India is to embark on a plan to provide each of its 1.1 billion-plus citizens with a national identity card. It will be the largest citizens' database in a democracy. Only China has a larger scheme.
The government claims that the scheme, to be
finalised over three years, will help in the delivery of vital social services to the poorest in society who often lack, or are at least told they lack, sufficient identification papers. The government has long complained that most of the money set aside
for the neediest is diverted as a result of corruption, and it believes the cards could help to tackle identity theft and fraud.
At a time of increased concern over the threat of militant violence, the government also hopes that the creation of
the scheme will boost national security and help police and law and order officials. The creation of the ID or Unique Identification Number (UID) was a major plank of the manifesto of the ruling Congress Party during the recent election.
UK Phone companies are developing a system to allow 999 operators to pinpoint the location of internet callers, supposedly to assist police, paramedics and fire crews to attend emergencies promptly.
They that the technology could be in place in
some ISPs next year, according to the chairman of the industry group leading the work.
The vast majority of calls to 999 are currently made via traditional landlines and mobile phones. BT has seen a tenfold increase in the volume of VoIP calls to
its emergency contact centres in the last 18 months, however. The ability to locate emergency calls is vital as callers may be under duress, too ill to speak or may simply not know where they are.
While traditional landlines can be found by what
amounts to a reverse directory lookup, using the line identity number and mobile phone coordinates approximated by triangulation, solving VoIP location is a more complex problem.
The group tasked with developing the system has been working under
the auspices of the NICC - a UK network industry interoperabilty body - for about three years and is chaired by John Medland, BT's policy manager for 999 services.
At first glance the solution is simple. When a VoIP user makes a 999 call, their
provider knows the IP address they are calling from. So to trace the call, the VoIP firm could forward the IP address to a central 999 authority, which would look up which ISP serves that range. The central authority would then contact that ISP for a
line identity number, which would allow a reverse directory lookup to retrieve the address of the caller, as with a traditional call. All this would happen automatically in a matter of milliseconds.
The major stumbling block is that many ISPs
frontend systems are not connected to their backend database, so they cannot quickly match an IP address to a line identity. Under the forthcoming NICC proposals, ISPs would be asked to install a Location Information Server in their network to
bridge the gap and serve the 999 authorities' data requests.
Equipment and maintenance costs mean some ISPs are likely to be resistant to the proposals, however. But Ofcom, which regulates 999 services, has indicated to ISPs that even if they are
not the VoIP provider, they are bound by law to make location data available to emergency services.
Canada is considering forcing ISPs to reveal subscriber data without a warrant.
Twenty-first century technology calls for 21st-century tools, Injustice Minister Rob Nicholson said in announcing two new bills.
Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act and the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act would require ISPs to install intercept-capable equipment on networks and provide authorities with timely access to subscriber
The new law wouldn't provide authorities with additional intercept powers. Police would still require warrants for communication interception, the government said.
Specifically, the law would:
Allow authorities to get access to information on any Internet subscriber, including name, home address or email, all without a warrant.
Force ISPs to keep a copy of the data generated by people under investigation on their company hard
drives to prevent suspects from deleting anything incriminating or of evidence.
Make all telecom companies invest in technology that allows for the interception of Internet communications.
Let authorities remotely activate tracking
devices that may already be embedded in your cellphone or car without your knowledge.
Allow law enforcement to get data on where your communications over the web are coming from and who they're going to.
Make it against the law to
arrange the sexual exploitation of a child with a second person over the web.
The government said it would subsidize some of the ISPs' costs for the program.
Sixty years ago today George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four was published, and this evening, as though to mark the anniversary of Orwell's last book, the former head of GCHQ, Sir David Pepper, slips from the shadows to tell the BBC's Who's Watching You
programme that it has become necessary for the government to record all data from phone and internet traffic in the fight against terror.
Pepper, who was, incidentally, born as Orwell struggled over his manuscript in the winter of 1948, the year
the author reversed for his title, makes a case for the total surveillance of society in order to catch the increasingly sophisticated targets. "There are plenty of people who will do all they can to make themselves difficult to find," he says.
"The thing you worry about most is the attack that you haven't seen coming."
The unknown enemy is cast, very much like the ill-defined threat presented to Oceania in Nineteen Eighty-Four, as a pervasive, cunning and unseen foe that
requires total watchfulness and, it follows, the sacrifice of the essential right of privacy. In the programme, Pepper explains the challenges that face his former colleagues at GCHQ with a diagram that shows how information is carried in discreet
packets across the internet, a development which he implies must be met by granting the agency total access to all our communications.
"Privacy is dead - get over it!” So proclaimed Scott McNealy, the CEO of Sun Microsystems, in 2000. It might appear that in an age of increased surveillance, with
huge amounts of personal data floating around, he has a point. But privacy is a fundamental human right and we give it up at our peril.
Privacy is essential for the proper functioning of a liberal, democratic society. The right to privacy gives
people a space for intimacy, independence of action and freedom of speech. Privacy is a public good and benefits society in the same way that clean air does. It is something we would do well to protect.
The problem is that technology enables the
State, companies, all of us to collect and integrate more and more personal information. Every five years this capability increases tenfold. It has put an end to “practical obscurity” - you can no longer lose yourself in the crowd.
The former head of MI6 has hit out at striking and disturbing invasions of privacy by the Big Brother state.
Sir Richard Dearlove, who led the Secret Intelligence Service from 1999 to 2004, claimed some were an abuse of the law. He
attacked the loss of liberties caused by expanding surveillance powers and described some police operations as mind-boggling.
The former spy chief joins a growing number of high-profile critics warning that individual freedom and privacy
are being seriously eroded by the Government's disproportionate efforts to guard against terrorism.
Sir Richard was particularly critical of what he claimed were inadequate laws to regulate some surveillance powers. Commenting on the massive
surge in police use of stop-and-search powers in London, he highlighted the fact that Scotland Yard officers have carried out more than 150,000 searches since 2007. This compared with fewer than 300 in Manchester. Sir Richard said: That is a
mind-boggling statistic. That may well be an abuse of the law. I am a great believer in proportionality and as a citizen I worry about the loss of my liberties.
He questioned the legal constraints on the use of millions of CCTV cameras across
Britain, saying: 'We have constructed a society which has great technical competence - and some of that competence isn't particularly regulated: I think the important thing in the UK is that there should be very strict legislation and strict
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is demanding new government guidelines to stop police making unfair requests to pubs and clubs around the use of CCTV.
The ICO is to make the plea in response to the government’s plans for a mandatory
code of practice for the industry.
The ICO fears police are using licensing conditions to make pubs install CCTV or identity scanners, which can provide information on their drinkers.
Under the new mandatory code of practice consultation,
the government avoided plans to make CCTV a blanket condition for all pubs, but councils will be able to force outlets in trouble-spots to operate surveillance if it feels it is needed.
Deputy information commissioner David Smith said strict new
rules to reign in police demands were still required and urged clarity in the code: The question is whether we are going too far and is this surveillance at a level that is unacceptable that doesn’t justify the benefits. Pubs and clubs should not
become information gathering sources for police.
An ICO spokeswoman later said: There needs to an absolute reason why CCTV or ID scanners need to be in place. We understand that CCTV can serve an important purpose, but we don’t want
licensees to feel they have to have CCTV to have a licence.
An electronic police state is quiet, even unseen. All of its legal actions are supported by abundant evidence. It looks pristine. An electronic police state is characterized by this:
State use of electronic
technologies to record, organize, search and distribute forensic evidence against its citizens.
In an Electronic Police State, every surveillance camera recording, every email you send, every Internet site you surf, every post
you make, every check you write, every credit card swipe, every cell phone ping… are all criminal evidence, and they are held in searchable databases, for a long, long time. Whoever holds this evidence can make you look very, very bad whenever they care
enough to do so. You can be prosecuted whenever they feel like it – the evidence is already in their database.
Our rankings for the year of 2008 show China and North Korea occupying the top spots as the most complete Electronic Police States in
the world, followed by Belarus and Russia. Next, however, we leave communist and recently-communist states, with the UK (England/Wales), the United States and Singapore following closely on their heels.
1. China 2. North Korea 3. Belarus
4. Russia 5. United Kingdom: England & Wales 6. United States of America 7. Singapore 8. Israel 9. France 10.Germany 11.Malaysia 12.Ireland 13.United Kingdom: Scotland 14.Netherlands 15.South Korea 16.Ukraine
17.Belgium 18.Australia 19.Japan 20.New Zealand
Saudi Arabia's religious police want to install surveillance cameras in shopping centres throughout the country in order to watch young people. We will place surveillance cameras in all shopping centres and public places to monitor the behaviour of
young people, said General Abdel Aziz al-Hamin, chief of the committee for the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice.
Our objective is to correct the mistakes made by some youths, in order to protect their moral integrity, said al-Hamin.
Police could be forced to destroy huge archives of surveillance photographs taken at protests, riots and football matches following a landmark judgment.
Appeal Court judges ruled yesterday that a law-abiding arms trade activist had his human
rights breached when police took photos of him at a protest and kept them on file.
In a judgment that could change the way all UK police forces monitor protesters, the Metropolitan Police was told to destroy all pictures of Andrew Wood.
It could mean police will have to sift through hundreds of thousands of stored surveillance photos and destroy pictures of any innocent subject who complains. However, a one-month delay was granted yesterday to allow an appeal to the House of Lords. It is understood Scotland Yard is considering whether to appeal.
The decision centred on Wood, a leading member of the UK-based Campaign Against Arms Trade. Wood, who has never been arrested, attended the AGM of Reed Elsevier PLC, parent company of Spearhead Exhibitions, which runs arms trade fairs. Wood was
entitled to be at the meeting at a Central London hotel having bought a share in the company. But an intelligence unit of Scotland Yard, which was policing a protest outside, photographed him, later claiming he had been seen talking to violent activists.
Wood, backed by rights group Liberty, complained that taking and keeping photographs of him breached his right to privacy under European law.
He lost his initial case last year but now two out of three Appeal Court judges ruled in his
favour, declaring the police tactics a disproportionate interference.
Lord Justice Dyson said it was legitimate for police to take the photographs, but it should have been clear within days Wood was of good character and there was no need
to keep his pictures. He added the justification police offered in court - that Wood might commit an offence at an upcoming arms trade protest - was not enough to justify interference with his rights.
Lord Collins of Mapesbury said he was struck by the chilling effect on the exercise of lawful rights
being followed by a police photographer has.
But Lord Justice Laws disagreed, saying he believed the police acted within the margin of operational discretion in keeping the photographs.
State-of-the-art mobile phones could threaten users' privacy, affect their ability to obtain insurance and jeopardise their job prospects, academics have warned. Phones which use GPS technology to pinpoint their location are popular, but academics
said a staggering amount of information could be revealed about a person simply by knowing their location via such technology.
Researchers from the Future of Identity in the Information Society (FIDIS), an EU-funded group looking at
privacy issues, were fitted with GPS tracking devices which recorded their every move.
The team found the data disclosed not just where they had been but intimate details about their lives. By using GPS tracking to work out how often users went
to the gym, visited bars and brothels or even how fast they drove, it would be possible, FIDIS said, to build up a profile of their lifestyles, even calculating their risk of heart disease.
Such personal information, if passed to third parties
such as health insurance companies or potential employers, could be detrimental to the consumer.
Researcher Denis Royer from Goethe University in Frankfurt said: This information is of course extremely useful for companies aiming to produce
targeted advertising, and many of us would gladly receive customised drinks offers when we're heading to a local coffee shop. However, if users are targeted based on their inferred lifestyle, which restaurants they visit, or how much alcohol they seem to
drink, their own information could potentially be used against them.
During yesterday's excellent conference Private data, Open Government, which was held by the information commissioner, Richard Thomas, in London, there was a fascinating example of how the human mind can be drawn to a fallacy because of an appealing
Thomas, who leaves his post this summer, said he felt that the instinct to collect random and vast amounts of personal data was on the wane in government. He then added that a member of his staff used the analogy of the expanding haystack
to capture the futility of amassing more and more information: the larger the haystack, goes the logic, the more difficult it is to find a needle.
The haystack was referred to several times afterwards, before Peter Fleischer, Google's global
privacy commissioner, quietly made the point that the scale of a database no longer had any relevance and that we should take no comfort from the idea that masses of data somehow protected privacy. Fleischer, an exceptionally cool and logical advocate
for Google, pointed out that the web consisted of a trillion different pages with3bn being added every day. Google could find any one page in milliseconds.
Google’s street image mapping service, Street View, which stitches together photos of public roads for online viewing, has been blocked by the Greek authorities pending further consultation.
The data protection agency, based in Athens, has
prohibited Google’s camera cars from taking to the nation’s streets. It called on Google to provide additional information and guarantees that the service did not invade personal privacy.
We are not going to allow our country to become
a Big Brother society, said an unnamed government official.
A spokesperson for Google denied that Street View had been banned in Greece, but acknowledged that the authorities had expressed concerns that needed to be addressed before the
service can be rolled out: Google takes privacy very seriously, and that’s why we have put in place a number of features, including the blurring of faces and license plates, to ensure that Street View will respect local norms when it launches in
Greece. We believe that launching Street View in Greece will offer enormous benefits to both Greek users and the people elsewhere who are interested in taking a virtual tour of some of its many tourists attractions.
What's your fetish Jackie? lactating expenses & spanking my husband
Good news for fetishists wishing to protect their privacy on a night out in South London. Less good news for the rest of us, as Police and Government obsession with crime prevention continues to make inroads into our personal privacy and security -
but some comfort, as senior politicians from all parties take up an issue first highlighted by The Register.
Last month we reported how, following an incident at South London nightclub SEOne, police requested a licensing condition be set for all
future events that all persons entering the premises must supply verifiable identification details that are passed through a digital scanning and recording system. This also applied to fetish events put on there by Torture Garden, despite the fact
that these have historically been less likely to attract anti-social behaviour.
It's easy to understand why privacy advocates and policymakers are sounding alarms about online privacy in general -- and singling out Google in particular. If you use Google's search engine, Google knows what you searched for as well as your activity on
partner Web sites that use its ad services. If you use the Chrome browser, it may know every Web site you've typed into the address bar, or "Omnibox."
It may have all of your e-mail (Gmail), your appointments (Google Calendar) and even
your last known location (Google Latitude). It may know what you're watching (YouTube) and whom you are calling. It may have transcripts of your telephone messages (Google Voice).
It may hold your photos in Picasa Web Albums, which includes
face-recognition technology that can automatically identify you and your friends in new photos. And through Google Books, it may know what books you've read, what you annotated and how long you spent reading.
Technically, of course, Google
doesn't know anything about you. But it stores tremendous amounts of data about you and your activities on its servers, from the content you create to the searches you perform, the Web sites you visit and the ads you click.
The ContactPointl database featuring the details of every child in England will be officially launched next week, despite lingering concerns over safety.
Contactpoint has also been described as almost certainly illegal by the Joseph
Rowntree Reform Trust, a civil liberties group, following privacy and security concerns.
From next week, 800 people in 17 council areas will be trained to use it. The trial covers local authorities in the North West, as well as officials working
for two charities - Barnardo's and KIDS.
Earlier trials of the system have already uncovered a series of errors.
The Conservatives have already pledged to scrap the database.
Tim Loughton, the shadow children's minister, said: Despite serious and widespread concerns about the security, integrity and necessity of this database, ministers seem determined to bulldoze it through.'
Police Officers were last night accused of abusing their powers after it emerged just 1% of around 124,000 "suspects" targeted for stop and search in 2007/08 were arrested - and only a fraction of those were for terrorism related offences.
The Metropolitan Police saw a 266% increase in stop and searches There was also a sharp rise in the number of times the public had to justify their activities to police in so-called "stop and account" incidents.
Members of the
public were stopped and questioned by officers more than 2.3 million times last year after a rise of 26%.
Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: People will be highly suspicious about the scale of stop and search under terror laws.
This will only serve to reinforce the view that many anti-terror powers are being used for unrelated purposes.
Home Office figures showed a total of 124,687 people were stopped and search under anti-terror laws in 2007/8, up from 41,924 in
2006/7. But only 1,271 arrests were made as a result and just 73 of those were for terror offences.
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: These statistics will only fuel the fear that anti-terror powers are being
overused by the police and for reasons other than they were intended for.
Update: Piloting a partial stop to stop and search
Police have bowed to
mounting opposition and are to pilot partially reducing their use of controversial terrorism powers that allow them to stop and search people without reasonable suspicion, the Guardian has learned.
Stop and search is one of the most draconian
powers employed by police in the war on terror and a constable's right to use it will be severely curtailed under plans unveiled today. In a document seen by the Guardian, senior officers admit that the hundreds of thousands of stops carried out under
the power had damaged community relations and reversed fundamental principles of civil rights.
Critics say that section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which allows stops without suspicion, has alienated British Muslims without producing
little or no benefit.
Usually an officer requires reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing to stop someone, but officers have been able to use the power across London since the July 7 terrorist attacks.
Under the new plans, Scotland Yard
will effectively remove an officers' power to stop people without reason, although they will keep the power for special circumstances when authorised by senior officers.
Police will in future usually use section 43 of the Terrorism Act, which
says an officer needs reasonable suspicion that someone is involved in terrorist activity before they can be stopped.
The exceptions will be around important landmarks such as parliament, key government buildings and Buckingham Palace, which are
thought to be of heightened interest to terrorists because of their iconic status. The power may also apply to large train stations and places people gather in large numbers.
The second instance where the power to stop and search without
suspicion will be where intelligence suggests there is a specific threat or top officers decide that there is a need to use the power to prevent and deter terrorist activity, and this could also apply to state events such as Trooping the Colour
and the State opening of parliament.
Four London boroughs will pilot the new practice. They are Southwark, Brent, Newham and Tower Hamlets. It is expected the change will apply across London by the summer. Other police forces across Britain are
also expected to implement the changes.
The home secretary has vowed to scrap a ‘big brother’ database, but a bid to spy on us all continues.
Spy chiefs are pressing ahead with secret plans to monitor all internet use and telephone calls in Britain despite an announcement by Jacqui
Smith, the home secretary, of a ministerial climbdown over public surveillance.
GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping centre, is developing classified technology to intercept and monitor all e-mails, website visits and social networking sessions
in Britain. The agency will also be able to track telephone calls made over the internet, as well as all phone calls to land lines and mobiles.
The £1 billion snooping project — called Mastering the Internet (MTI) — will rely on thousands
of “black box” probes being covertly inserted across online infrastructure.
The top-secret programme began to be implemented last year, but its existence has been inadvertently disclosed through a GCHQ job advertisement carried in the computer
Grabbing favourable headlines about the climbdown on a central database, Smith announced that up to £2 billion of public money would instead be spent helping private internet and telephone companies to retain information for up
to 12 months in separate databases.
However, she failed to mention that substantial additional sums — amounting to more than £1 billion over three years — had already been allocated to GCHQ for its MTI programme.
director of Liberty, said Smith’s announcement appeared to be a smokescreen. We opposed the big brother database because it gave the state direct access to everybody’s communications. But this network of black boxes achieves the same thing via the
Presumably in response to the Sunday Times revelations above, GCHQ have issue a rare press release:
Just as our predecessors at Bletchley Park mastered the use of the first computers, today, partnering with industry, we need
to master the use of internet technologies and skills that will enable us to keep one step ahead of the threats. This is what mastering the internet is about. GCHQ is not developing technology to enable the monitoring of all internet use and phone calls
in Britain, or to target everyone in the UK. Similarly, GCHQ has no ambitions, expectations or plans for a database or databases to store centrally all communications data in Britain.
Because we rely upon maintaining an advantage over those that
would damage UK interests, it is usually the case that we will not disclose information about our operations and methods. People sometimes assume that secrecy comes at the price of accountability but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, GCHQ
is subject to rigorous parliamentary and judicial oversight (the Intelligence and Security Committee of parliamentarians, and two senior members of the judiciary: the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Interception of Communications Commissioner)
and works entirely within a legal framework that complies with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The new technology that GCHQ is developing is designed to work under the existing legal framework. It is an evolution of current capability
within current accountability and oversight arrangements The Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 underpin activities at GCHQ - both existing systems and those we are planning and building at the moment. The
purposes for which interception may be permitted are set out explicitly in the legislation: national security, safeguarding our economic well being and the prevention and detection of serious crime. Interception for other purposes is not lawful and we do
not do it. GCHQ does not target anyone indiscriminately - all our activities are proportionate to the threats against which we seek to guard and are subject to tests on those grounds by the Commissioners. The legislation also sets out the procedures for
Ministers to authorise interception; GCHQ follows these meticulously. GCHQ only acts when it is necessary and proportionate to do so; GCHQ does not spy at will.
Jacqui Smith's plan to have ISPs create an enormous federated database of all online communications is receiving a frosty reception from the industry, multiple sources have revealed.
Many in the industry are currently working on their written objections to the proposals, which are known in Whitehall as the Interception Modernisation Programme.
ISPs are worried that the Home Office does not understand the scale of the
technical challenge involved in monitoring and storing data on every communication via the internet. They fear the spiralling costs associated with government IT projects and resent being forced to devote resources to the plans.
Communications companies are being asked to record all internet contacts between people to modernise police surveillance tactics in the UK.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith stepped back from a single database - but wants companies to hold and organise
the information for the security services.
Announcing a consultation on a new strategy for communications data and its use in law enforcement, Smith said there would be no single government-run database. But she also said that doing nothing
in the face of a communications revolution was not an option.
The Home Office will instead ask communications companies - from internet service providers to mobile phone networks - to extend the range of information they currently hold on
their subscribers and organise it so that it can be better used by the police, MI5 and other public bodies investigating crime and terrorism.
Presumably to add a networked SQL facility to enable the authorities to search across databases with such
questions as give me a list of all mobile phone users in Heathrow last Thursday who regularly read jihadist websites.
Ministers say they estimate the project will cost £2bn to set up, which includes some compensation to the
communications industry for the work it may be asked to do.
Advances in communications mean that there are ever more sophisticated ways to communicate and we need to ensure that we keep up with the technology being used by those who seek to do
It is essential that the police and other crime fighting agencies have the tools they need to do their job, However to be clear, there are absolutely no plans for a single central store.
What we are talking about is
who is at one end [of a communication] and who is at the other - and how they are communicating,
Communication service providers (CSPs) will be asked to record internet contacts between people, but not the content, similar to the existing
arrangements to log telephone contacts.
But, recognising that the internet has changed the way people talk, the CSPs will also be asked to record some third party data or information partly based overseas, such as visits to an online chatroom and
social network sites like Facebook or Twitter.
Security services could then seek to examine this data along with information which links it to specific devices, such as a mobile phone, home computer or other device, as part of investigations into
The plan expands a voluntary arrangement under which CSPs allow security services to access some data which they already hold.
The consultation document is entitled Protecting the Public in a
Changing Communications Environment
Every phone call, email or website visit will be monitored by the state in a searchable database under plans to be unveiled this week.
The proposals will give police and security services the power to snoop on every single communication made by
the public with the data then likely to be stored in an enormous national database.
The move has alarmed civil liberty campaigners, and the country's data protection watchdog last night warned the proposals would be unacceptable .
A consultation document on the plans, known in Whitehall as the Interception Modernisation Programme, is likely to put great emphasis on propaganda about the threat facing Britain and warn the alternative to the powers would be a massive expansion of surveillance.
But that will fuel concerns among critics that the Government is using a climate of fear to expand the surveillance state.
Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, the country's data watchdog, told the Daily Telegraph: a Government
database of the records of everyone's communications – if that is to be proposed – is not likely to be acceptable to the British public. Remember that records – who? when? where? – can be highly intrusive even if no content is collected.
is understood Thomas is concerned that even details on who people contact or sites they visit could intrude on their privacy, such as data showing an individual visiting a website selling Viagra.
The proposed powers will allow police and security
services to monitor communication "traffic", which is who calls, texts, emails who, when and where but not what is said. Similarly they will be able to see which websites someone visits, when and from where but not the content of those visits.
However, if the data sets alarm bells ringing, officials can request a ministerial warrant to intercept exactly what is being sent, including the content.
Town Hall Stasi are to be stripped of the power to spy on residents suspected of 'bin crimes' and dog fouling.
Rules unveiled by the Home Office will prevent councils from using the anti-terror Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act for trivial
Launching a consultation on the future of RIPA, ahead of a final set of rules due later this year, the Home Office raises the prospect of Town Halls being stripped of the right to use the Act.
However, they may be allowed to
continue using it for restricted offences. The new rules are also likely to see the power to make a RIPA authorisation passed to executive officers only, rather than low-ranking bureaucrats.
The local government minister, John Healy is writing to
councils to say their future use of the powers must be proportionate.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith spewed the usual propaganda about the draft rules: Our country has a proud tradition of individual freedom. This involves freedom from
unjustified interference by the State. But it also includes freedom from interference by those who would do us harm. The government is responsible for protecting both types of freedom.
Despite the proposed crackdown, councils are likely to
fight to keep many of their powers. A spokesman for the Local Government Association said: Parliament clearly intended that councils should use powers under RIPA, and they are being used to respond to residents' complaints about serious criminals,
like fly-tippers, rogue traders and people defrauding the benefits system.
Liberal Democrat spokesman Chris Huhne said: 'This consultation is a tacit admission by the Government that its surveillance society-has got out of hand. For too long,
powers we were told would be used to fight terrorism and organised crime have been used to spy on people's kids, pets and bins: Without reform, RIPA will continue to be a snoopers' charter. Ministers must ensure that this consultation results in real
changes and not just warm words.
Home Office Consultation: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: Consolidating orders and codes of practice
Passed in 2000, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (called RIPA), created a regulatory framework
to govern the way public authorities handle and conduct covert investigations.
This consultation takes a look at all the public agencies, offices and councils that can use investigation techniques covered by RIPA, and asks the public to consider
whether or not it's appropriate for those people to be allowed to use those techniques.
In light of recent concerns, the government is particularly interested in how local authorities use RIPA to conduct investigations into local issues. Among
other things, in order to ensure that RIPA powers are only used when they absolutely need to be, the government proposes to raise the rank of those in local authorities who are allowed to authorise use of RIPA techniques.
To respond to the
consultation, reply by email to firstname.lastname@example.org
You can also reply by post to:
Tony Cooper Home Office Peel Building 5th Floor 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF
Online retailer Amazon has confirmed that it is opting out of the controversial internet advertising service, Phorm.
The company has said that it will not allow Phorm to scan its web pages in order to serve customers with targeted adverts based
on their browsing habits.
The Phorm technology, known as Webwise, has been at the centre of controversy in recent months. Last year, BT allowed a trial of Webwise to go ahead without the explicit consent of users. It has now started a new trial
of the technology on an opt-in basis only.
Although Phorm has been cleared by the Information Commissioner’s Office of any concerns regarding data or privacy, the European Commission has announced that it is starting legal action against the UK
government for the way its data protection laws operate in relation to Phorm.
The EU telecoms commissioner, Viviane Reding, said : I call on the UK authorities to change their national laws and ensure that national authorities are duly
empowered and have proper sanctions at their disposal to enforce EU legislation.
The Commission has branded the technology as an interception of user data, and believes there is a legal need for more explicit seeking of consent from
users before such services can be rolled out.
And privacy lobby the Open Rights Group has also called on a number of websites, including Microsoft, Google and AOL to opt out of Phorm’s scheme. The group said it expected more companies to follow
Amazon’s lead and opt out of the Phorm service.
The unconvincing police watchdog is to investigate a fresh claim of alleged police brutality after new video footage emerged showing a woman being hit by an officer during the G20 protests.
The Metropolitan officer, who has his
identification number covered up in the video, appears to slap the woman across the face before taking out his baton and hitting her on the legs. He was last night identified and suspended by the Met.
The new incident, which appeared on the
website You Tube, is another blow for the Met which has already faced intense criticism over the beating and death of Ian Tomlinson.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission has already received around 120 complaints about police actions
during the G20 protests. The fact the officer is not showing his police ID number is reminiscent of the Tomlinson incident where the officer in question also failed to have his number on show.
Scotland Yard said the footage raised immediate
concerns when it became aware of it on Tuesday afternoon and was referring the matter to the IPCC. A spokesman said: Every officer is accountable under law, and fully aware of the scrutiny that their actions can be held open to. The decision to
use force is made by the individual police officer, and they must account for that.
It emerged earlier that CCTV footage of the moment Mr Tomlinson was hit and shoved to the ground by a police officer could exist after investigators admitted
they were wrong to say there were no cameras in the area. Last week Nick Hardwick, chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is investigating, said there was no CCTV footage because there were no cameras in the location where he was
assaulted. But the IPCC yesterday issued a clarification that Hardwick's assertion may not be accurate and that there were indeed cameras covering the area. A spokeswoman insisted the investigators knew that from the start and have been
examining hours of footage.
The big stories about the police in recent days have been a reminder of how nonsensical are our laws on public surveillance. In Britain today, there's scarcely a wall unencumbered by a CCTV camera, spying on our doings and thus helping us feel safe (if
the knowledge that your every action is being watched and recorded does indeed help you feel safe, rather than itchily paranoid). And yet, when a policeman at the G20 protests apparently attacked a man who was merely trying to walk home, no CCTV footage
of the alleged assault was forthcoming.
CCTV, it was reported, showed Ian Tomlinson walking in the direction of the police before the incident. CCTV also showed him walking away from the scene afterwards. Curiously, though, we never heard of any
CCTV footage showing the alleged assault take place. We saw what really happened only because a bystander captured it on video.
Details of every email sent and website visited by people in Britain are to be stored for use by the state from today as part of what campaigners say is a massive assault on privacy.
A European Union directive, which Britain was instrumental in
devising, comes into force which will require all internet service providers to retain information on email traffic, visits to web sites and telephone calls made over the internet, for 12 months.
Hundreds of public bodies and quangos, including
local councils, will also be able to access the data to investigate flytipping and other less serious crimes.
It was previously thought that only the large companies would be required to take part, covering 95% of Britain's internet usage, but a
Home Office spokesman has confirmed it will be applied across the board to even the smallest company.
Phil Noble of privacy group NO2ID, said: This is the kind of technology that the Stasi would have dreamed of. We are facing a
co-ordinated strategy to track everyone's communications, creating a dossier on every person's relationships and transactions. It is clearly preparatory work for the as-yet un-revealed plans for intercept modernisation.
Another EU directive
which requires companies to hold details of telephone records for a year has already come into force, and although internet data is held on an ad hoc basis this is the first time the industry has faced a statutory requirement to archive the material.
Governments should create a list of all organisations that track internet use and produce an annual report on internet surveillance, the European Parliament has said.
The Parliament also said that users' online activity should not be monitored in
the fight against piracy.
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted by a huge majority to adopt a policy statement on the freedoms citizens do and should have online. The statement calls on the European Commission and national governments
to take action to protect free speech and halt the intrusion of criminals and industry into private communications.
[We] urge the Member States to identify all entities which use Net Surveillance and to draw up publicly accessible annual
reports on Net Surveillance ensuring legality, proportionality and transparency, said the statement.
MEPs said that governments should be aware of the problems that might arise as people's internet traffic is increasingly monitored for
commercial purposes: [Governments should] recognise the danger of certain forms of Internet surveillance and control aimed also at tracking every 'digital' step of an individual, with the aim of providing a profile of the user and of assigning 'scores
They should make clear the fact that such techniques should always be assessed in terms of their necessity and their proportionality in the light of the objectives they aim to achieve; [and] emphasise also the need for an enhanced
awareness and informed consent of users with respect to their e-activities involving the sharing of personal data.
The Parliament said that when it comes to ensuring that intellectual property rights are respected, Governments should make
sure that the interests of business do not trump the rights of individuals.
Good morning motorist 6374734834/3535 Ignition request denied. Destination ExCeL is a prohibited zone, Driving privileges suspended for 6 months!
The government is backing a project to install a communication box in new cars to track the whereabouts of drivers anywhere in Europe, the Guardian can reveal.
Under the proposals, vehicles will emit a constant signal revealing their
location, speed and direction of travel.
The EU officials behind the plan claim it will significantly reduce road accidents, congestion and carbon emissions.
A consortium of manufacturers has indicated that the device could be installed in
all new cars as early as 2013.
However, privacy campaigners warned last night that a European-wide car tracking system would create a system of almost total road surveillance.
Details of the Cooperative Vehicle-Infrastructure Systems
(CVIS) project, a £36m EU initiative backed by car manufacturers and the telecoms industry, will be unveiled this year.
But the Guardian has been given unpublished documents detailing the proposed uses for the system. They confirm that it
could have profound implications for privacy, enabling cars to be tracked to within a metre - more accurate than current satellite navigation technologies.
The European commission has asked governments to reserve radio frequency on the 5.9
Gigahertz band, essentially setting aside a universal frequency on which CVIS technology will work.
The Department for Transport claimed there were no current plans to make installation of the technology mandatory. However, those involved in the
project describe the UK as one of the main state backers .
The European Data Protection Supervisor will make a formal announcement on the privacy implications of CVIS technology soon. But in a recent speech he said the technology would
have great impact on rights to privacy and data.
The system allows cars to talk to one another and the road. A communication box behind the dashboard ensures that cars send out messages every 500 milliseconds through mobile
cellular and wireless local area networks, short-range microwave or infrared.
The messages will be picked up by other cars in the vicinity, allowing vehicles to warn each other if they are forced to break hard or swerve to avoid a hazard.
The data is also picked up by detectors at the roadside and mobile phone towers. That enables the road to communicate with cars, allowing for intelligent traffic lights to turn green when cars are approaching or gantries on the motorway to
announce changes to speed limits. Data will also be sent to control centres that manage traffic, enabling a vastly improved system to monitor and even direct vehicles.
A traffic controller will know where all vehicles are and even where
they are headed, said CVIS manager Paul Kompfner: That would result in a significant reduction in congestion and replace the need for cameras.
Although the plan is to initially introduce the technology on a voluntary basis, Kompfner
conceded that for the system to work it would need widespread uptake. He envisages governments making the technology mandatory for supposed safety reasons. Any system that tracks cars could also be used for speed enforcement or national road tolling.