UK government accessing telephone records英國政府獲取電話記錄
At the beginning of October, the Labour government “activated” part three of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) granting various branches of the state wide powers to access telephone records without recourse to a judge.截至10月初，工黨政府的"啟動"三個部分的規管調查權力法案2000 （權力規範） ，給予各分行的國家廣泛權力，以獲取電話記錄，沒有求助於法官。
According to some reports, up to 800 state bodies and agencies can now seek access to telephone records, including all of Britain’s local authorities and even such quasi-non-governmental organisations as the Scottish Ambulance Service Board or the Food Standards Agency.據報導，多達800個國家機關和機構現在可以謀求獲取電話記錄，其中包括所有的英國地方當局，甚至發生了類似的非政府機構作為蘇格蘭救護服務局或食品標準局。
Security and Counter-terrorism Minister Tony McNulty told BBC Radio 4 that the data could provide three levels of information, with the simplest being about the phone’s owner.安全和反恐怖主義部長托尼mcnulty告訴英國廣播公司電台第四台，該數據可以提供三個層次的信息，以最簡單的正對手機的主人。 The second level of data is not merely about the subscriber, “but also the calls made by that phone.第二個層次的數據，不僅是對用戶" ，而且通話費用由該電話。
“And the third level, which is purely for the security forces, police, etc., is not just the subscriber information and the calls made, but also the calls coming in and location data—where the calls are made from.” "第三個層次，這純粹是為安全部隊，警察等，不只是登記資料和通話費用，而且還要求今後在和定位數據，只要通話是由" 。
Since telecom operators retain geographic data about the “cells” over which calls are routed, these provide sufficient information to locate a mobile phone.由於電信運營商保留的地理數據的有關"細胞" ，其中要求，是單線，這些提供足夠的資料，找到一部手提電話。 In urban areas, where the cell transmitters are very densely sited, this enables a phone’s position to be calculated to within a few feet.在城市地區，而該細胞的發射機很密集的位置，而這將使得手機的位置，以計算在一個幾英尺。
Further powers include demanding encryption keys that may have been used to encrypt data and emails be handed over, with failure to comply attracting a possible prison sentence of from two to five years.進一步的權力，包括要求加密密鑰可能被用來加密數據和電子郵件移交，不遵守吸引可能在監獄服刑的，從4時58年。
Under section 49 of RIPA, the police can serve a notice requiring encrypted data to be “put into an intelligible form”—ie, decrypted.根據第49條的權力規範，警方可以送達通知書，要求加密的數據被"投入可讀的形式" -即解密。 It can force people to hand over their encryption keys, which will then be held by the National Technical Assistance Centre (NTAC).它可以迫使人們交出自己的加密密鑰，然後會將舉行，由美國國家技術援助中心（ ntac ） 。 According to the Home Office, this is a “twenty-four hour centre operated on behalf of all the law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies, providing a central facility for the complex processing needed to derive intelligible material from lawfully intercepted computer-to-computer communications and from lawfully seized computer data that are increasingly encrypted.”據民政廳，這是一個" 24小時中心代表所有執法，安全和情報機構，並提供中央設施，為複雜的加工需要從中理解材料，從合法截獲計算機與計算機之間通信和合法檢獲的電腦資料說，正日益加密" 。
The government has sought to justify this extension of state powers mainly by citing the “fight against terrorism,” but it has also admitted that the use of encryption has grown more rapidly than it had anticipated, and that this is also a reason why it has now “activated” the powers already contained in RIPA when it was placed on the statute books in 2000.政府曾經設法證明這一擴展國家的權力，主要是通過引用"打擊恐怖主義" ，但也承認說，使用加密技術的發展速度超過了預期，並認為這也是一個原因，它已現在"激活"的權力已經包含在權力規範，當它被放置於法律典籍在2000年。
The new powers provide a quasi-judicial veneer for the fact that various state agencies were already seeking far wider access to private data, and this is set to expand even further.新的權力提供一個準司法單板為事實，即國家各機構已經在尋求更為廣泛進入私人數據，而這是一套以擴大更加緩慢。 A commentary by the civil liberties organisation Statewatch in 2003 had already noted that “hundreds of thousands of requests for access to communication data are already being made by agencies even though there is no legal power to do so.”一篇評論，由公民自由組織statewatch在2003年已指出， "數以十萬計的要求查閱通信數據已被提出的機構，即使是沒有任何法律有權這樣做" 。
According to a report this month by the civil and human rights group Liberty, there were “nearly 440,000 authorisations for communications data traffic between June 2005 and March 2006.”據報導，這個月，由民權和人權團體自由，有"近44萬授權用於通信數據流量之間於2005年6月和2006年3月" 。
This massive extension of the state’s powers to intrude into the life of the ordinary citizen was introduced without recourse to a debate in parliament but through the mechanism of a “parliamentary instrument” signed by the home secretary, Jacquie Smith, which one press report said was “quietly approved” in July.這種大規模的擴建，國家的權力，以闖入我的生活，普通公民實行無追索權，以進行辯論，但國會通過該機制的一個"議會文書簽訂的"由民政司， jacquie史密斯，其中報章報導說的是"悄悄的認可" ，在七月舉行。
The government claims to have held “full consultation” on the introduction of the new measures, but this is contested by those who follow civil liberties issues closely.政府聲稱他們已經進行了"充分協商" ，對實行新的措施，但是，這是有爭議的，由那些後續公民自由問題上緊密合作。 Writing in the Observer newspaper, Henry Porter said, “Yeah, right.寫在觀察家報，亨利波特說， "是啊，正確的。 When?什麼時候？ With whom?與誰？ The Welsh Ambulance Service?威爾士救護服務？ The Postal Services Commission?郵政服務佣金？ Wychavon district council? wychavon區議會？ All of them can now acquire your phone records.所有這些國家現在可以獲取你的電話記錄。 There was absolutely no debate about this, and it is nothing but a straight lie to claim otherwise.”有絕對沒有任何辯論，這和它不過是一種直說謊，聲稱否則" 。
“We are not intruding into people’s private lives,” a Home Office spokesperson said, going on to claim that the exercise of the new powers was consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and UK Human Rights Act, as long as the demand for decryption is “both necessary and proportionate.” "我們並沒有侵入到人們的私人生活， "家庭辦公室發言人說，正在進行聲稱行使新權力，是符合歐洲人權公約和英國的人權法，只要把需求為解密，是"必要的和相稱的" 。
But who decides what is “necessary and proportionate”?但是由誰來決定什麼是"必要和適當" ？ And what public scrutiny is there to ensure that these powers are not being abused arbitrarily?以及什麼是公眾監督是有，以確保這些權力不被濫用隨便？
To require judicial approval for such a level of access requests would completely swamp the court system.要求司法當局核准這種級別的訪問請求會完全沼澤法院系統。 So authorisation has been devolved to what Statewatch has called the office of the “toothless” Interception of Communications Commissioner, “which is hardly likely to engender public confidence.”所以授權已下放給什麼statewatch有所謂辦公室的"無牙"截取通訊專員" ，這是絕不可能引起公眾的信心" 。
“The holders of this post, and the Tribunal to which members of the public can complain about surveillance, were created under the 1985 Interceptions of Communications Act (now replaced by RIPA 2000), have never in the eighteen years of their existence upheld a complaint,” according to Statewatch. "持這個職位，而該法庭成員的市民可抱怨的監視，創造了下， 1985年截獲的通訊法（現改為權力規範2000年） ，從來沒有在十八年他們的存在，堅持投訴"根據statewatch 。
In a further Kafkaesque twist, those receiving a notice under section 49 of RIPA are legally prohibited from telling anyone apart from their lawyer about it.為了進一步卡夫卡扭曲，那些接到通知書根據第49條的權力規範，是法律禁止的，由告訴人，除了他們的律師說。
Since 2004, telecom and Internet service providers have voluntarily provided data when requested; now, they will be required to retain such information for one year.自2004年以來，電信和互聯網服務供應商也自願提供的數據請求時;現在，他們將須保留這些資料為一年。 However, since the provisions only apply to data within the UK, large corporations could easily avoid this by keeping their data and encryption keys offshore.不過，由於該條款只適用於數據，在英國，大企業可以很容易避免這種情況，保持數據和加密密鑰境外。
By 2009, the retention of data including Internet sites visited, emails sent and VOIP (Voice over IP or Internet telephony) will be mandatory.到2009年，數據的保存期，包括互聯網網站訪問，電子郵件發送和VoIP （ IP語音或網路電話） ，將變成強制性的。
This will put into UK law the highly contentious European Commission Directive on mandatory data retention, adopted in 2005, and will replace the current “voluntary” code introduced in the UK in 2003.這將成為英國法律的高度爭議的歐洲委員會指令強制性數據保留， 2005年通過的，將取代目前的"自願"典介紹，在英國於2003年。 This regulation does not just cover terrorism but all crime, however minor.本規例並不只是涵蓋恐怖主義，但所有犯罪的，但程度輕微。
Not only in Britain but throughout Europe and internationally, the rights to free speech and personal privacy are being seriously eroded, with governments habitually citing the “fight against terrorism” to justify their mounting curtailment of long-standing democratic norms.不僅在英國，但整個歐洲和國際上的權利，言論自由和個人隱私正受到嚴重損害，與各國政府習慣於把"打擊恐怖主義" ，以證明其日益縮減的長期未決的民主準則。
“Nothing to hide, nothing to fear” is the false mantra repeated by ministers of every political stripe. "沒有什麼可隱瞞的，沒有什麼可怕" ，是虛假的口頭禪重複部長每個政治條紋。
But the latest extension of state powers in Britain through RIPA means historically determined democratic rights such as the presumption of innocence and against arbitrary state actions are being further abrogated.但最新的擴展國家的權力，在英國通過權力規範手段，在歷史上確定的民主權利，如推定無罪，並禁止任意國家行動正在進一步廢止。 Such laws, enabling almost routine trawling operations through mountains of personal data by the state, weight the balance of power overwhelming in favour of “state rights” against those of the individual citizen.這樣的法律，使幾乎例行拖網作業，通過山區的個人資料，由國務院，體重，力量的平衡壓倒性贊成的"國權" ，對那些對公民個人。
Big Brother 大哥 Section has more related reports 科更多相關報導 Help keep RINF going..有利於保持rinf去..Comment on 'UK government accessing telephone records' : 評論』英國政府獲取電話記錄' ：
Related News: 相關新聞：
