 Content summary: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Topics: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Key Contacts: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DRAFT REGULATIONS ON LAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICE REGARDING THE INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS
Summary
The Legislative Background
The Draft Regulations
Questions for Consultees
How to Respond
Possible Timescale
Further Information
Annex A: The Draft "Lawful Business Practice" Regulations
Annex B: Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment
Summary
1. The Telecommunications Data Protection Directive [1] requires Member States to protect the confidentiality of communications made by means of a public telecommunications network. The interception of communications on a public telecoms network is prohibited in the UK under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, (which received Royal Assent on 28 July 2000 and is expected to come into force in October 2000), will repeal the 1985 Act and provide a new regime to govern interception and protect confidentiality.
2. However, the Directive permits Member States to authorise the interception of communications for the purposes of providing evidence of a commercial transaction or other business communication, and for purposes of national security, the detection of criminal offences and the detection of unauthorised use of a telecoms system. The Government proposes to make "Lawful Business Practice" Regulations under Section 4(2) of the RIP Act to specify the circumstances in which both private businesses and public authorities may lawfully intercept communications.
3. This Consultation Document provides a detailed description of the legislative background and the draft Regulations. It provides a list of "Questions for Consultees" and invites comments on these or any other aspects of the proposals by 15 September 2000.
The Legislative Background [2]
The Telecoms Data Protection Directive
4. The Telecoms Data Protection Directive was adopted in December 1997. The Directive aims to ensure the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms throughout the European Community with regard to the processing of personal data and the protection of personal privacy in the telecommunications sector.
5. Article 5(1) of the Directive requires Member States to safeguard the confidentiality of communications by means of a public telecommunications network:
- Member States shall ensure via national regulations the confidentiality of communications by means of a public telecommunications network [3] and publicly available telecommunications services. In particular, they shall prohibit listening, tapping, storage or other kinds of interception or surveillance of communications, by others than users without the consent of the users concerned, except when legally authorised, in accordance with Article 14(1).
6. This requirement extends to all types of electronic communication made "by means of a public telecoms network" including, for example, transmissions such as fax and email. The requirement also extends to communications on private networks (e.g. office telephone networks or email systems) which will also travel or have also travelled on a public network.
7. However, the Directive leaves scope for Member States to authorise the interception of communications by businesses when this is necessary for the purpose of providing evidence of business communications. Article 5(2) states:
- Paragraph 1 shall not affect any legally authorised recording of communications in the course of lawful business practice for the purpose of providing evidence of a commercial transaction or of any other business communication.
8. The Directive also leaves scope for Member States to restrict the requirement to protect confidentiality laid down in Article 5.1 for purposes of national security, defence, public security and the detection of criminal offences. Article 14.1 states:
- Member States may adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of the obligations and rights provided for in Article 5, 6 and Article 8(1), (2), (3) and (4), when such restriction constitutes a necessary measure to safeguard national security, defence, public security, the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of the telecommunications system, as referred to in Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46/EC.
9. Member States were required to implement the majority of provisions in the Directive by October 1998. However, an exemption was made for Article 5 which must be implemented by all Member States by 24 October 2000.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act
10. The existing arrangements for the interception of communications are established in the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The RIP Act, (which received Royal Assent on 28 July 2000 and which is expected to come into force in October 2000), will repeal the 1985 Act and provide for a new regime to govern the use of intrusive investigative techniques, including interception. The new legislation reflects changes which have taken place in the communications industry over the last 15 years, and will ensure that the statutory basis for the use of such techniques is fully compliant with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- The Act creates offences of unlawful interception on public telecommunication systems, and a tort of unlawful interception on a private telecommunication system by the operator of that system.
- The Act authorises the interception of communications in cases where the interceptor has reasonable grounds to believe that both the sender and intended recipient have consented to the interception.
- The Act provides for the Secretary of State to authorise interception in certain limited circumstances, by means of warrants issued to organisations such as the security and intelligence agencies and the police.
The Draft "Lawful Business Practice" Regulations
11. Section 4 of the RIP Act provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising businesses to make interceptions for certain evidentiary purposes:
- (2) Subject to subsection (3), the Secretary of State may by regulations authorise any such conduct described in the regulations as appears to him to constitute a legitimate business practice reasonably required for the purpose, in connection with the carrying on of any business, of monitoring or keeping a record of -
(a) communications by means of which transactions are entered into in the course of that business; or
(b) other communications relating to that business or taking place in the course of its being carried on.
- (3) Nothing in any regulations under subsection (2) shall authorise the interception of any communication except in the course of its transmission using apparatus or services provided by or to the person carrying on the business for use wholly or partly in connection with that business.
- (6) In this section references to a business include references to any activities of a government department, of any public authority or of any person of office holder on whom functions are conferred by or under any enactment.
12. The Secretary of State intends to make these Lawful Business Practice Regulations in September 2000 so that they come into force at the same time as Part I of the RIP Act. (This is expected in October 2000.)
13. The Regulations will allow businesses and public authorities to intercept communications for a range of evidentiary purposes without the consent of correspondents. They will also allow certain charities to monitor (but not record) calls made to their helplines. The Regulations will cover all types of communication over a public network including, for example, fax and email.
14. The draft regulations will, in their current form, authorise the following interception activities:
(a) Monitoring or recording of business communications by businesses or public authorities in order to provide evidence of the communications for the purpose of either establishing the existence of facts or ascertaining compliance with practices or procedures. (This will allow businesses and public authorities to intercept communications without consent for purposes such as: providing evidence of a commercial transaction; providing evidence of other business communications to establish facts or ascertain compliance with regulatory practices or procedures; audit; debt recovery; and dispute resolution.)
(b) Monitoring or recording of business communications by businesses or public authorities for the purpose of detecting and preventing crime or detecting the unauthorised use of a telecoms system. (This will allow businesses and public authorities to intercept communications without consent for purposes such as: preventing or detecting crime; detecting the unauthorised use of an electronic communications system; protecting a network against viruses or hackers; and combating or investigating fraud or corruption.)
(c) Monitoring or recording of business communications by public authorities in the interests of national security;
(d) Monitoring (but not recording) of communications to helplines providing confidential counselling and support services free of charge on an anonymous basis. (This will allow charitable bodies to provide immediate support and protection to front-line staff who provide counselling advice to the public.)
15. In all of these cases the interceptor will be required either to make all reasonable efforts to inform correspondents that the communication may be intercepted, or to have reasonable grounds to believe that correspondents are aware that the communication may be intercepted.
16. If businesses wished to intercept communications for purposes outside the scope of the regulations, they would need (as required by Section 3(1) of the RIP Act), to have reasonable grounds to believe that callers had consented to the interception.
17. While the RIP Act and these regulations govern the lawful interception of communications, they in no way prejudice the rules on the processing of personal data laid out in the Data Protection Act 1998. If businesses obtain personal data as the result of an interception authorised under the RIP Act or the Lawful Business Practice Regulations, they will need to ensure that any subsequent use or processing of that information complies with the principles of data protection established in the Data Protection Act.
The draft Regulations are annexed below.
Questions for Consultees
18. The Government invites comments on all aspects of its proposals and will give careful consideration to consultation responses before making the Regulations. It would particularly appreciate comments on the issues set out below.
Scope of the Regulations
19. The primary aim of Article 5 of the Telecoms Data Protection Directive is to safeguard the confidentiality of communications and, thereby, to protect the fundamental right to personal privacy. The intention of Articles 5(2) is to allow interceptions only when there are strong arguments that the provision of evidence should be considered more important than the protection of confidentiality or privacy.
20. The draft regulations authorise businesses and public authorities to intercept communications without consent for the following purposes:
(a) providing evidence of a communication in cases where it may be necessary to provide records of the specific facts of individual communications, e.g. -
- Providing evidence of a commercial transaction
- Providing evidence of other business communications to establish facts or ascertain compliance with regulatory practices or procedures
- Audit
- Debt recovery
- Dispute resolution
(b) detecting and preventing crime, and detecting the unauthorised use of a telecoms system, e.g. -
- Preventing or detecting crime
- Detecting the unauthorised use of an electronic communications system
- Protecting a network against viruses or hackers
- Combating or investigating fraud or corruption
The draft regulations also authorise public authorities, but not businesses, to intercept communications without consent in the interests of national security.
Question 1: Bearing in mind the constraints of the Directive, do you agree with the scope of the Regulations?
21. The Regulations do not, in their current form, authorise businesses to intercept communications for non-evidential purposes such as staff training, market research, quality control and the like. If businesses wish to intercept communications for these purposes, they will need to have reasonable grounds for believing that correspondents have consented to the interception as required by Section 3(1) of the RIP Act.
Question 2: Do you agree that businesses should gain the consent of callers before making interceptions for purposes such as quality control, staff training, marketing or market research?
Charitable Helplines
22. Certain charities currently monitor communications on their helplines in order to provide front-line staff adequate support and protection when taking long, stressful and, sometimes, abusive calls. However, it may not be practicable for charities to ensure the consent of callers before intercepting communications of this nature.
23. For these reasons, the Regulations will authorise charitable bodies to monitor communications to counselling and support helplines provided free of charge on an anonymous basis. They will not be required to gain the consent of callers but they will be required to make all reasonable efforts to inform callers, or to have reasonable grounds to believe that callers are aware that the interception may take place.
24. Charities will not be permitted to record conversations, and they will only be permitted to monitor conversations provided that the helpline is operated on an anonymous basis. These restrictions will ensure that the caller's confidentiality is not compromised as a result of the interception.
Question 3: Do you agree that appropriate charities should be authorised to intercept communications on their helplines without the consent of callers?
Drafting of the Regulations
25. There is a danger that overly prescriptive regulations might, unintentionally, either permit or prohibit interception activities in contradiction to the spirit of the legislation. There is also a danger that highly detailed regulations might need regular revision in order to keep pace with commercial and technological developments. For these reasons, the Government has taken a broad brush approach to the drafting of the Regulations. The proposed Regulations outline the broad circumstances in which businesses may intercept communications but they do not provide an exhaustive list of acceptable or unacceptable interception activities.
Question 4: Do you agree with the Government's approach to the drafting of the Regulations?
Industry Guidelines
26. The Government believes that further clarification of the Regulations should, if necessary, take the form of industry guidelines. It believes that any such guidelines should be developed by industry groups with sector-specific expertise in accordance with accepted principles for the development of self or co-regulatory codes of conduct.
27. A set of guidelines might provide clarification of the circumstances in which businesses can legitimately intercept communications under the Lawful Business Practice Regulations and in what circumstances, in accordance with the Regulations, they would have reasonable grounds to believe that telecoms users were aware that interceptions might occur. The guidelines might also outline how, in other cases, businesses should ensure that correspondents consent to interception; and they might outline the measures that businesses should take to safeguard the privacy of staff.
Question 5: Do you consider that industry guidelines should be developed to provide further clarification of the Regulations? If so, which bodies should be chiefly involved?
Protection of Personal Privacy
28. The primary aim of both the Telecommunications Data Protection Directive and the RIP Act is to safeguard the confidentiality of communications and the right to personal privacy. The intention of both pieces of legislation is to authorise the interception of communications without consent only when there are powerful arguments that the collection of evidence should be considered more important than confidentiality or privacy.
Question 6: Do you consider that the Regulations take sufficient account of the need to protect the confidentiality of communications and the right to privacy?
Impact on Business
29. These regulations do not, in themselves, impose a regulatory burden. On the contrary, they make exceptions to the general requirement (imposed by Section 3(1) of the RIP Act) to gain the consent of correspondents before making an interception. When making interceptions authorised by the regulations, businesses will need to make all reasonable efforts to inform callers that interceptions may take place. When making interceptions which fall outside the scope of the regulations, they will need to gain consent. While businesses may need to modify their procedures to meet these requirements, there has been no evidence so far that they will encounter significant costs.
Annex B provides a draft Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Regulations.
Question 7: Do you agree with the broad conclusions of the regulatory impact assessment that businesses should not incur significant costs as a result of the regulations? What do you consider the compliance costs of implementing the regulations will be?
Question 8: Do you agree with the conclusion of the regulatory impact assessment that small businesses should not incur significant costs as a result of the regulations? What do you consider the compliance costs of implementing the regulations will be for small businesses?
How to Respond
30. The closing date for consultation responses is 15 September 2000.
31. Respondents should make clear whether or not they wish their comments to remain confidential. In every case, respondents should include a brief description of the nature of their organisation and, if relevant, the groups whom they represent. Respondents should provide a short non-confidential summary of their concerns for publication on the DTI website.
32. Consultation responses should be sent by email in electronic form (Word format) to:
tdpd.tdpd@dti.gov.uk
Hard copies of consultation responses should, if necessary, be sent to:
Ben Collins
Communications and Information Industries Directorate
Department of Trade and Industry
151 Buckingham Palace Road
London SW1W 9SS
33. The Government intends to publish a summary of consultation responses and a response to consultation at the end of August. These documents will be available on the DTI website in the Telecoms industry.
34. We have encountered a number of delays in developing the draft regulations. At the same time, the RIP Act has made faster recent progress through Parliament than anticipated. The DTI regrets that, in order to bring the regulations into force at the same time as the RIP Act (anticipated in October), it is necessary to limit the consultation period to four weeks (now extended by three weeks). We have taken a number of measures to make sure that, despite this restriction, the consultation exercise will be as effective as possible. We have held preliminary presentations and discussions with some seventy representatives of the financial services and information industries; and we have contacted over 1300 interested parties including telecoms operators, service providers, financial services organisations, trade associations, small businesses, small firms organisations, charities, and consumer bodies to draw their attention to the start of the consultation.
Possible Timescale
| 28 July 2000 |
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act received Royal Assent. |
| 15 September 2000 |
End of public consultation on these regulations |
| From 15 September 2000 |
The Government publishes a summary of responses and a response to consultation on the DTI website. |
| October 2000 |
The Secretary of State makes the new Regulations. |
| October 2000 |
The RIP Act and Regulations expected to come into force. |
| 24 October 2000 |
Formal deadline for transposition of Article 5 of the Telecoms Data Protection Directive |
Further Information
Annex A: Draft Lawful Business Practice Regulations
Annex B: Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (available on the Stationery Office Website in August 2000)
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act webpages (on the Home Office website)
Telecoms Data Protection Directive (97/66/EC) (on the European Commission's Information Society website)
Commission Proposal for a Directive: Processing of Personal Data and Protection of Privacy (on the European Commission's Information Society website)
Guidance to Government Departments on Interceptions and the Human Rights Act (on the Home Office website)
Government Contacts
Further enquiries regarding the draft Lawful Business Practice Regulations should be addressed to:
Ben Collins
Communications and Information Industries Directorate
Department of Trade and Industry
151 Buckingham Palace Road
London SW1W 9SS
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7215 1653
E-mail: tdpd.tdpd@dti.gov.uk
General enquiries regarding the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act should be addressed to:
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act Team
Room 735
Home Office
Queen Anne's Gate
London SW1H 9AT
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7273 2415
General enquiries regarding EC legislation in the communications sector should be addressed to:
Matthew Conway
Head, European Communications Policy
Communications and Information Industries Directorate
Department of Trade and Industry
151 Buckingham Palace Road
London SW1W 9SS
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7215 5859
E-mail: mathew.conway@dti.gsi.gov.uk
Document published: July 2000 Action Officer: Ben Collins
Annex A: Draft Lawful Business Practice Regulations
 |
|
|
Statutory Instruments
2000 No.
Telecommunications
The Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000
|
| Made |
|
2000 |
| Laid before Parliament |
|
2000 |
| Coming into force |
|
[2nd October] 2000 |
The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sections 4(2) and 78(2) and (5)(a) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (4) ("the Act") , hereby makes the following Regulations:-
Citation and commencement
1. These Regulations may be cited as the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 and shall come into force on [2nd October] 2000.
Interpretation
2. In these Regulations, references to a business include references to any activities of a government department, of any public authority or of any person or office holder on whom functions are conferred by or under any enactment; and-
- "business communications" means-
(a) communications by means of which transactions are entered into in the course of a business, or
(b) other communications relating to a business or taking place in the course of its being carried on;
- "charitable helpline" means a confidential telephonic counselling and support service provided by a charitable body free of charge to members of the public who may choose to remain anonymous; and
- "evidence" has the same meaning as in Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. (5)
Lawful interception of a communication
3.(1) For the purpose of section 1(5)(a) of the Act, conduct is authorised, subject to paragraph (2) of this regulation, if it consists of interception of a communication, in the course of its transmission by means of a telecommunication system, which is effected for the purpose of-
- (a) monitoring or keeping a record of business communications-
(i) by a person specified in section 6(2)(a) to (i) of the Act in the interests of national security, or
(ii) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(iii) for the purpose of investigating or detecting the unauthorised use of that or any other telecommunication system, or
(iv) in order to provide evidence of the communications for the purpose of either establishing the existence of facts or ascertaining compliance with practices or procedures relevant to the business carried on by the person by or at whose request the interception is effected; or
- (b) monitoring communications made to a charitable helpline.
(2) Conduct is authorised by paragraph (1) of this regulation only if
- (a) the interception in question is effected in connection with a business carried on by the person by or at whose request it is effected,
- (b) the telecommunication system in question is provided for use wholly or partly in connection with that business, and
- (c) the person effecting the interception-(i) has made all reasonable efforts to inform every person to whom or by whom the communication in question is made that it will or may be intercepted, or
(ii) otherwise has reasonable grounds to believe that every such person is aware that it will or may be intercepted. Patricia Hewitt
Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce
Department of Trade and Industry
[ ] 2000
Explanatory Note
(This note is not part of the Regulations)
These regulations authorise certain interceptions of telecommunication communications which would otherwise be prohibited by section 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. To the extent that the interceptions are also prohibited by Article 5.1 of Directive 97/66/EC, the authorisation does not exceed that permitted by Articles 5.2 and 14.1 of the Directive.
The interception has to be by or at the request of a person carrying on a business (which includes the activities of government departments, public authorities and others exercising statutory functions) in connection with that person's business and using that business's own telecommunication system.
Interceptions are authorised for monitoring or recording communications in the interests of national security, to prevent or detect crime, to investigate or detect unauthorised use of telecommunication systems or to obtain evidence of the communications themselves, and also for monitoring communications made to charitable helplines.
Interceptions are authorised only if the interceptor has made reasonable efforts to inform the persons making or receiving the communications of the possibility of interception or has reasonable grounds to believe that they are aware of that possibility.
The Regulations do not authorise interceptions to which the persons making and receiving the communications have consented: they are not prohibited by the Act.
Annex B: Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment
1. Title
"Lawful Business Practice" Regulations
2. Purpose and Intended Effect of the Measure
(i) Issue and Objective
Issue
Article 5 of the Telecoms Data Protection Directive requires Member States to ensure the confidentiality of communications made by means of a public telecoms system. However, Article 5.2 of the Directive allows Member States to authorise businesses to intercept communications for certain evidentiary purposes.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 prohibits the interception of communications made by means of a public telecoms system without consent. However, the Secretary of State intends to make "Lawful Business Practice" Regulations under Section 4(2) of the Act to authorise businesses to intercept communications without consent for certain evidentiary purposes.
Objective
The objective of the regulations is to facilitate legitimate business practices regarding interception such as keeping records of transactions or to check compliance with regulatory requirements.
The regulations do not impose a regulatory burden. On the contrary, they will make an exception to the general obligation established in the RIP Act to gain consent before making an interception.
(ii) Risk Assessment
Not appropriate
3. Options
(i) Options available
Three main options have been identified:
Option A Not to make any regulations authorising businesses to intercept communications without consent.
Option B To make regulations which allow businesses to intercept communications without consent for essential evidentiary purposes including: providing evidence of transactions, preventing or detecting crime, and preventing or detecting unauthorised use of a telecoms system.
Option C To make regulations which allow businesses to intercept communications without consent for a wide range of purposes including those in Option B and extending to purposes such as staff-training, quality control, marketing and market research.
(ii) Issues of equity or fairness
It is important that the regulations strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, facilitating essential, legitimate business practices and, on the other hand, ensuring a high level of protection for individuals' confidentiality and privacy.
4. Benefits
(i) Identify the Benefits
Lawful Business Practice Regulations would facilitate legitimate business practices by allowing businesses to make certain types of interception without having gained the consent of correspondents. The regulations will therefore make it easier for businesses to conduct essential activities such as maintaining records of transactions and to meet regulatory requirements.
(ii) Quantity and Value
Option A would be unreasonably constrictive by requiring businesses to gain consent before making interceptions for any purpose. This option would make it unreasonably difficult for businesses to make essential interceptions for purposes such as maintaining records, for compliance with regulatory requirements, and detecting crime.
Option B would facilitate business practices by allowing businesses to make interceptions without the consent of callers for essential purposes such as retaining evidence of transactions and other communications, detecting crime and detecting unauthorised use of a telecoms system.
Option C would facilitate business practices by allowing businesses to make interceptions without the consent of callers for a wide range of purposes extending to staff-training, quality control, marketing and market research.
5. Compliance Costs for a "Typical" Business
(i) Business Sectors Affected
All businesses that record or monitor electronic communications such as telephone calls and email. In particular, the financial services industries, information industries, call centres, and certain charitable helplines.
(ii) Compliance Costs for a "typical" business
The regulations will not impose a regulatory burden. On the contrary, they will make exceptions to the general requirement, established in Sections 1 and 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, that consent must be gained before an interception may take place.
Option 1
Businesses would need, as required in the RIP Act, to modify their procedures to ensure that they gained the consent of callers before making any interception.
Option 2
Businesses would need to modify their procedures to ensure that correspondents were aware that interceptions for purposes authorised under the regulations might take place. They would need, as required in the RIP Act, to modify their procedures to ensure that they gained consent before making an interception for purposes outside the scope of the regulations.
Option 3
Businesses would need to modify their procedures to ensure that correspondents were aware that interceptions for purposes authorised under the regulations might take place. They would need, as required in the RIP Act, to modify their procedures to ensure that they gained consent before making an interception for purposes outside the scope of the regulations.
Conclusion
None of these options would impose any significant recurring costs.
Each option would impose comparable non-recurring costs because businesses would need to ensure that their procedures complied with the new regulatory framework. It is very difficult to quantify the costs of checking and, if necessary, modifying these procedures It will be a matter for business to determine what measures to take to comply with the requirements in the regulations. None of our informal consultations with business have revealed that any would incur significant costs.
(iii) Total Compliance Costs
As in (ii) above.
6. Consultation with Small Business: "the Litmus Test"
These regulations will impact primarily on large organisations in the financial services and information industries and on companies that operate large call-centres. Small to medium-sized companies are less likely to operate procedures whereby communications are intercepted and recorded on a regular basis. The public consultation on the regulations requests more information on the impact to small businesses.
The regulations will impact on certain registered charities that monitor communications to their welfare or counselling helplines in order to protect and support staff. These charities will need to consider how to inform correspondents before making interceptions for these purposes. While charities may incur some non-recurring costs when ensuring compliance with the regulations, our informal discussions indicate that they recognise the need to improve public awareness of interception practices on their helplines.
7. Other Costs
None
8. Results of Consultations
The DTI has held initial presentations and discussions about the draft regulations with some seventy representatives of the financial services and information industries. A public consultation exercise is being held from 1 to 25 August 2000. A wide range of affected businesses are being informed of the start of the consultation and of the publication of a consultation document on the DTI website.
9. Summary and Recommendations
Option A has been ruled out because it would restrict to an unreasonable extent business practices regarding interception.
Options B and C would facilitate to varying degrees business practices by allowing them to make interceptions for certain purposes without the consent of correspondents.
We are further considering Options B and C and will make a final recommendation will be made after the completion of the public consultation exercise.
10. Enforcement, Sanctions, Monitoring and Review
The RIP Act establishes the offences of unlawful interception on public and private telecommunication systems, and a tort of unlawful interception on a private telecommunication system by the operator of that system. The regulations create exceptions and do not themselves lead to enforcement or sanctions.
The DTI will review the regulations in the light of significant market and technological developments in order to ensure that they continue to strike a fair balance between facilitating legitimate business practice and protecting confidentiality and privacy.
11. Regulatory Quality
Declaration. I have read the Regulatory Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that the balance between cost and benefit is the right one in the circumstances.
[To be signed, when completed, by Patricia Hewitt, Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce]
12. Contact Point and Date
Ben Collins
Department of Trade and Industry
Communications and Information Industries Directorate
151 Buckingham Palace Road
London SW1W 9SS
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7215 1653
E-mail: tdpd.tdpd@dti.gov.uk
Date: 27 July 2000
Footnotes
1. European Parliament and Council Directive 97/66/EC of 15/12/1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector.
2. The EC Framework Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) lays the broad foundations for the protection of data across the European Community. (This Directive has been implemented in UK law under the Data Protection Act 1998). The Telecoms Data Protection Directive (97/66/EC) deals with the protection of data with specific regard to telecommunications.
3. The term "public telecommunications network" is defined in Article 2 of the Directive.
4. 2000 c. [ ].
5. Council and EP Directive 97/66/EC of 15/12/1997 (O.J. No. L24, 30.1.98, p.1)
Telecomms
Required revision date: 31st March 2003
|
|
|
|
