Online privacy is once again a hot topic, with the likes of the "Snooper's Charter" repeatedly being snuck back through UK Parliament and currently standing to gain even more powers following the Queen's Speech on Wednesday.
Yet the current Conservative government's plans for widely accessing data may face another obstacle, as the United Nations has declared that encryption and anonymity must be protected -- just as we seem ready to (at least in part) abandon it.
The UN questioned it the report whether rights to privacy and freedom of expression extend to protect online communications and, if so, how far governments are allowed to go to impose restrictions on those communications. More specifically, the UN is looking at restrictions on encryption and anonymity, and whether legislation against either contravenes human rights laws.
The findings were presented by David Kaye, clinical professor of law at the University of California, Irvine and special rapporteur to the UN. The report drew "from research on international and national norms and jurisprudence" and, in a powerfully worded opening, declares that such privacy measures "enable individuals to exercise their rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age and, as such, deserve strong protection".
Issuing a questionnaire to UN member states to investigate their stances and practises with regards to encryption, Kaye received 16 countries' responses as of 1 April -- Austria, Bulgaria, Cuba, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden, Turkey and the USA. The UK is notable by its absence. Private corporations were also consulted.
Reading the full report -- which is recommended -- is a bit like watching someone very slowly, carefully explaining fire to cavemen. Kaye relies on very simple parallels, such as how a telephone can be used to report or commit a crime, to ease the intended readership into the mindset that the technology of encryption and the individual desire for privacy aren't inherently bad things. The report then expands, at length, on the importance secure communications hold to the likes of activists, students, persecuted minorities, journalists, and even artists.
Kaye's conclusion is that "encryption and anonymity, and the security concepts behind them, provide the privacy and security necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age." The report also calls on states to revise or establish laws and regulations to "promote and protect the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression", and "only adopt restrictions on a case-specific basis". "Blanket prohibitions fail to be necessary and proportionate," Kaye writes. "In addition, States should refrain from making the identification of users a condition for access to digital communications and online services."
Such an official report coming from the UN, especially in connection with the Human Rights Council arm, is likely to be the last thing David Cameron's government wants to read. As yet, the report's recommendations are just that, but it could prove basis for further opposition to legislation such as the Snooper's Charter.
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
