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:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment