This Bill has caused much controversy in the UK. Among other matters, the Bill addresses the rights of authorities, such as the police and intelligence services, to require a computer user to hand over decryption codes used by him or her (for more information on encryption, see the link below). Failure to comply with such a demand could lead to the individual being jailed. This is the most contentious part of the Bill.
Where, for example, encrypted information has come into the hands of the police by legal means, if the police have reasonable grounds to believe that a decryption key is in the possession of any person and the police believe that obtaining the key is necessary for preventing or detecting crime, the police can demand the disclosure of the key. The person required to disclose the key can submit a decrypted version of the information, instead of the key itself. However, it is possible that the key itself will be demanded if the decrypted information is deemed insufficient. The previous proposal was to demand that keys be placed in the hands of a trusted third party.
Failure to comply with a demand for a key can be a criminal offence. Human rights activists claim this is a reversal of the burden of proof – that anyone faced with such a demand might have simply lost the key or might never have had possession of it, yet such a person will be guilty until proven innocent. The penalty for this offence is a maximum of two years imprisonment and/or a fine.
The Home Office has pointed out that, under the Bill, the prosecution would have to prove that the individual did have a key in the first place. They argue that the Bill is necessary to comply with the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Bill also makes reference to the monitoring of electronic communications. The organisations in a position to do so are the ISPs – and they are concerned about the costs involved in doing so. Demon has estimated that effective interception technology would cost them 1 million pounds a year. It has yet to be confirmed whether the Home Office will meet this expense.
Although the RIP Bill is intended to apply UK wide, the Scottish parliament has suggested the introduction of an intrusive surveillance bill by Summer 2000. Although details of it have yet to be announced, it will deal with some of the matters in the RIP Bill differently in Scotland.