Internet Surveillance Working Group Report 25/11/00
TO NOVEMBER 24 2000 COUNCIL MEETING
The ISOCNZ working group on Internet Surveillance was formed at almost exactly the same time as the last Council meeting. It has an active mailing list (hosted by ISOCNZ after some initial teething problems), which is archived for members to review if they wish, and a website at http://isocnz-iswg.naos.co.nz./ -- which includes a link to the archives.
The working group, which has a range of members with varying technical, legal, and privacy backgrounds, has been meeting electronically for the past month. The working group has identified four broad categories of network surveillance: (a) surveillance by law enforcement; (b) surveillance with the permission of those being watched (eg, as part of an employment contract); (c) operational surveillance (eg, to confirm that network applications are functioning normally), and (d) "other".
The recently introduced Electronic Transactions Bill is obviously now a primary concern of the working group. The working group has its hands on two copies of the text of the Bill in electronic form (both available via its website), and will be considering this over the next week or so. An early "show of hands" survey established that the working group is broadly in favour of the Internet surveillance laws being analogous to the existing telecommunications surveillance laws, which on a brief skim seems to be mainly what the Bill seeks to achieve.
The working group is still seeking someone with a legal/semi-legal background to summarise the existing Telecommunications surveillance law; an earlier offer to contact someone who could provide an outline of this appears to have fallen through.
Two further timely issues have been raised during discussion: the first is the failings of "filtering" software that claims to block out the bad stuff and let through the good stuff. It was felt that without exception software of this kind didn't achieve what it claimed, blocking more than it should, and not blocking things it arguably should have blocked. There was some discussion about ISOCNZ making some sort of announcement warning that filtering software isn't always what it seems to be.
The second concerned an idea of ISOCNZ sponsoring/helping organise a discussion forum (perhaps a one day conference) to discuss the issue of Internet Surveillance particularly in the context of the recently introduced Bill. Several people (both inside and outside the working group) have been very keen on this idea, but it requires someone with the time to drive it further. At this stage no one has stepped forward to offer their time to organise it.
Such a discussion forum would need to be in December to capture public attention and to have a useful effect on the progress of the Bill. It is a very useful opportunity for ISOCNZ to be proactive about bridging the perceived "gap" between the Internet community and the Government. Several feel that such a discussion forum could be organised relatively cheaply, and I urge Council to consider this idea further.
Ewen McNeill
Convenor
© 2000 The Internet Society of New Zealand
Last updated 24 November 2000
