EU’s top official quits saying ACTA is a secretive, un-democratic masquerade.

Posted on January 27, 2012 by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, Europe, International, Internet freedom, Online privacy, Technology, Web blocking | Leave a comment

In a remarkable resignation statement, the man responsible for the EU’s ACTA negotiations has resigned, blasting the document as secrative and un-democratic.

Kader Arif, rapporteur for ACTA in the European Parliament quit his role as rapporteur saying:

”I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament’s demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly.”

“As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens’ legitimate demands.”

Drink driving, national security and secret justice

Posted on January 27, 2012 by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, Human Rights Act, Legal Action, Terrorism Legislation | Leave a comment

Last week we warned of the dangerous implications of the Justice and Security Green paper and today a case has emerged that not only highlights the existing dangers of secret justice, but also the potential for abuse of the sweeping powers proposed by Ken Clarke.

In today’s Sun and Hereford Times, a story has emerged about an alleged SAS employee being convicted of drink driving. Despite causing £40,000 of damage and being more than twice the drink drive limit, the man – Mr G – was only charged with drink driving and so his case was heard at a magistrates court. He was fined£520, banned from driving for 12 months and has been ordered to pay the family involved £400 in compensation, £85 court costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

The Government sought – and won – an order preventing the disclosure of the man’s identity. In the past, these orders have been overturned, most recently in the case of convicted child abuser Ian Tuckley. The cost of taking on the Government in court is a huge burden for a local newspaper to take on, and so it is not surprising when the orders sometimes go unchallenged.

Importantly, because the man was not charged with a more serious offence, for example dangerous driving or criminal damage, which given the scale of the damage caused would not have been unreasonable, his case did not go before a Crown court. This meant the arguments about protecting the man’s identity were not heard by a senior judge, but a magistrate.

The Magistrate did rule however that the man’s human rights meant his identity should not be disclosed,

Whether the party involved is a local newspaper or a family who have been the victim of wrongdoing, open justice is a fundamental part of a democratic society.

There is clearly a need to protect those working in sensitive roles, but given the serious implications for justice these kind of orders should be used sparingly, not as a routine procedure. It is no secret the SAS are based in Hereford and those working there should not be held as above the law.

As the Hereford Times writes:

“It is bad enough that the courts should effectively put Mr G above the basic principle of open justice but then to impose a sanction that is seen as unnecessarily lenient by those who were the victims of his crime diminishes some long-held principles.”

A basic principle of our legal system is that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. Cases like this undermine not only the public’s trust in assertions of national security, but the wider confidence in a judicial system where we are all treated equally.

This kind of case is only the thin end of the wedge. As we have warned, the Justice and Security Green paper would give Ministers the ability to impose these kind of restrictions on the evidence that could be put before a court in any civil case.

Rather than protecting national security, there is a real risk that these very serious powers become a cloak of secrecy for malpractice and negligence. The financial burden on those seeking justice becomes too great, and they are unable to pursue their claim. That is not a victory for the Government, it is a wholesale denial of justice.

Putting you back in charge of your personal information

Posted on January 25, 2012 by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, Data Protection, Data Protection Act, Europe, Losing data, Online privacy, Social Networking, Technology | Leave a comment

On the day that it has emerged that O2 has exposed it’s customers mobile numbers when browsing websites, the biggest shake-up of data protection laws since the creation of the internet is being proposed by the European Union.

In the UK, the current Data Protection Act – the main piece of legislation protecting how and why our personal information can be collected, and what can be done with it – was written before Google had launched. An overhaul is long overdue, restoring the balance in favour of the consumer and protecting our privacy.

Today’s proposals will put forward several key new rules, many of which we at Big Brother Watch have previously called for. A broad ‘right to be forgotten’ will mean when you leave a service, for example Facebook or Gmail, you have the right to insist that all your data is deleted once your account is closed.Furthermore, the changes will mean you must be given easier access to the data held on you, and should have the right to move it to another provider if you decide to switch.

Why fake handbags could mean your internet activity is monitoried

Posted on January 24, 2012 by Nick Pickles Posted in Censorship, Civil Liberties, Europe, International, Internet freedom, Technology, United States, Web blocking | Leave a comment

Back in 2007, L’Oreal and other luxury brands brought a court case against eBay because of fake goods being sold on the site. In many ways, the arguments were the same as those advanced in support of SOPA and PIPA – namely, that sites should take on a much greater policing role themselves, and be driven not by judicial action by complaints from the companies affected.

As we argued last week when we shut down our site in protest against the proposed US legislation, the draconian proposals for a blacklist of websites to be blocked would do little to combat the underlying problem, while in some areas actually making the internet more dangerous for consumers.

The public debate around that legislation saw 13m sign a petition and international media coverage. Yet there is a piece of legislation currently being discussed that has recieved barely a mention in the UK, containing much of the same proposals abandoned in the US. We’re talking about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

Not heard of it? Nor have most people. While the Australian Government is holding a consultation, there’s not been a peep out of the British Government, or the EU. The proposals it contains will encourage Internet Service Providers to spy on all the web activity of their customers to make sure they are not infringing copyright or selling fake goods. This highly intrusive surveillance will not require the authorisation of a judge or the oversight of an elected official. Moreover, the proposals in the SOPA regulation to ‘blacklist’ and ‘disappear’ sites have been replicated in this treaty.

The proposals represent a clear and invasive violation of internet freedom and privacy norms. Instead of following the money and chasing those who actually host and distribute illegal content, ACTA seeks to intrude into the lives of millions of everyday web users and clamp down on the internet as a vibrant, open means of communication and creation.

We’re writing to Business Secretary Vince Cable to ask he makes public the UK’s input into the EU’s negotiations and to MEPs asking them why so little public discussion has taken place.

Judges, not politicians, should decide what evidence is heard in court

Posted on January 20, 2012 by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, Terrorism Legislation | Leave a comment

“NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.” Clause 9, Magna Carta, 1215.

For nearly 800 years, this has been the guiding principle of the English legal system. Until now.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights will next week hear evidence on the Justice and Security Green Paper, published at the end of 2011. In particular, they are keen to establish the impact of proposals to extend ‘closed material proceedings’ – and why Ken Clarke’s department is proposing an attack on open justice that would make Jack Straw blush.

Simply, the Green Paper turns Magna Carta on its head and puts the power of what can be used in court in the hands of politicians.

Under the current system of closed material proceedings, the Government applies to a Judge to prevent material being seen by the other side, in situations explicity legislated for. (For example, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.) If the application is successful, the evidence is shown to the court and to a special advocate, an independent lawyer who has the challenge of representing the other side’s interests without telling that side what the evidence says.

There is also a common law of Public Interest Immunity which allows material to be excluded, following a minister’s application to a judge, however in such cases material excluded cannot be relied on by either side, while material that is included must fully be disclosed by the government.

Balancing national security against the principle of open justice is certainly not easy, and clearly there needs to be a procedure in place.The fundamental issue is who decides what is, and is not, evidence for the court to consider.

Under both the current sytems, a minister applies to a judge, who considers the merits of the argument to keep evidence from the other side. And this is the point abandoned by the Government’s Green paper.

Rather than a minister applying to the court for information to be withheld, the proposals give every minister the power to order material be withheld, and then puts the burden on the individuals in court to challenge that order. And the proposals do not limit the extension to national security cases – they will apply to any civil case.

One of the leading lawyers in this field, Dinah Rose QC, summed up the issue as such: “A common law trial is designed to enable facts to be found on the balance of probabilities through an open adversarial process. If you bolt a closed procedure on to that, what you have is a process that is not adversarial, and not judicial. It may look and sound like a trial, but in fact it is nothing of the sort.”

As Lord Kerr also noted, “…evidence which has been insulated from challenge may positively mislead.”

We absolutely need to protect our national security and ensure the intelligence services can do their jobs. Abandoning nearly 800 years of judicial principle which protects the justice is absolutely not the way to achieve that.

Going offline to defend privacy and freedom online

Posted on January 17, 2012 by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, International, Internet freedom, Online privacy, United States, Web blocking | Leave a comment

On January 18 2011, Wikipedia will voluntarily shut its website down for twelve hours, in protest at two pieces of legislation being considered in the US – SOPA and PIPA. Big Brother Watch will be doing the same.

Yes, it may appear a futile gesture. But we believe this is too important an issue to carry on as normal. Like many UK websites, several of our online services are run via the United States. As a result, our website falls under US law. It is grossly naive to think that legislation currently being considered in the US, which in the opinion of many constitutes a fundamental attack on freedom online, would not impact on businesses and individuals in the UK.

As the White House’s response to the massive public outcry against the proposals says, “we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cyber security risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.” In their current form, the laws being considered in the US undoubtedly fall foul of each of those criteria.

When is a crime not a crime?

Posted on January 17, 2012 by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, Data Protection Act, Home, Information Commissioner, Police, Privacy | Leave a comment

Last year Big Brother Watch highlighted the troubling scale of the misuse of police databases by both officers and civilian staff. Our report was the first national research undertaken to expose the extent of these very serious invasions of privacy.

But are some of the officers involved escaping justice?

In recent days, the Daily Mail reported how in Essex a number of officers resigned pending disciplinary proceedings, while in Merseyside the Liverpool Echo reports on an officer who has been sacked for searching police databases 170 times for information on women he wanted to date.

Last year BBC’s Panorama questioned if staff resigning in this way – before the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings – officers and staff would be able to take up jobs that had they been sacked they would not have been able to. (While in some cases also retaining benefits and pensions).

Big Brother Watch believes anyone who abuses their access to personal information should be prosecuted under the Data Protection Act – in addition to whatever disciplinary action their employer may take. We have previously argued that in the most serious cases, judges should be able to impost custodial sentences for offences – something the Government has continued to oppose.

We are now researching the scale of this problem and will publish our findings in due course. It is not good enough for the police to deal with these things ‘in house’ – whether that involves people losing their jobs or lesser sanctions. If evidence exists that someone has broken the law, then they should be prosecuted.

Is your location personal information?

Posted on January 12, 2012 by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, Europe, Information Commissioner, International, Location data, Mobile Phones, Privacy, Technology | Leave a comment

Last week we raised the issue of Foot Path, technology used in shopping centres to monitor the movement of people’s mobile phones. No personal information is being collected, but there are clear privacy issues with your movements being recorded without any kind of direct permission or opt-out.

In a similar way to Foot Path, the satalite navigation provider Tom Tom say they “anonymise, aggregate and redistribute [location data], to make everyone’s journeys faster and more predictable.”

However, the Dutch Data Protection Authority felt this was not fully compliant with privacy laws, and this morning a statement has been issued by Tom Tom that states:

“To this end, in February there will be a software update on all TomTom consumer products. This update will provide customers with detailed information about what customer location information TomTom gathers, how TomTom uses customers’ location data and how customers can easily opt in and out of sharing their location data if they wish to. TomTom has a created a dedicated section on www.tomtom.com/yourdata, to clearly explain how it uses and safeguards location data.”

The website states clearly that “you can decide to switch on and off data collection” giving customers the ability to control what data on them is gathered.

Aberdeen Council wants to see your visitors

Posted on January 9, 2012 by Nick Pickles Posted in CCTV, Council snooping, Councils, Privacy | Leave a comment

At the end of 2011, Big Brother Watch brought you news of Newham Council’s efforts to introduce a register of every visitor to some tower blocks in the borough. The Sun dubbed it the ‘sex snoop’ list.

Now Aberdeen Council has gone one step further and introduced a video system that gives staff first sight of every visitor to properties.

Previously – as is the case in countless properties across the country – the system connected the person at the door with the property they were trying to enter, and the person inside was able to speak to the person outside and, if they wished, remotely open the door. The current system was only installed in November 2010 and still works.

Aberdeen Council has now written to residents informing them that they are going to change the system so it is a council operator who controls access – and gets to see who is visiting you – from a central ‘control room.’

Shopper snooping or innocent monitoring?

Posted on January 4, 2012 by Nick Pickles Posted in Mobile Phones, Surveillance, Technology | Leave a comment

Before Christmas, US Senator Charles Schumer publicly criticised the use of technology tracking shoppers around busy shopping centres, saying:

“A shopper’s personal cell phone should not be used by a third party as a tracking device by retailers who are seeking to determine holiday shopping patterns. Personal cell phones are just that — personal. If retailers want to tap into your phone to see what your shopping patterns are, they can ask you for your permission to do so.”

People are right to be worried that their mobile phones can be turned into tracking devices very easily, without their permission or knowledge. Once again, there is a serious risk that technology is moving much faster than the law.

The ‘FootPath’ technology, manufactured by UK company Path Intelligence, is also in use in some UK shopping centres. Customers are notified that the technology is in use by signs around the premises, but are otherwise unaware their movements are being monitored.

There is a risk that companies will not publicise what equipment is being used to avoid negagtive publicity of this kind. FootPath should be applauded for their efforts to publicise what is going on, and they have been open and honest in talking to Big Brother Watch about their work.

We have been assured that no personal information is collected, and that it is impossible to connect their data with the identity of handset owners, even at the request of the police. The company has reassured us that they only supply aggregate data on an hour-by-hour basis, and refuse to disclose individuals movements or provide real-time information.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 172 173 Next »

Media Enquiries

07505 448925(24hr)