iGoogle

iGoogle

Intercept modernization program in the UK.

Intercept modernization program in the UK.

If you think that the government being able to track your movements from your front door to your destination via CCTV is worrying, or you have concerns re the intention of our government to create a data base of DNA profiles for every citizen in the country, if you feel that your privacy is being eroded constantly by bureaucratic need to collect data and paranoia then you will love this.

If you haven’t heard of this before (and I hadn’t until a colleague in America gave me a printed review of the situation) The Intercept Modernisation Programme, or Communications Data Bill, is a set of new security proposals from the UK Government.

Jacqui Smith spoke about the plans on 15 October at an Institute for Public Policy Research event. She said that although the original plans had been due to go before the House of Commons in the Communications Data Bill in November, she was now holding back this Bill "in order to expand the extent of surveillance powers open to the security services, while consulting further on the best way to win public support for the plan" . She did not reveal the substance of the original plans.

Lord West of Spithead summarized the govements plans thus:

"the objective of the Intercept Modernisation Programme (IMP) is to maintain the UK's lawful intercept and communications data capabilities in the changing communications environment. It is a cross-government programme, led by the Home Office, to ensure that our capability to lawfully intercept and exploit data when fighting crime and terrorism is not lost. It was established in response to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's national security remit in 2006.

It has been reported that they include a proposal to centralise the electronic communications traffic data of the entire UK population in a database managed by the Government.So far, so good you might be thinking, anything that makes it more difficult for the terrorists to operate has to be good. Well maybe, read on:

According to the daily telegraph in November of last year; all telecoms companies and internet service providers under this legislation will be required by law to keep a record of every customer’s personal communications, showing who they have contacted, when and where, as well as the websites they have visited. Click by click!

Even worse; 653 public bodies will be given access to the information, including police, local councils, the Financial Services Authority, the ambulance service, fire authorities and even prison governors. When the Home Office was questioned they admitted that only one third of respondents to its six-month consultation on the issue supported its proposals, with 50 per cent fearing that the scheme lacked sufficient safeguards to protect the highly personal data from abuse.

This law is intended to enhance the government’s ability to tackle terrorism. Yes we agree this is a good thing but why do so many public bodies need access to the database.

Jacki Smiths Department sent the following reply to request for information on this subject:

Dear,

Thank you for your e-mail of 21 October to the Home Secretary the Rt. Hon Jacqui Smith MP about the recent media reports concerning the Governments proposals for the Communications Data Bill.

As you may be aware, the police and other public authorities specified under Part I Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) can already get critical communications data from communications service providers such as telephone companies to help them solve crimes. This “Communications Data” covers such information as when calls are made but expressly does not include the content of those calls – such as what was said.

No but this can be asked for.

Communications Data is used in order to prevent and detect crime on a day to day basis – including serious crimes and terrorism. A recent example of the use of communications data is that of Levi Bellfield who was tied to the murder of Amelie Delagrange through information about when and where he was using his mobile phone. He was later tried and convicted for her murder.

I would just like to add here the following:

RIPA powers are already being abused by government agencies. As Sir Christopher Rose, the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, noted in his most recent report to the Prime Minister:

The evidence is that [Local Authorities] tend to resort to covert activity as a last resort but, when they do, have a tendency to expose lack of understanding of the legislation by completing documentation poorly. In particular there is a serious misunderstanding of the concept of proportionality. It is not acceptable, for example, to judge, that because directed surveillance is being conducted from a public place, this automatically renders the activity overt or to assert that an activity is proportionate because it is the only way to further an investigation. At the end of the reporting period, media reports highlighted the need for a public debate on the use of these powers and specifically the issue of proportionality.

Local authorities have used RIPA powers to spy on a family for three weeks to find out if they were really living in a school catchment area (Poole), or to investigate dog fouling (Derby City Council, Bolton, Gateshead and Hartlepool)! (my emphasis)

However, the way we communicate with one another is changing rapidly. The development of the potential of the internet and internet technology by the communications industry has led to an explosion in the number of communications, and the different ways that people communicate. These developments, which are driven by technological change, will increasingly undermine our current capability to obtain communications data and use it to protect the public.

It is clearly important to safeguard these important capabilities to protect the public in the changing technological environment, but also to ensure that the balance between privacy and security is struck correctly. Any proposals that the Government brings forward will of course address the very important issues relating to the privacy and security of personal data and will be fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.

You may also be aware that the Home Secretary announced our intention to launch a consultation on proposals to modernise our communications data capability during her speech at the Institute for Public Policy Research on 15 October 2008. The consultation will seek to help the public understand how valuable communications data is in protecting them, what changes are taking place in the industry that threaten our capabilities in this area, and seek views on the options that are available – and the safeguards that will naturally be needed to apply to any proposals that we bring forward.

Our intention is that we take this opportunity to listen to the public, and understand their concerns and views on this. Dependent on the outcome of this, we will then look at options for legislation. It is our intention that any proposals that are brought forward as a result are published in draft for consideration before being introduced – thereby ensuring that the very valuable scrutiny which we had planned for any legislation in this area can still be achieved.

As you will understand we are unable to disclose or make public statements which may undermine and expose the extent of our existing or future capabilities.

I would therefore encourage you to engage in the public debate when the consultation paper is published.

Yours sincerely,

Since this was published very little has been done to reassure the public. In a recent pol less than 30% of the public regarded the collection of this data as a good thing.

It is the centralization of this data and the widening of the access goal posts that are of most concern as is the type of data collected. Current law requires phone companies to keep records for a year of all phone calls throughout the UK. However the data that is kept is time, place, recipient and caller, the conversation its self is not kept unless a specific request is made for it. Under these new plans it is unclear how this distinction will continue to be made when considering e-mails and internet communications. It is not currently possible to separate the transmission data from the message with these methods of comunication!

Some politicians seem to have begun to take on board what this means:

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said he had fears about the abuse of the data. He said: “The big danger in all of this is 'mission creep’. This government keeps on introducing new powers to tackle terrorism and organized crime which end up being used for completely different purposes. We have to stop that from happening”.

David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, added: “Whilst this is no doubt necessary in pursuing terrorist suspects, the proposals are so intrusive that they should be subject to legal approval, and should not be available except in pursuit of the most serious crimes.”

The Information Commissioner’s Office also opposed the moves.

“The Information Commissioner believes that the case has yet to be made for the collection and processing of additional communications data for the population as a whole being relevant and not excessive,” a spokesman said.

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, has criticized the amount the scheme will cost for what he said is effectively “state spying”.

He added: “It is simply not that easy to separate the bare details of a call from its content. What if a leading business person is ringing Alcoholics Anonymous?”

Ministers said that they still have to work with the communications industry to find the correct way of framing the proposal in law — meaning it will not come before Parliament until after the general election. But the Home Office recently insisted it would push the legislation through. Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, originally released a consultation paper in April 2009.

On an international Scale the UK was recently ranked thus:

59-China

54-United Kingdom: England & Wales

53-Singapore

53-United States of America

52-France

52-Germany

51-Malaysia

In the roll call of electronic police state’s much of this ranking is due to our almost universal adoption of CCTV in public places, but it is a telling, if anecdotal piece of information that all UK citizens would be wise to take note of.

The following links may help you decide if you want this legislation or not. For balance, Google the subject and then write to your MP.

Draft Legislative Programme - Communications Data Bill

Link to consult on Communications Data Bill via direct.gov.uk

Written Answer to Earl of Northesk on the Intercept Modernisation Programme

Reach Regulations (Do we really need them?)

Am I the only person in this industry to find the following direct quote from the EU web site on REACH and all things associated amusing and painfully ironic at the same time?


(http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/reach/index_en.htm)

REACH is the Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals. It entered into force on 1st June 2007. It streamlines and improves the former legislative framework on chemicals of the European Union (EU).

The main aims of REACH are to improve the protection of human health and the environment from the risks that can be posed by chemicals, the promotion of alternative test methods, the free circulation of substances on the internal market and enhancing competitiveness and innovation.

REACH makes industry responsible for assessing and managing the risks posed by chemicals and providing appropriate safety information to their users. In parallel, the European Union can take additional measures on highly dangerous substances, where there is a need for complementing action at EU level.

I wonder who actually feels that it streamlines anything! The legislation is a massively convoluted set of demands on business in general with a confused and complex structure of mind blowing bureaucracy that will and is causing chaos and confusion in the industry. The document itself is 1000 pages long with 10 additional annexes for guidance! In total 4,000 pages. The aim of which is to (or have industry to) fully define 30,000 plus chemicals with a view to removing those deemed too hazardous (possibly as many as 10%).

Along with the implied threat that it will put out of business those companies that do not comply, the phrase in the second paragraph extolling the enhancement of competitiveness and innovation and the free circulation of substances on the internal market is just a joke or would be if it were funny. This legislation will inhibit innovation because of the cost of compliance, stifle competitiveness by potentially excluding the smaller companies who fail or cannot afford to comply and the only chemicals that will enjoy free circulation within the EU will be the printing inks on the miles of litigation papers that will follow full implementation of this legislation when third parties realize they are being excluded from the EU market by a bureaucratic device.

Whilst Paragraph three is a noble statement; it underestimates the current responsibility industry has under existing legislation to demonstrate the hazards and safety implications of the chemicals they sell in all quantities (not just those imported in to the EU in quantities above one tone per year) so why do we need this additional legislation? If we do need it, why does it have to be in the form currently being implemented?

All of this will affect your business; compounds and regents in common use today will become scarce or so expensive that they will drop out of use. Many companies will disappear, going out of business rather than face the costs and complexity of this process.
So how is this going to help our competitiveness on an international scale, how will this improve innovation and increase free movement of chemicals within the EU above and beyond what already pertains. Who asked these faceless and work shy (the pre-registration data base was only open during working hours and not at all at weekends. Who is doing all the work here?) Bureaucrats in Europe to impose this on us?

It certainly wasn’t the industry it’s self, perhaps it was the people of Europe. I don’t remember being asked if I thought this was a good idea. Maybe our elected representatives in Europe (who are they? I hear you all say!) felt we needed this, but in who’s interest are they really acting. How many of their constituents are going to lose their jobs as a result of this legislation. I guess they don’t really care as they get elected by the unrepresentative, undemocratic, miniscule minorities of the voting public that can be bothered to turn out in the European elections.

We the majority as a result suffer.

If you agree or disagree with the above feel free to let me have your thoughts and comments.

These comments are the personal view of Robert Russell MD of AGTC Bioproducts Ltd (http://www.agtcbioproducts.com/) and are in no way representative of the organization or any of its employers

Laboratory trade shows in the UK

I have just returned from the supposedly re-invigorated new dynamic Lab Week at Excel in London. Remembering the heady days of the early eighties when lab week really meant something, where companies had to attend to maintain their public profiles and the show filled the Olympia exhibition site from top to bottom I was expecting great things. After all we spend more per capita on biological research than almost any other country in the world right? We are the leading centre for cancer research anywhere in the world right? Our academic prowess has made us the envy of all right thinking countries across the globe right? So why the hell can’t we organise a decent trade show!

It was a disgrace, occupying less than half of one of the smaller exhibition spaces at excel a dispirited looking bunch of sales people huddled into their uninspiring and small exhibition spaces seemingly desperate for someone to talk to. Where were the hordes of fresh faced academics looking for inspiration from the innovation on display, where were the seasoned purchasers re-establishing productive relationships with key suppliers. where was the competition seeking ideas from the stands of their competitors?

I guess they must have all gone to Germany or America where these things still mean something. Analytica still manges to excite the imagination along with Biotechnica, Achema, Medica.... and America is full of buzzing trade shows. But not the UK!

Sure we all access far more information via the web nowadays; that happens in Germany too and in America. But they still seem to find a fascination and interest in face to face contact. May be we are just to lazy, after all Excel is at least half an hour from the centre of London!

Surely there is room in the UK for a serious international standard laboratory trade show. One that the industry and academia alike could be proud of and one that would attract the best academic and business minds from across the globe to unite in celebrating our business; life science research. Or should we just leave it to the USA and Germany?