Menu
UK Parliament

Internet service providers and civil liberties groups give evidence

9 December 2015

Image of UK Parliament portcullis

The Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill takes evidence from internet service providers on the feasibility of the proposed powers and the practicality of the technical definitions. Civil liberties groups also give evidence on the appropriateness of the powers, authorisation and oversight mechanisms.

Witnesses

Wednesday 9 December, Committee Room 2, Palace of Westminster

At 4.15pm:

  • Mark Hughes, President, BT Security
  • Adam Kinsley, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, Sky
  • Hugh Woolford, Director of Operations, Virgin Media

At 5.15pm:

  • James Blessing, ISPA Chair and CTO of Keycom
  • Adrian Kennard, Managing Director, Andrews & Arnold Ltd

At 5.45pm:

  • Jim Killock, Executive Director of the Open Rights Group
  • Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty
  • Caroline Wilson Palow, Legal Officer, Privacy International
  • Renate Samson, Chief Executive, Big Brother Watch

Possible questions

Questions in the first and second sessions may include:

  • How extensively has the Home Office engaged with you with respect to the provisions that are contained in this Bill?
  • Given that Internet traffic is all packets, how easy is to separate communications data from content? What sort of equipment is needed to separate them and is this what is meant by Deep Packet Inspection? How effective is it and can you give us some idea of costs?
  • What is your understanding of Internet Connection Records and how they will they be created?
  • What are your views on the ability of the Secretary of State to impose a technical capability notice? How do you think your customers may react if they are aware that this power exists, even though they are unlikely to be aware of any specific imposition?

Questions in the third session may include:

  • Does the draft Bill strike the right balance between privacy and security?
  • Why do you think the proposed "double-lock" authorisation process fails to provide adequate protection for the rights of individuals and organisations? How could it be improved?
  • Law enforcement agencies have said they need communications data to be retained in order for them to be able to have access to records of historic criminality. What would you propose as an alternative to the retention of data if their ability to prosecute crimes is to be maintained?
  • Does the draft Bill provide sufficient protection for legally privileged and journalists' communications?

Further information

 Image:  iStockphoto