MPs call on government to clarify vague terms in Investigatory Powers Bill

Confusing and vague terms need to be 'clarified as a matter of urgency', warns Science and Technology Committee

MPs have called on the government to clarify vague phrases in the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, in a bid to clear up confusion on the part of communications services providers and others.

They also warned that the Bill could harm the UK's burgeoning tech sector.

The Science and Technology Committee examined the draft Bill - otherwise known as the snooper's charter - and found that the government had produced definitions of internet connections and other terms that had resulted in "significant confusion" for communications services providers.

Terms such as 'telecommunications service', 'relevant communications data', 'communications content', 'equipment interference', 'technical feasibility' and 'reasonably practicable' need to be "clarified as a matter of urgency", MPs said.

Nicola Blackwood MP, chair of the committee, said that the current lack of clarity within the Bill is causing concern among communications and technology businesses operating in the UK.

"There are widespread doubts over the definition, not to mention the definability, of a number of the terms used in the draft Bill. The government must urgently review the legislation so that the obligations on the industry are clear and proportionate," she said.

"There remain questions about the feasibility of collecting and storing Internet Connection Records (ICRs), including concerns about ensuring security for the records from hackers. The Bill was intended to provide clarity to the industry, but the current draft contains very broad and ambiguous definitions of ICRs, which are confusing communications providers," she added.

MPs said that the communications industry has concerns that 'equipment interference' could jeapordise their business models, particularly those organisations using open source software, such as the Mozilla Foundation.

"Clients of these companies may not be aware of when equipment interference happens because disclosure is not permitted," the report reads.

Blackwood added that equipment interference, the power whereby the government can tap into electronic equipment and obtain information on the use of that equipment, may occasionally be necessary for law enforcement agencies to do their job effectively.

However, she added that the tech industry has legitimate concerns about the reaction of their customers to the possibility that electronic devices could be routinely hacked by the security services.

And, she warned, over-zealous legislation could do more harm than good, especially in the UK's burgeoning technology sector. "We need our security services to be able to do their job and prevent terrorism, but as legislators we need to be careful not to inadvertently disadvantage the UK's rapidly growing tech sector," said Blackwood.

Apple had previously suggested it was concerned that it could be ordered to hack into devices remotely or interfere with the hardware itself in order to unearth information belonging to its customers, in secret.

"The Bill, as it stands, seems to threaten to extend responsibility for hacking from government to the private sector," the company's submission to the Science and Technology Committee stated.

It was also concerned that the Bill's language could mean it is obliged to create a ‘backdoor' to provide the authorities with access, and that this would weaken "the protections built into Apple products and endanger all our customers". Blackwood said that the government needed to do more to "allay unfounded concerns that encryption will no longer be possible".

The Home Office has said that it would look into the report's findings.