'Snooping Bill' slammed by silicon.com viewers

The Home Office's Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill has received a damning vote of no confidence from members of the UK IT and business community.

silicon.com conducted a survey to gauge user opinion after the RIP Bill ran into controversy.

Nearly three-quarters (73.6 per cent) of respondents said the Bill is not needed to protect individuals from criminal activity. Many added the Bill is fatally flawed and will allow law enforcers to abuse human rights.

The Bill is designed to regulate police monitoring activities and contains updated legislation to cover electronic communications. Civil rights lobbyists have been protesting since last year about what they describe as draconian measures involving the use of encryption keys. Specifically, individuals could be jailed if they cannot produce an encryption key for data sent over the Net

The main sticking point for 96 per cent of respondents is that the "burden of proof" is reversed - meaning individuals must be able to prove why they haven't got an encryption key if they are unable to produce one.

One viewer said: "The onus is on the suspect to prove that he or she does not possess certain information. Ever tried to prove a negative? It is almost impossible. I regard the Bill as extremely dangerous and a blatant infringement of basic human rights."

Nearly one-quarter of respondents even said they would consider leaving the country if the law is passed.

Nick Rosen, director of research company Online Agency, said he was at a loss as to how such an unpopular Bill could be defeated and added its very existence was a result of political power struggles.

According to Rosen, the Bill's history lies between the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The Home Secretary has remained in power since Labour's rise to power in 1997 but the DTI chief has changed several times.

As a result, Rosen claimed the Home Office has forced the DTI to produce a "spook's charter". He added that e-minister Patricia Hewitt has done nothing to prevent its inclusion.

The Home Office was unable to respond at the time of writing.