2017年5月8日,星期一

Back doors, 黑盒子es and #IPAct technical capability regulations

内政部已就该计划的关键步骤展开了一次雷达咨询。 implementation of the Investigatory Powers Act (IPAct): the regulations 上 技术街机森林舞会通知s. The Open Rights Group has 最近透露 拟议法规的细节。

根据IPAct a 技术街机森林舞会通知 can be issued to a telecommunications operator by the Secretary of State, with the approval of a Judicial Commissioner. A notice would require the operator to install specified technical facilities. The objective is to ensure that if the operator subsequently receives, say, an interception warrant it has the technical ability to comply with it. A 技术街机森林舞会通知 does not itself require an operator to conduct an interception. It prepares the ground in advance by ensuring the operator has equipment in place.

The proposed regulations will spell out what kind of facilities a 技术街机森林舞会通知 can require a telecommunications operator to install. For example, the consultation touches 上 上 e of the many controversial topics in the IPAct: the possible use of 技术街机森林舞会通知s in effect to prevent telecommunications operators from providing users with end to end encryption facilities.

IPAct中对电信运营商进行了广泛定义,不仅包括电信公司,ISP等,还包括Web电子邮件,社交媒体平台,云主机以及顶级通信提供商。

根据2000年《调查权力法》(RIPA),已经存在技术街机森林舞会通知,但形式更为有限。 里帕 的S.12制定了类似于新IPAct的三层方案:

  • 首先是法规,对内政部进行了广泛的布局’要求操作人员安装拦截功能的权力;
  • second,根据该法案制定的法规。这些使义务更加充实,并有可能缩小可能需要通知的提供者的类别;
  • 第三, 技术街机森林舞会通知s themselves, issued by the Secretary of State to individual service providers (but not necessarily to all of those within scope of the Act or the regulations).
这些为实际的拦截令铺平了道路,要求操作人员进行特定的拦截。

The main change with the IPAct is that 技术街机森林舞会通知s are no longer limited to interception. They apply to three of the powers under the Act: interception (targeted, thematic and bulk), communications data acquisition (ordinary and bulk) and equipment interference (targeted, thematic and bulk).

Another high level change is that the IPAct allows 技术街机森林舞会通知s to be given to private as well as to public telecommunications providers. The draft regulations reflect this expansion.

Also, unlike under 里帕 , IPAct 技术街机森林舞会通知s have to be approved by a Judicial Commissioner.

拟议的IPAct法规在许多方面与 根据RIPA制定的2002年现行法规。但是,有一些显着差异。

通信数据采集街机森林舞会不受10,000人阈值的限制

现行的RIPA拦截街机森林舞会法规设置了10,000人的门槛,低于该阈值则不需要拦截街机森林舞会。 (目前尚不清楚这是指客户还是最终用户。)拟议的新法规重复了这种拦截和设备干扰的门槛,尽管取消了英国10,000人的现有限制。

但是,对于通信数据获取,新的IPAct法规草案没有设置最低阈值。与IPAct结合使用’扩大了范围,涵盖了私人和公共电信运营商,而且我们有惊人的前景,任何类型的组织,业务 (排除的金融服务企业除外),机构,大学,学校,医院,图书馆,政党等可能需要安装通信数据采集功能。从理论上讲,这甚至可以适用于私人家庭,尽管很难想象这曾经是适当的。

通讯数据采集‘black box’

The communications data acquisition aspects of the draft regulations differ from interception and equipment interference in another significant respect. The existing 里帕 interception regulations are framed as obligations 上 operators to provide the capability themselves. The same is true of the new IPAct interception and equipment interference obligations. This approach allows operators to design or procure their own interception equipment, so long as it complies with the 技术街机森林舞会通知. 

The new IPAct communications data requirements, however, include a paragraph under which a 技术街机森林舞会通知 could require a provider to install a government-provided ‘black box’:

“10.安装和维护由国务卿或代表国务卿提供给经营者的任何设备,目的是使经营者能够获取或披露通信数据,包括提供和维护任何必要的设备,系统或其他设施或服务安装和维护如此提供的任何设备。”
本段在法案中未作说明’国会的通过,适用于普通和批量通信数据采集功能。它与以前的RIPA义务有很大的不同。

新服务

Unsurprisingly, since this was heavily trailed during the passage of the Bill, all three sets of provisions allow the imposition of obligations to notify the 家 Office in advance of new and changed services. A 技术街机森林舞会通知 would also be able to require the operator to “consider” the obligations and requirements imposed by any 技术街机森林舞会通知 when designing or developing new telecommunications services or telecommunications systems.

2002年的法规不包含此类义务。

端到端加密

The most controversial aspect of 技术街机森林舞会通知s throughout the passage of the Bill was whether the obligation to remove encryption could be used to prevent use of end to end encryption. On this topic the IP Act and the draft regulations in fact mirror quite closely an obligation that was always in the existing 2002 里帕 regulations:

“10.为确保签发截取令的人能够删除服务提供商对截取的通讯和相关通讯数据施加的任何电子保护。”
拟议的《知识产权法》法规说(针对拦截):
“8. To provide and maintain the capability to disclose, where practicable, the content of communications or secondary data in an intelligible form and to remove electronic protection 由或代表申请 the telecommunications operator to the communications or data, or to permit the person to whom the warrant is addressed to remove such electronic protection.”
但是,尽管2002年存在独立的端到端加密软件,但2002年的法规并没有触及到它,因为通信服务提供商未应用加密。直到最近,通信服务提供商才向其客户提供使用端到端加密的街机森林舞会,而服务提供商则没有,也从未拥有过加密密钥。 

This development has given rise to questions about whether a 技术街机森林舞会通知 under the IP Act could be used to require a telecommunications operator to have a means of decrypting messages, effectively preventing it from providing end to end encryption facilities to its customers.

在议会通过法案的过程中,问题反复浮出水面,最终导致 上议院于2016年10月19日辩论 内政部长内尔·豪(Earl Howe)受到哈林基哈里斯勋爵的顽强质疑。

The question of whether 技术街机森林舞会通知s could be used in this way has never been satisfactorily resolved. The 家 Office has repeatedly (and correctly) emphasised that the obligation can 上 ly apply to encryption ‘由或代表申请’ the service provider. But it has never clarified when encryption 将会 regarded as applied by the provider and when by the user. Perhaps the closest it came was in the House of Lords debate when Earl Howe said:

“任何决定都将考虑案件的具体情况,认识到存在许多不同的加密模型,包括许多不同的端到端加密模型,并且对于一个电信运营商而言合理可行的对另一电信运营商而言可能并非如此。 。”
内政部在那段文字和其他地方强调,服务提供者不能做任何不‘合理地切实可行’。因此,伯爵豪在再次上议院辩论中说:
“… the company 上 whom the warrant is served will not be required to take any steps, such as the removal of encryption, if they are not 合理地切实可行 steps for that company to take. So a 技术街机森林舞会通知 could not, in itself, authorise an interference with privacy. It would simply require a capability to be maintained that would allow a telecommunications operator to give effect to a warrant quickly and securely including, where applicable, the ability to remove encryption.”
他加了:
“这些保障措施确保了条例草案第229条规定的删除加密的义务将受到非常严格的控制,并且只有在有关运营商必须遵守其必要且相称,技术上可行和合理可行的情况下才可以实施。”
后来他说:
“The Bill ensures that the Secretary of State must specifically 考虑 the cost and technical feasibility of complying with an obligation to remove encryption as well as whether it is 合理地切实可行.”
但是重要的是不要混用 the 技术街机森林舞会通知 and a subsequent warrant. The raison d’etre of a 技术街机森林舞会通知 is to achieve a situation in which it is practicable for a service provider to assist with a warrant (see IPAct s. 253(4)). 条例草案中的义务是秘书的义务。 国家认为为此目的强加合理。  When issuing a 技术街机森林舞会通知 the Secretary of State has to 考虑, among other things, technical feasibility and cost.

The Act does provide that a warrant cannot require a service provider to do something that is not 合理地切实可行. But a warrant is not a 技术街机森林舞会通知. Crucially, the Act lays down that where a 技术街机森林舞会通知 is in place, reasonable practicability of assisting with a warrant is to be judged 上 the assumption that the 技术街机森林舞会通知 has been complied with.

因此,对于普通(非批量)拦截,S。43(4)和(6)提供:

“(4) The relevant operator is not required to take any steps which it is not 合理地切实可行 for the relevant operator to take.” 
“(6)凡对有关经营者施加了义务(“P”) under section 253 (技术街机森林舞会通知s), for the purposes of subsection (4) the steps which it is 合理地切实可行 for P to take include every step which it would have been 合理地切实可行 for P to take if P had complied with all of those obligations.” 
For a 技术街机森林舞会通知 the central concept is technical feasibility.

显然,对于为用户提供真正的端到端加密工具的运营商,删除加密是不可行的,因为它没有解密密钥。

但是,如果内政部认为运营商采用具有密钥的其他加密模型在技术上可行,那该怎么办呢?如果该论点成立,则服务提供商将(取决于‘由或代表申请’ 点) have to stop offering true end to end encryption facilities in order to comply with a notice. If it did not cease, then if it received a warrant it 将会 毫无理由地说删除加密是不切实际的,因为该法案认为它已遵守技术街机森林舞会通知。

Whether a 技术街机森林舞会通知 could be used to require a provider to change the nature of a service that it was offering in this way is 上 e of the great imponderables of this part of the legislation. The draft regulations shed no more light 上 the matter.

在这方面,内政部对法令和最终法规的解释可能至关重要。新的监督机构可以在以下方面发挥重要作用: 主动寻找这种解释 并引起他们的注意。

设备干扰

A major change compared with the 2002 regulations is the extension of 技术街机森林舞会通知s beyond the existing area of interception. The proposed regulations cover, as well as 已经讨论过通信数据的获取,设备干扰旨在获取通信,设备数据和其他信息。这不足为奇,因为这是IPAct本身引入的更改之一。

Nevertheless the idea that a telecommunications operator 可 compelled to put in place technical facilities specifically to 使当局能够入侵 any equipment 在手令之下仍然令人惊讶。值得一提的是,这种设备干扰义务,可能不仅仅是取消加密,‘back door’.

值得注意的是,鉴于安全隐患无疑会伴随为当局提供黑客入侵网关, as with 侦听和通信数据的获取法规草案规定,设备干扰街机森林舞会通知可以包括遵守通知中指定的安全标准以及国务卿发布的任何指南的要求。 

根据《知识产权法》第2(2)(c)条,国务卿有责任在电信系统的完整性和安全性方面考虑公共利益。

咨询过程

根据IPAct的S.253(6),内政大臣必须就法规草案进行磋商。她必须咨询根据该法案设立的技术咨询委员会,运营商“似乎可能会在国务卿看来可能要承担法规中规定的任何义务”及其代表,以及具有相关法定职能的人员(例如可能是新的调查权力专员)。

Notably absent from the 必须咨询 list are the general public (who most of all stand to be affected by the Act) or any organisations representing the public in areas such as privacy and civil liberties. However, now that the proposed regulations have reached a wider audience than the 必须咨询 list, more broadly based comment 可 expected.

一 point of interest 内政部有多远’s statutory ‘must-consult’义务达到。正如已经强调的那样,当法规草案中涉及通信数据获取的部分不包含10,000人的最低门槛时,这一点尤其重要。

因此,与确实规定了至少10,000人限制的设备干扰和拦截不同,通信数据采集功能规定(包括要求安装 a government-supplied 'black box') 可 applied however few customers or users an operator may have. Moreover the obligations are not restricted to public operators. Private telecommunications operators 可 included. As we have seen, thanks to the Act's wide definition of telecommunications operator that could cover many kinds of organisations.

这可能会产生一个难题。如果内政大臣认为私人或小型运营商可能不承担任何义务 法规中规定的内容,那么她就不必咨询他们或他们的代表。但是在那种情况下 would be 旨在扩大法规范围的目的,特别是针对通信数据的获取,以涵盖所有规模的运营商,无论规模大小,私有或公共,并且显然包括传统电信和ISP部门之外的组织?这可能会影响国务卿有义务进行的磋商范围。 



没意见:

发表评论