15.6 C
London
Thursday, August 17, 2017
Home Tags Amber Rudd

Tag: Amber Rudd

Magical thinking meets willful ignorance at closed meeting Analysis  UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd kicked off a firestorm in the tech community Tuesday when she argued that "real people" don't need or use end-to-end encryption.…
Amber alert! The UK's Home Sec is heading this way Executives at Facebook, Google and other terrorist-enabling online services are said to be quaking in their boots as UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd swoops into Silicon Valley this week to read them the riot act.…

It requires telecom firms to store customers' Internet Connection Records for 12 months.

A controversial UK surveillance bill has become law, despite efforts to stop it.

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 today received the final stamp of approval from the Queen—a practice called Royal Assent.
It requires telecom firms to store customers' Internet Connection Records for 12 months.

These records include top-level domains you visited, but not sub-pages (so it would show pcmag.com but not pcmag.com/apple or pcmag.com/android, for example).

This data would be accessible by law enforcement and intelligence agencies provided they secure the necessary warrants and judicial approvals, and be used to "disrupt terrorist attacks and prosecute suspects, according to the UK Home Office.

"The Internet presents new opportunities for terrorists and we must ensure we have the capabilities to confront this challenge," Home Secretary Amber Rudd said in a statement. "But it is also right that these powers are subject to strict safeguards and rigorous oversight."

That oversight includes an Investigatory Powers Commissioner to oversee the program, and protections for journalistic and legally privileged material, as well as tough sanctions for those abusing their power.

Security advocates, however, still have concerns about the law, which has been dubbed the "Snooper's Charter."

As Big Brother Watch notes, for example, a 2000 version of the bill provided 28 government organizations access to communications data. "Under the new Investigatory Powers Bill, this has now been extended to 48 organizations which now also have the power to snoop on citizen's browsing histories."

It also "extends the level of access police and intelligence agencies have to citizen's communications data and allows them to collect information on people's phone calls, text messages and social media conversations upon request," the group says.

A petition calling for an end to the Investigatory Powers Act launched earlier this year and has secured more than 138,000 digital signatures.
Since it got more than 100,000 signatures, the issue will get debated in Parliament, but that occured after the bill had passed through its parliamentary stage, so the debate shouldn't result in any major changes.

"This government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement, security and intelligence services have the powers they need to keep people safe," Rudd said.

Some provisions in the bill require testing and will not be set into motion "for some time," according to the Home Office.

All other mandates—like Internet Connection Records—are moving forward as the new law replaces 2014's Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, which sunsets on Dec. 31.

Your homes may be your castles, but your browsing histories belong to UK.gov IPBill Queen Elizabeth II today signs off on Parliament's Investigatory Powers Act, officially making it law. QEII not only had the last word on the new legislation — aka the Snoopers' Charter — she had the first. She publicly announced what the law would be called during the official opening of Parliament after last year's general election. A first draft of the Investigatory Powers Bill was published six months later, alongside a confession that successive British governments had been issuing secret directives to telcos to intercept their users' communications. Many were pleased such secret surveillance was now being more explicitly codified. Theresa May — then Home Secretary — claimed that it only introduced the one new power: "requiring communications service providers to retain internet connection records when given a notice by the Secretary of State". But this was disputed by civil liberties campaigners. Legal challenges against the bill are already under way, with members of the Don't Spy on Us coalition continuing their involvement in legal action against the proposed mass surveillance powers. The organisation notes: The UK’s legal regime for bulk surveillance is being challenged in two separate cases at the ECHR, while the data retention regime is being questioned in the UK and EU courts in the Watson (previously Watson-Davis) challenge. We expect both courts to place further demands for safeguards and restraints on the highly permissive UK surveillance regime. There has never existed a single law regarding data retention powers in the UK which has not, in some form or another, been amended due to a legal challenge. Popular opposition to the law has already provoked over 133,000 citizens to sign a petition calling for its repeal, and although that is unlikely to happen, the petition's motion must now be considered by Parliament. Those who campaigned against the legislation are disappointed. Bella Sankey, the Policy Director for Liberty, described today as "a sad day for our democracy." She added: "The Home Secretary is right that the Government has a duty to protect us, but these measures won't do the job. Instead they open every detail of every citizen's online life up to state eyes, drowning the authorities in data and putting innocent people's personal information at massive risk." Sankey added: "This new law is world-leading – but only as a beacon for despots everywhere. The campaign for a surveillance law fit for the digital age continues, and must now move to the courts." Jim Killock, exec director at digital rights campaigner the Open Rights Group, agreed: "Amber Rudd says the Investigatory Powers Act is world-leading legislation. She is right; it is one of the most extreme surveillance laws ever passed in a democracy. Its impact will be felt beyond the UK as other countries, including authoritarian regimes with poor human rights records, will use this law to justify their own intrusive surveillance regimes." He continued: "Although there are some improvements to oversight, the Bill will mean the police and intelligence agencies have unprecedented powers to surveil our private communications and Internet activity, whether or not we are suspected of a crime. Theresa May has finally got her snoopers' charter and democracy in the UK is the worse for it." ® Sponsored: Customer Identity and Access Management
EnlargeJustin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images reader comments 14 Share this story The UK's home secretary, Amber Rudd, has signed an extradition order agreeing that hacking suspect Lauri Love should face trial in the US. Love's family plan to appeal against the decision.

The 31-year-old—who has Asperger's syndrome—faces up to 99 years in prison and fears for his own life, his lawyers have said. A home office spokesperson told Ars: "On Monday 14 November, the secretary of state, having carefully considered all relevant matters, signed an order for Lauri Love’s extradition to the United States. Mr Love has been charged with various computer hacking offences which included targeting US military and federal government agencies." Rudd considered four so-called legal tests of the Extradition Act 2003: whether Love is at risk of the death penalty; whether specialty arrangements are in place; whether Love has previously been extradited from another country to the UK, thereby requiring consent from that country; and whether Love was previously transferred to the UK by the International Criminal Court. However, the home secretary concluded that none of these issues applied to Love. The extradition comes after more than 100 MPs recently penned a letter to President Barack Obama, urging him to prevent Love's extradition to the US on the grounds that the hacking suspect's case is similar to that of British citizen Gary McKinnon, whose extradition to the US was blocked in 2012 by then Home Secretary Theresa May. At the time, May introduced a forum bar to stop extradition in cases where the defendants' human rights were said to be at risk.

But the prime minister recently noted that the legal position for the forum bar had been changed, adding that it was "now a matter for the courts." In September, District Judge Nina Tempia ruled that Love should be extradited to the US to face trial over the alleged hacking of the US missile defence agency, the FBI, and America's central bank.

At the time, Tempia said that she was satisfied that the decision was "compatible" with Love's Convention rights. On Tuesday, the home office said in its "Lauri Love Fact Sheet": The legislation does not permit the home secretary to consider human rights or health issues in extradition cases, nor would it be appropriate for the home secretary to do so. It is for a judge to decide whether or not extradition breaches an individual's human rights, or whether their health makes it unjust or oppressive to extradite them. Love's lawyers now have 14 days to mount an appeal against his extradition to the US. "We will be appealing," Love's father, Alexander Love told the BBC. "We are talking to our lawyers.
It was going to happen—it was inevitable—but it's still painful. "I cannot begin to express how much sorrow it causes me.

All we are asking for is British justice for a British citizen." This post originated on Ars Technica UK
A U.K. official has ordered the extradition of a British man to the United States on charges of hacking government computers belonging to NASA and the Department of Defense. Lauri Love, a 31-year-old hacktivist, has been fighting his extradition, but on Monday U.K. Home Secretary Amber Rudd signed the order. "Mr. Love has been charged with various computer hacking offences which included targeting U.S. military and federal government agencies," the U.K. Home Office said in a statement. The U.S. originally charged Love in 2013 for allegedly stealing confidential data from thousands of government employees, including Social Security numbers and credit card details. U.S. investigators accuse Love and his accomplices of causing millions of dollars in damages. Love’s defenders, however, claim he breached the U.S. government computers to protest the suicide of activist Aaron Swartz, who at the time was also facing hacking-related charges. Love fears that he won’t face a fair trial in the United States. "I would say my prospects of due process in America are essentially zero," Love has previously said. But this September, a U.K. judge paved the way for Love’s extradition to the United States, despite worries that he may attempt to commit suicide. Love has been diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome and has a history of depression. Although the U.K. home secretary had the final decision on the matter, she found no conditions to bar Love from being sent to the United States. Three U.S. courts have filed extradition requests for Love.
If convicted, he could face a maximum sentence of 99 years. However, his legal team has previously said that Love will seek permission to appeal his extradition to the U.K.'s High Court.
#OpLastResort hacker suspect on suicide watch It appears that appeals for clemency have come to naught after the UK Home Office confirmed that the extradition order for Lauri Love has been signed off by Home Secretary Amber Rudd. Love is facing charges that he was part of #OpLastResort, which stole large amounts of data from targets like the US Federal Reserve, the Department of Defense, NASA, and the FBI between 2012 and 2013.

The 31-year-old, who suffers from Asperger syndrome, faces 99 years in prison and millions of dollars in fines if he's convicted. "On Monday 14 November, the Secretary of State, having carefully considered all relevant matters, signed an order for Lauri Love's extradition to the United States," Home Office spokeswoman Rosie Libell told The Reg. "Mr Love has been charged with various computer hacking offences, which include targeting US military and federal government agencies." Love faces up to three trials in the US on hacking charges and, thanks to an extradition agreement arranged by then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, American prosecutors don't have to show evidence before a British court beforehand. Love now has 14 days to appeal Rudd's decision. In court, Love's lawyers have argued that Love, who has suffered mental illness for most of his life, would be at high risk of suicide if extradited.
In September, a British court ruled that this was not enough to stop his extradition, but on Monday Love reiterated that he was not going to travel to the US. Have I mentioned recently that I have absolutely zero intention of being taken to the USA against my will to be subjected to state violence? — Lauri Love (@LauriLoveX) November 12, 2016 (In the event of my death or disappearance a series of automated measures will trigger and numerous newsworthy revelations can be expected.) — Lauri Love (@LauriLoveX) November 14, 2016 Love's case has sparked huge amounts of interest and support. Last month over 100 members of parliament signed an open letter to US President Barack Obama, asking the leader of the Land of the FreeTM to reconsider the extradition. So far there has been no response, and Love is unlikely to get any mercy from President-elect Trump. ® Sponsored: Customer Identity and Access Management
BBCreader comments 30 Share this story Briton Lauri Love will be extradited to the US to face charges of hacking, Westminster Magistrates' Court ruled on Friday. Love faces up to 99 years in prison in the US on charges of hacking as part of the Anonymous collective, according to his legal team. Handing down her ruling at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London, district judge Nina Tempia told Love that he can appeal against the decision.

The case will now be referred to the home secretary Amber Rudd while Love remains on bail. Love, 31, is alleged to have been involved in the #OpLastResort hack in 2013, which targeted the US Army, the US Federal Reserve, the FBI, NASA, and the Missile Defense Agency in retaliation over the suicide, while awaiting trial, of Aaron Swartz. Love’s legal team, led by Ben Cooper of Doughty Street Chambers, had argued that his case was similar to that of Gary McKinnon, another British citizen whose extradition to the US, also based on allegations of hacking, was blocked by then-home secretary Theresa May in 2012. Like McKinnon, Love has been diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome and depression, conditions the defence argued would cause him to struggle in the US prison system.

Cooper said Love should instead face trial in the UK. His extradition has been requested by three jurisdictions: New Jersey, New York, and West Virginia. The case was widely seen as a test of the so-called "forum bar" that would have allowed the courts to block extradition requests. Sarah Harrison, director of the Courage Foundation, which runs Love’s defence fund and support campaign, said his legal team will apply to appeal against the ruling.
She said: This is a very disappointing ruling, not just for Lauri and his family, but for everyone who was angry about what happened to Gary McKinnon. Clear assurances were given that legal changes would prevent the McKinnon situation from happening again and frankly, if the forum bar can't help Lauri Love, it's very difficult to understand how it could ever help anyone. This is not what the public was led to believe at the time and it’s not something we should stand for. Judge Tempia said (PDF) that she was satisfied that her decision to extradite Love was "compatible with his Covention rights." She added: "I am satisfied that there is a substantial risk Mr Love will commit suicide.

The key issue then is what measures are in place to prevent any attempt at suicide being successful.

But I have found the medical facilities in the United States prison estate on arrival and during any sentence if he is convicted available to him, are such that I can be satisfied his needs will be comprehensively met by the US authorities." Tempia said that the US government "is not required to produce a prima facie case and it is not for me to determine if there is a case to answer," before noting that "there is a strong public interest that the United Kingdom should honour its extradition treaty obligations with other countries." In its reasoning, the ruling states that "most, if not all, of the loss or harm resulting from Mr Love’s conduct occurred in the United States," and notes that there are more than 20 witnesses—including an anonymous informant—all of whom are Stateside. What happens next? Extradition expert Edward Grange, a partner at Corker Binning legal firm, described the protection offered by the forum bar as "illusory." He told Ars: "As far as I am aware, since it came into effect in October 2013, no one has succeeded in barring their extradition by reason of forum. Love has four weeks from today to make representations to the secretary of state [Rudd]," He added: "She has a limited remit and can only consider representations regarding: the death penalty; specialty; and earlier extradition from another country. None of these appear to apply to Love’s case." If Love’s appeal to the home secretary against the ruling prove unsuccessful, he can apply to the High Court for permission to challenge both the judge and Rudd’s decision. He would have to do so within 14 days of any refusal from the home secretary to block extradition, Grange said. This post originated on Ars Technica UK