Lords drop Snooping Bill's burden of proof

The House of Lords has passed two amendments, following a debate on clause 46 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill.

The Bill will now be modified to reverse the burden of proof, so it is no longer necessary for an individual to prove whether or not they have access to encryption codes once they have been requested by security forces.

The next amendment states that the first course of action for the intelligence services should be to request printed copies of email data. Demands for encryption keys should be reserved for "special circumstances".

Anti-bill lobbyist Lord John Cope welcomed the outcome but said complex details arising out of the debate still required further scrutiny at the report stage.

Yesterday's debate looked at the complexity and sophistication of modern encryption codes. Opposition member Lord Lucas argued that the Bill provided a loophole for serious criminals proficient in coding illegal data.

"One can hide the existence of files through the use of keys that go down in layers, so that the first key will reveal one file structure, but if one applied another key, it would reveal hidden files below. If one uses suitable methods of hiding the files, it is impossible to prove that the files even exist," he told the house.

A further concern raised during debate was the validity of granting the police authority to issue warrants demanding encryption codes. Under the current terms of the Bill a warrant can be issued by the secretary of state for the Home Office, a judge, a police superintendent or an equivalent ranking officer in the customs and excise and armed forces.

Speaking to silicon.com, Lord Cope said he was concerned that the power to issue a warrant was being placed in the hands of the police.

"We need to look at what hurdles should be up against the police and how high should they be. Should they have to go before a magistrate to get a warrant? If the police want to search your house, they will need to go to court for a warrant. At least there is some sort of outside control over invasion of privacy," he said.

The Bill is up for discussion again on 10 July when it reaches the report stage.