ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) Issues Statement: The Communications Data Bill.
February 24, 2009
The ICO has released a statement expressing concerns about the Government plans for a Communications Data Bill.
The Government plans for a Communications Data Bill, outlined in its draft legislative programme, have received a pretty distrustful reaction from the ICO.
The ICO’s John Bamford, Assistant Information Commissioner, commented on the proposed government database:
‘If the intention is to bring all mobile and Internet records together under one system, this would give us serious concerns and may well be a step too far. We are not aware of any justification for the state to hold every UK citizen’s phone and internet records. We have real doubts that such a measure can be justified, or is proportionate or desirable. Such a measure would require wider public discussion. Proper safeguards would be needed to ensure that the data is only used for the proper purpose of detecting crime.
We have warned before that we are sleepwalking into a surveillance society. Holding large collections of data is always risky; the more data that is collected and stored, the bigger the problem when the data is lost, traded or stolen. Defeating crime and terrorism is of the utmost importance, but we are not aware of any pressing need to justify the government itself holding this sort of data. If there is a problem with the current arrangements, we stand ready to advise on how they can be improved, rather than creating an additional system to house all records’.
The Government outline in its legislative programme states that the purpose of the Bill is to allow communications data capabilities for the prevention and detection of crime and protection of national security to keep up with changing technology through providing for the collection and retention of such data, including data not required for the business purposes of communications service providers; and to ensure strict safeguards continue to strike the proper balance between privacy and protecting the public.
The main elements of the Bill involve modifications to the procedures for acquiring communications data and increasing powers for this data to be retained. It wil also transpose EU Directive 2006/24/EC on the retention of communications data into UK law. The Government claims that the main benefits of the Bill are that ‘communications data plays a key role in counter-terrorism investigations, the prevention and detection of crime and protecting the public. The Bill would bring the legislative framework on access to communications data up to date with changes taking place in the telecommunications industry and the move to using Internet Protocol (IP) core networks. Unless the legislation is updated to reflect these changes, the ability of public authorities to carry out their crime prevention and public safety duties and to counter these threats will be undermined’.
That early outline has since, reportedly, been fleshed out but no public document is available.
UK Superdatabase (uberdatabase) aka The Communications Data Bill
February 24, 2009
The purpose of the Bill is to:
Allow communications data capabilities for the prevention and detection of crime and protection of national security to keep up with changing technology through providing for the collection and retention of such data, including data not required for the business purposes of communications service providers; and to ensure strict safeguards continue to strike the proper balance between privacy and protecting the public.
The main elements of the Bill would:
Modify the procedures for acquiring communications data and allow this data to be retained;
The main benefits of the Bill are:
Communications data plays a key role in counter-terrorism investigations, the prevention and detection of crime and protecting the public. The Bill would bring the legislative framework on access to communications data up to date with changes taking place in the telecommunications industry and the move to using Internet Protocol (IP) communications services;
Unless the legislation is updated to reflect these changes, the ability of public authorities to carry out their crime prevention and public safety duties and to counter these threats will be undermined.
Territorial Extent:
United Kingdom
Theme:
Personalisation and Improvement of Public Services
Consultation:
The Government will be launching a consultation, outlining the emerging problem, possible solutions, and the necessary safeguards these would involve. This consultation will begin early in 2009 and will be available to read or download on www.homeoffice.gov.uk.
Dependent on the outcome of the consultation, the Government will consider whether to bring forward proposals. In the meantime, any comments or questions about these proposals should be directed to CommsData@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk.
Reference:
http://www.commonsleader.gov.uk/output/page2667.asp
Big Brother Will Have His 3rd Eye: Jacqui Smith’s SuperDatabase Plan
February 24, 2009
Jacqui Smith, The Home Secretary is preparing to pass what has been dubbed a “personal data hell house” by the mainstream press. Within weeks the home secretary will outline options for a UK-wide centralised superdatabase.
One of the biggest assaults on human rights in modern history: The database is to track the telephone and Internet records of Brits and would be accompanied by tough sanctions against leaks or information security breaches.
TXT Messaging, Cellphone communications, Fixed Line Communications, Voice over IP communications (including services like Skype), Email, Instant messaging (including MSN Live Messenger), Internet Search queries, Online Identities, Cellphone Contacts lists, Email Contacts lists, and Profile Site (like Myspace, Bebo and Facebook) communications are all rumored to be included in the proposed database which will provide security forces with live information on all of the above.
Sir Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, told The Guardian that the proposed assurances on information security under consideration by the government are nothing but a facade that is likely to crumble sooner rather than later.
“Authorisations for access might be written into statute. The most senior ministers and officials might be designated as scrutineers. But none of this means anything. All history tells us that reassurances like these are worthless in the long run. In the first security crisis the locks would loosen,” Macdonald said.
Legislation to establish the superdatabase was postponed in October in favour of a further round of consultation by the Home Office. The Home Secretary argues that a database on call records (including location but not the actual content of conversations and SMS) and internet use data is needed as part of plans to modernise the UK’s existing interception regime. As things stand, ISPs and telcos supply such data in response to requests by law enforcement agencies or the security services.
Estimates for the cost of establishing a super-database suggest it might cost anything up to £12bn ($17.4bn), or twice as expensive as the ID cards scheme. Ministers hope that putting the project into the hands of the private sector will help to reduce costs.
Macdonald argued that creating the über-database represents a further move towards a Big Brother-style “surveillance society”. He further argued that, over time, and especially in the event of a security crisis, more and more officials would be given access to information on the database.
“The tendency of the state to seek ever more powers of surveillance over its citizens may be driven by protective zeal. But the notion of total security is a paranoid fantasy which would destroy everything that makes living worthwhile. We must avoid surrendering our freedom as autonomous human beings to such an ugly future. We should make judgments that are compatible with our status as free people,”
“This database would be an unimaginable hell-house of personal private information. It would be a complete readout of every citizen’s life in the most intimate and demeaning detail. No government of any colour is to be trusted with such a roadmap to our souls.”
Estimates for the cost of establishing a super-database suggest it might cost anything up to £12bn ($17.4bn), or twice as expensive as the ID cards scheme. Ministers hope that putting the project into the hands of the private sector will help to reduce costs.
Andrew Rawnsley on Politics Home made the following statement in response to a question to their “Expert Panel 100″ panel:
Jacqui Smith is being cast as Big Brother – though perhaps that should be Big Mother – over plans to further extend the amount of information on citizens held by the state. The terrorism watchdog is one of those concerned with the idea of a database holding information about every phone call, email and internet visit.
The Home Secretary will go ahead regardless of strong opposition.
A big majority (seventy three per cent) of the politically balanced panel think that Ministers intend to proceed anyway. Only a small minority of the panel (seven per cent) think that there will not be strong opposition to the database scheme.
About a quarter of the panel (twenty six per cent) reckon the Government will drop the plan.
Comments from panellists are almost uniformly hostile to the proposal.
One panel member calls the plan ‘intrusive, illiberal and a waste of money.’
Another panellist remarks: ‘The Government is obsessed with this sort of stuff while people increasingly worry about their privacy and the Government’s true intentions.’
A third panel member reckons that Ministers are under pressure from the spooks: ‘It will proceed more slowly and tentatively than 42 days but security services are 100% behind this one so goverment can’t drop it.’
A fourth panellist rages: ‘The plan is mad, bad and dangerous, but that never seems to stop loony tune security ideas being pursued by Brown and Smith.’
References:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/31/superdatabase_latest/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/31/privacy-civil-liberties
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/13/laws-communication-superdatabase
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/06/surveillance-freedom-peers
ASBO preventing hoodie lawful?
February 19, 2009
An ASBO (anti-social behaviour order) under section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 can be granted if a person aged 10 or over has acted in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household and that an ASBO is needed to protect relevant persons from further such anti-social acts.
Following R. v. Boness and others [2005] EWCA Crim 2395 (Mitting J and Latham LJ) is clear that a condition of an ASBO must be ‘clear, necessary and proportionate’.
The Claimant was subject to an ASBO prohibiting him from ’wearing any article of clothing with an attached hood in any public place in the London Borough of Greenwich, whether the hood is up or down’. He claimed that this was unreasonable in that it purpose and effect was not to reduce anti-social behaviour but to prohibit or restrict a particular appearance or style that the Claimant might wish to wear. In addition this restriction arguably could or did infringe his right to freedom of expression.
However, the Divisional Court on 10 November 2008 (R (B) v. Greenwich Magistrates’ Court [2008] EWHC 2882) agreed with the District Judge that the prohibition was imposed to reduce in two ways the swagger, menace and fear caused byintimidating group activity. These were to prohibit wearing what appears to be part of a gang uniform and also by diminishing the confidence of those who wear the uniform that they may escape detection by wearing and raising the hood. It was clear that the Claimant wore the hood for both these purposes. Consequently the prohibition satisfied the tests of clarity, necessity and proportionality identified in Boness.
Nicholas Dobson
Senior Consultant, Local and Public Law.
