ISPA Internet Week
The RIC Bill, discussed during the ISPA Internet Week on 12 September 2002, outlines the legal framework for the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes. Key components include the obligation for telecom systems to support surveillance, requirements for ISP assistance, and the establishment of an ISP Assistance Fund. The Bill raises various concerns regarding privacy, costs for ISPs, and the lack of consultation or impact assessment, while also detailing procedural requirements for information storage and sharing with law enforcement agencies.
ISPA Internet Week
E N D
Presentation Transcript
ISPA Internet Week Regulatory Session The Regulation of Interception of Communications (RIC) Bill 12 September 2002 Tracy Cohen
RIC Bill: Context • International • USA, Canada, UK, France, etc. • Council of Europe (COE) Cyber-crime Treaty • Local • Review of security legislation • COE commitments • Draft 6: tabled 3 Sept; deliberations 12-13 Sept ‘02 • Promulgation 2002? • What is required of ISPs?
RIC Bill: Outline • Prohibits unlawful surveillance and interception of communications except for law enforcement purposes • Requires all telecoms systems and networks to be capable of surveillance • Interception Directions (Chapter 3) • Requires telecom service providers to assist LEA in the execution of direction (Chapter 4, s 28) • Interception Centres • ISP Assistance Fund (s 38) • Offences – some new (Chapter 9)
ISPs Responsibilities (Chapters 4 & 5) • Ensure and bear the costs of surveillance capability • ISP ‘small business’ exemption, but: • Still possibly contribute to the Fund? • Respond to interception and decryption directions • Routing duplicate signals of indirect communication • Providing communication-related information to the authorities. • Store communication related information (3 years) • Obtain customer personal/commercial data prior to service • Retain indefinitely and hand over to LEA on request
RIC Bill: Implications • Privacy • Costs • compensation • Ministerial discretion • Lack of consultation • Impact assessment studies? • No annual public accounting
