. 23). This has a great impact on the final outcome of the case given that the precedents applied by the jury may be outdated due to factors such as change in circumstances or the cases as the one compared are not similar (Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties 2010, p. 142). This therefore calls for the need to ensure that there is a law written down on how proceedings of such cases are carried out in Crown Land (American Civil Liberties Union 1998, p. 45). It is vital to come up with a rule which will ensure that there is constant understanding and uniformity in all the cases involving illegal data interception. This includes coming up with a binding legislation which will see to it that those found with illegally intercepted data are brought to justice in a fair manner (Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties 2010, p. 142). This will be a good way of ensuring data transmitted over network is protected by law. It is not safe to say that such data is protected by law where as there are people who do not know what is the final penalty for the breach of these laws (American Civil Liberties Union 1998, p. 45). On the other hand, there should be clear outline of how proceedings for cases involving data interception are carried out (Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties 2010, p. 142). This involves coming up with a uniform way of punishing those found guilty. It is not fair to the whole land for such cases to be summoned by the director of prosecutions only, this may lead to under prosecution since the director may call certain cases and at times miss some where the accused are guilty of the offence against them (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, p. 23). It is also important to establish the actual and direct rules to be followed when it comes to illegal data interception. For example, the News of the World case, there was little written down laws governing how the proceedings should be carried out. One can argue that, that’s the general characteristic of the English laws. However, there is need to ensure that there is uniformity in the way such cases are addressed (American Civil Liberties Union 1998, p. 45; Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties 2010, p. 142). This is due to the fact that data interception using methods such as hacking are new in the field of communication and care should be taken on how people found guilty of such offences are prosecuted (Elliot 1999, 1093). This will have a great impact on how others having the temptation of perpetrating the act hence reducing the probability of such crimes taking place (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, p. 23). Data Interception Warrants Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 the following persons are entitled to a data interception warrant The Director-General of the Security Service; The Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service; The Director of GCHQ; The Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service; The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; The chief constable of any police force maintained under or by virtue of section 1 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967; 1967 c. 77. The Commissioners of Customs and Excise; The Chief of Defense Intelligence; A person who, for the purposes of any international mutual assistance agreement, is the competent authority of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom According to the list above, a media house or news paper publisher is not entitled to a warrant to intercept data under transmission (American Civil Liberties Union 1998, p. 45; Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties 2010, p. 142). This is a clear indication that none of them has legal powers even under special circumstances to intercept information in transmission through a private communication channel. This means that all media houses and newspapers should acquire information published through legal means (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, p. 23). The conduct by the news of the world employees was completely against the law since under no circumstance are they entitled to such kind of information (Cartesian Group 2002). At the same time, the mode of information access was completely against the law, hacking is an internationally recognized felon and shouldn’t t be practiced at all (American Civil Liberties Union 1998, p. 45; Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties 2010, p. 142). Looking at the way those two acquired the information; they can be termed as guilty as charged. However, the fact that the proceedings followed in the case were not clear and may be the final penal wasn’t what they deserved, makes it hard for one to understand if the action committed was actually an offence (American Civil Liberties Union 1998, p. 45). Conclusion From the above report it is evident that there are international rules which are adopted by countries when it comes to data access and interception. The move by news of the world employees to intercept data over a private network can be termed as an international felon. This is due to the fact that both local and international laws prohibit such form of data access. There is need to ensure that data sent over a private network is adequately protected and can only be accessed after permission by the owner. The United Kingdom has well outlined rules to govern data access and interception (Goemans 2002). The act by the news of the world employees can be termed as a mistake. However, fingers of blame can still be pointed to the government for not having sufficient prosecution procedures and penalty for such an offence. Such gaps in the law may result to poor prosecutions since some will be given a harsh penalty and some may walk away without being punished for their mistakes. Therefore there is need to ensure that there is enough information on how those found violating data interception and access rules are prosecuted and punished. It is also important for one to understand the fact that data access and fraud are two concepts which are hard to limit (Akdeniz 2001). However, having fair remedies for those found carrying out the act will reduce the frequency of such crimes. According to the international computer laws, hacking is an act committed against computer rules and regulations and should therefore be termed as a crime. The regulations of United Kingdom also forbid unlawful interception of data in transmission via a private channel. This is followed by punishments such as imprisonment and fine (Rathmell 2002, p. 674). However, England exempts itself from these forms of punishment and proceedings and these proceedings can be only by carried out in England under the order of the director of public prosecutions. This reduces the probability of prosecuting those carrying out these crimes. At the same time lack of penalties may result to harsh punishment for those found guilty of these crimes. Bibliographies Access to Communications Data, 2003, respecting privacy and protecting the public from Crime, Consultation Paper American Civil Liberties Union 1998 “Big Brother in the Wires: Wiretapping in the Digital Age”, Akdeniz Y 2001, The Case against RIP at www.sourceuk.net/indexf.html?01546 Bohm et al, 2000 “Electronic Commerce: Who Carries the Risk of Fraud?” The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT). www.elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/00-3/bohm.html Carter D L & Katz A J 1997, Computer Crime: An Emerging Challenge for Law Enforcement. Cartesian Group 2002, Data Retention for regulatory Compliance Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK), 2010 "Who Watches the Watchmen: Part III – ISP Eisner R S 2002, Ignorance Isn't Bliss: What you need to know about EU data privacy law, Legal Research Centre Elliot C 1999, The legality of the interception of electronic communications: a concise survey of the principal legal issues and instruments under international, European and national law Goemans C 2002, Law enforcement and data privacy: difficulties to accommodate Rathmell A 2002, Regulating Security: Telecoms Regulation and Information Security Acts used Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) Penalty for illegal data interception accessed on 20th May 2011 from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) Data interception warrants accessed on 20th May 2011 from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) Illegal data interception accessed on 20th May 2011 from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) Legal data interception accessed on 20th May 2011 from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents Read More