Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIP or RIPA) is a United Kingdom law covering the interception of communications. It was introduced to take account of technological change such as the growth of the Internet and strong encryption. It also puts other techniques for monitoring citizens on a statutory footing.
The long title of the Act is:
An Act to make provision for and about the interception of, communications, the acquisition and disclosure of data relating to communications, the carrying out of surveillance, the use of covert human intelligence sources and the acquisition of the means by which electronic data protected by encryption or passwords may be decrypted or accessed; to provide for the establishment of a tribunal with jurisdiction in relation to those matters, to entries on and interferences with property or with wireless telegraphy and to the carrying out of their functions by the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters; and for connected purposes.
Critics claim that the spectre of internet crime and paedophilia was used to push the act through and there was little substantive debate in the House of Commons. The act still has numerous critics, most regarding the regulations as dangerously excessive and a threat to civil liberties.
Especially contentious was Part III of the Act which (under some circumstances) might require persons to supply the cryptographic key to a duly authorised person. Key disclosure would only be appropriate in circumstances where the actual encrypted traffic was not supplied. Failure to disclose encrypted traffic (or if appropriate the relevant key) would be a criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of two years in jail. The debate about Part III of the Act is largely hypothetical since it is not yet in force. Using the mechanism of secondary legislation, some parts of the Act require activation by a ministerial order before attaining legal force. Such orders have been made in respect of the relevant sections of Part I and Part of the RIP Act, but not (yet, as of December 2005) Part III.
Critics claim that the provisions of Part III are too complex, and possibly unworkable, and that this might be a reason for government reluctance to activate this part of the legislation. Another possibility is that the government wishes to have the powers in reserve, such that if they were deemed necessary they could be implemented more quickly and easily than if new primary legislation were required. Another possibility is that relevant government agencies might reasonably believe that it is easier to use pre-existing judicial procedures to compel production of evidence rather than the more cumbersome and difficult procedures that ultimately found their way into Part III.
Another objection is that the Act requires sufficiently large UK Internet Service Providers to install technical systems to assist law enforcement agencies with interception activity. Although this equipment must be installed at the ISPs' expense, RIPA does provide that Parliament will examine appropriate funding for ISPs if the cost burden become unfairly high.
RIPA can be invoked by any certain government officials specified in the Act on the grounds of national security, preventing or detecting crime, preventing disorder, public safety, protecting public health, or in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 9, 2000 and completed its Parliamentary passage on July 26. The Bill received Royal Assent on July 28.
In September 2003, Home Secretary David Blunkett announced wide-ranging extensions to the list of those entitled to see information collected under the RIPA. The list now includes jobcentres, local councils, and the Chief Inspector of Schools. Civil rights and privacy campaigners have dubbed these extensions a "snoopers' charter".