In a day of debating mostly minor parts of the Bill, Lord Cope noted, “that the Bill has achieved the rare, if not unique, distinction of having The Times, the Financial Times and the Guardian all call for the Bill to be withdrawn and reconsidered.”
Lord Cope also referred to the report recently published by the British Chamber of Commerce, “which concludes, among other things, that the costs to service providers of compliance would be £650 million over five years, and continuing thereafter. It has also concluded that the effects on the economy would be well over £35 billion over five years in the transfer of business to overseas jurisdictions. These are very serious figures.”
However, Lord Bassam replied that, “the public debate has revealed some very serious misunderstandings about the Bill.” He described these as ill-judged or misconceived. He continued, “we shall not be deflected from our course; nor shall we withdraw the Bill, as suggested in some of the wilder public comments. None of our industry contacts asks us to withdraw the Bill. They ask for it to be amended in many and various respects. We shall see what we can do in that regard.”
Lord Bassam referred to a letter written by Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, in response to an editorial in The Times:
"The first myth is that the Bill requires all Internet service providers in the UK to install black boxes with a link to the Security Service to monitor traffic. This is completely untrue. The Bill introduces comprehensive statutory controls for the first time governing access to data, such as billing records. Access must be properly authorised for specified purposes only. This is subject to independent oversight ...
"The second myth is that the Bill criminalises the innocent user of technology. Again, this is wholly wrong. It targets the serious criminal. There is a sanction for not complying with a decryption notice. But the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person has, or has had, possession of a decryption key. Forgetting passwords or keys is a reasonable thing to do, so the Bill includes statutory defences for such cases".
Lord Bassam said the Home Secretary then goes on to look at a third myth; namely, that companies will be required to surrender private keys to their entire network and will be prevented from divulging this. Quoting from the Home Secretary’s letter:
"But we have made it clear that, where legitimate businesses are concerned, we fully expect that disclosing material in an intelligible form rather than a key will normally be sufficient. The Bill reflects this. It contains restrictions on when keys may be required and when the 'tipping off' provision may come into play".
"We do not want to see the burgeoning e-commerce market overrun with high-tech criminals against whom law enforcement finds itself powerless; neither does industry with which we have actively engaged in consultation. So we need to update our laws. But we also need to ensure that we protect citizens' legitimate rights and that we do not overburden business. It is all about balance. I believe that the Bill strikes the right one.”
Lord Bassam added that officials of the House of Lords have met with a representative of the British Chamber of Commerce, to discuss the issues raised by them.