• Media Enquiries

    07505 448925(24hr)

CCDP : What we know


After another day of confusion around the Government's plans for increased surveillance powers, it now appears there is some back-tracking and the bill will only be a 'draft'. Here's an update of some key points, while Privacy International have highlighted some serious issues with a briefing given to Liberal Democrat MPs. Key issues: The Coalition Agreement pledged: “We will end the storage of

Nine in ten people haven't read Google's new privacy policy


Research published today by Big Brother Watch highlights how only 12% of Google service users have read Google’s new privacy policy. The study, undertaken with YouGov, found while 92% of people online use a Google service on a regular basis, 65% of people were not aware the change comes into effect this week and 47% of people did not know any change was being proposed. This follows the Article 29 Working

The price of privacy : Councils spend half a billion pounds on CCTV in four years


Our latest report highlights the cost to local authorities of their CCTV operations - £515m in the past four years. There are now at least 51,600 CCTV cameras controlled by local authorities, with five councils now operating more than 1,000 cameras. In comparison, £515m would put an extra 4,121 police constables on the streets – the equivalent of Northumbria police’s entire force. The picture varies

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

Civil Liberties

Drink driving, national security and secret justice

Posted on by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, Human Rights Act, Legal Action, Terrorism Legislation | 1 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 by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, Data Protection, Europe, Online privacy, Social Networking, Technology | 2 Comments

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 by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, Europe, International, Internet freedom, Technology, United States, Web blocking | 2 Comments

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 by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, Terrorism Legislation | 4 Comments

“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 by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, International, Internet freedom, Online privacy, United States, Web blocking | 1 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

When is a crime not a crime?

Posted on by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, 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 by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, Europe, Information Commissioner, International, Mobile Phones, Privacy, Technology | 3 Comments

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.

Read more

Nine in Ten TFL CCTV cameras fail to solve a single crime

Posted on by Nick Pickles Posted in CCTV, Civil Liberties, Research and reports | 12 Comments

Londoners are among the most surveyed people anywhere in the world, captured by cameras in nearly every aspect of their daily lives. Some reports have estimated that Britain is home to as many as 20% of the world’s total CCTV cameras. In November 2011 Transport for London announced it was looking to spend between £20m and £60m on its CCTV capability.

Research published today by Big Brother Watch casts serious doubt on whether that investment will do anything to reduce crime or improve public safety.Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information act show how:

• TFL operates at least 82,826 CCTV cameras

• In the last twelve months, 6,972 police requests for footage were granted by TFL

• Accordingly, footage from 91.6% of cameras was not used by the police

This is hardly surprising, given it reflects previous academic studies into the use of CCTV. Indeed, the Metropolitan Police’s own research found how fewer than one crime was solved by every 1,000 cameras in the capital. Yet the British fondness for CCTV shows no sign of waning, despite a lack of any credible evidence existing that CCTV either deters or prevents crime.

The significant resources being spent on surveillance are diverting money away from policing methods that could prevent crime and protect the public. CCTV is not a substitute for policing.

Britian is unique in the widespread and relentless use of CCTV across every aspect of our lives. It continues to represent a disproportionate intrusion into the privacy of law abiding people, without delivering a corresponding improvement in public safety.

You can download the report here.

Civil liberties begins at home

Posted on by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, Councils, Protection of Freedoms Bill | 5 Comments

As highlighted in Big Brother Watch’s report Barging In, there are tens of thousands of people working in local authorities who have the power to enter your home without a warrant. The Government pledged to address this issue, reversing the ‘intrusive’ powers introduced under the last Government.

Writing on Conservative Home today, I argue that the Government is wrong to oppose amendments to the Protection of Freedoms Bill which would protect homeowners.

“Conservatives have led the debate to give people the protection to defend their property and in opposition led the calls to reduce the number of officials who had the right to enter your home without a warrant.

So why is the Home Office opposing amendments in the House of Lords which would seek to protect homeowners and implement what was Conservative party policy?

Those of us who believe the last Government’s attitude towards our civil liberties and privacy were not in the spirit of British democratic principles saw the Coalition as our best hope for restoring freedom. Today it falls on the House of Lords to defend that Freedom and it is simply bizarre it is a Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government standing in the way.”

I’m an occupier, not a terorrist

Posted on by Nick Pickles Posted in Civil Liberties, Olympics, Police, Terrorism Legislation | 4 Comments

Whatever you may think of the Occupy movement and their methods, it’s fair to say they’re not Al Qaeda.

Not unless you’re City of London police that is.

In a new briefing on domestic terrorism and extremism threats to City businesses, the force has listed the Occupy movement alongside threats posed by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC), Al Qaeda and Belarusian terrorists. You can read the letter for yourself by clicking on the image to the right of this post.

This kind of lazy policing, lumping public order issues in with serious national security concerns, only undermines the public’s faith in the police and risks trivialising some very real threats to the UK. Furthermore, it only further antagonises the protestors at a time when dialogue about clearing the camp was begining to seem possible.

You may not regard the Occupy movement as a high point of democratic protest, but it is still a peaceful protest and Britain is still a democracy. As our Research Director Maria Fort recently warned, against the backdrop of the London 2012 Olympics this kind of police hostility towards people exercising their democratic rights is not healthy or conducive to a free society.

I hope the force quickly retracts this ridiculous and counter-productive statement and focuses on the real threats facing London.