• Media Enquiries

    07505 448925(24hr)

Local authority data loss exposed


Big Brother Watch has published a report into the worrying scale of data loss across local authorities. We have uncovered more than 1000 incidents across 132 local authorities, including at least 35 councils who have lost information about children and those in care. Highly confidential information has been treated without the proper care and respect it deserves. At least 244 laptops and portable computers

NHS patient confidentiality breached 5 times every week


A new Big Brother Watch report reveals how medical information is lost, shared on Facebook and how NHS staff look at each other’s medical records According to Freedom of Information Act requests, between July 2008 and July 2011 there were at least 806 separate incidents where patient medical records were compromised, highlighted a shocking number of incidents in the NHS where patient medical records were

Police Databases: How more than 900 staff abused their access


For the first time, Big Brother Watch has uncovered the true extent to which Police abuse their access to confidential databases. This report follows allegations yesterday that former Downing Street Head of Communications Andy Coulson paid the Police in order to receive privileged information...

The Grim Ripa: Local councils authorising over 11 covert surveillance operations a day on members of the public


New research reveals councils in Great Britain have authorised over 8,500 RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) operations since April 2008 The Grim Ripa is the fifth major report released by Big Brother Watch, investigating the uses and abuses of RIPA. Our research revealed that 372 local councils in England, Scotland and Wales have authorised 8,575 Directed Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence

••••

Civil Liberties

Bailiffs face stricter regulations

Posted on February 17, 2012 by Emma Carr Posted in Bailiffs, Civil Liberties, Councils, Home, Legal Action, Privacy | Leave a comment

“Too many people have experienced intrusive bailiff action … we want to restore balance to the system …. and strengthen protection for vulnerable people” Jonathan Djanogly MP

 The news today that regulations for bailiffs are to be overhauled is welcomed news.

The reforms will follow ‘Who’s knocking at your door?’ a report published last year by Big Brother Watch.  The report highlighted: how in just three years local councils had sent in bailiffs on more than six million occasions. In many cases it was for trivial issues like the late payment of parking fines; and that there are in excess of 500 companies engaged in recovering unpaid debts with a collective turnover of more than £3 billion per annum.

The introduction of new national standards could ban the use of force as well as setting out how and when bailiffs can enter your home.  The regulations will protect vulnerable people and ensure that the work carried out by bailiffs is conducted in a professional manner.

Jonathan Djanogly MP, Justice Minister said: “We want to restore balance to the system, improve clarity for both debtors and creditors, strengthen protection for vulnerable people and ensure that individuals, business and Government are able to collect the debts they are owed – but in a way that is fair and regulated by law.”

It is clear that in the past there have been too many cases where bailiffs have been a law unto themselves; barging their way into people’s homes, intimidating vulnerable members of the public and imposing rip-off charges.  Today’s announcement is a victory for civil liberties, for families and for common sense. Sending in bailiffs to recover debts should always be the absolute last resort and it is absolutely right that they should not be able to operate above the law.

Today the Ministry of Justice launched a consultation on the way in which bailiffs should be regulated.  Big Brother Watch will be submitting proposals on how to transform bailiff action.  If you have any views that you would like us to submit within our report please email [email protected].

EU Commissioner backs ACTA legal review, eventually

Posted on February 16, 2012 by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, Internet freedom, Technology | Leave a comment

In a statement today, Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission and EU Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, outlined a robust position on internet freedom.

In it, she states “for me, blocking the Internet is never an option” and goes onto argue the current  situation “can and must not be changed by the ACTA agreement”.

We have previously highlighted the secretive nature of ACTA and the potentially wide-ranging consequences of passing what is in places a dangerously vague and unclear document.The European Parliament’s rapporteur resigned, calling the process a ‘masqueade’, and protests have led to several European governments backtracking on their commitment to the agreement.

Commissioner Reding concludes by saying “I therefore welcome the intention of several members of the European Parliament to ask the European Court of Justice for a legal opinion to clarify that the ACTA agreement cannot limit freedom of expression and freedom of the Internet.”

While this support is to be welcomed, we can’t help but wonder whether it would have been wise for the EU to get this legal advice before it signed the agreement. And of course Commissioner Reding still fails to explain why Europe needs to sign an agreement that will not require any new laws anyway.

 

Police and CPS admit failing to protect gang witness identity

Posted on February 15, 2012 by Emma Carr Posted in Civil Liberties, Data loss, Data Protection, Data Protection Act, Information Commissioner, Legal Action, Losing data, Police | Leave a comment

Today the impact of poor data protection was made hauntingly clear. A series of fundamental errors by the Met Police and the Crown Prosecution Service  led to a child witness having their details divulged to the very gang members that he were speaking out against.  The Met Police – who had promised the child that his anonymity would be protected – and the Crown Prosecution Service have been forced to pay a family more than £600,000 in compensation after the 16 year old and his family were subject to a campaign of intimidation and harrasment.

As a consequence of the incident, the entire family had to be relocated under the witness protection scheme after threats were directed at them.  In a statement the boy, his mother, and her partner said that they had been “left with no option but to leave their homes, careers, families and friends without even being able to say goodbye”.

BBC Radio 4’s Today programme heard from the family’s solicitor: “The boy witnessed a violent gang attack and he agreed to provide a statement to the police on the express promise that his identity would not be revealed to the suspects.  Through a series of individual and systematic failings, his name and address were revealed to the criminal gang and the family began to experience a campaign of harassment and intimidation, and when they brought their concerns to the attention of the Metropolitan Police it was denied that their identity had been revealed.”

This case highlights the very real and potentially dangerous risks that can arise if personal information is not protected properly. Whether it is people coming forward to help the police or discussing medical issues with their doctor, if the public cannot trust the authorities to keep information private there is a real risk they will not want to say anything in future.

This failing by the Met Police follows an admission from Scotland Yard that the police had inadvertently shared the email addresses or more than 1,000 victims of crime with other victims.  Although no other contact details were shared the police were forced to contact everyone affected to apologise.

Read more

3 Million background checks in 2011

Posted on February 10, 2012 by Andrew McGrath Posted in Civil Liberties, Databases, Police, Privacy, Protection of Freedoms Bill | Leave a comment

Figures published today by Big Brother Watch expose the astonishing fact that during 2011 2,981,958 CRB checks were made by 3,924 registered bodies.

That’s a staggering 1 in 17 of the British population undergoing the check. One company, Atlantic Data, carried out more than 180,000 checks alone.  Essex County Council commissioned 21,908 checks, the highest result for a local authority.

The vast number of organisations with access to the system means it is easier than ever to jump into the data and rummage around for details of an individual’s private life. Shockingly, they don’t even need to tell the person concerned when they run a CRB check on their background.

CRB checks are supposed to protect children from coming into contact with dangerous adults. In reality, what happens is that someone with a caution or a conviction completely unrelated to children can end up being labelled as a dangerous criminal simply on the basis of a CRB check.

So a minor teenage drunk indiscretion might lead to you losing your job ten years later because you need to pass a CRB check when you come into contact with children. You might be a father; you might have done the job perfectly beforehand. But the CRB will still label you in the worst possible light.

Big Brother Watch has previously unveiled the inaccuracies and inefficiencies of the CRB system.  Confusing the details of one person with another is a roadmap to disaster and one that is increasingly likely to be followed when CRB checks reach the scale they have done suggested by these figures.

In fact, just yesterday a High Court Judge came out against the current use of CRB. Mr Justice Kenneth Parker argued that the ‘present system’ was ‘disproportionate’  and incompatible with the right to a private life within the ECHR.

It is extremely worrying that these figures demonstrate the extent to which Britain is slipping into a culture of suspicion and overreaction, with the kneejerk reaction being to peek around in someone’s past.  We urgently need a return to basics and the reform of an intrusive and heavy handed system.

Euro MP 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.”

Read more

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.

Read more

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.

Read more

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.

Read more

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.

Read more

1 2 3 4   Next »