Today the three heads of Britain's intelligence agencies appear infront of Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee in a televised hearing, the first time for such a hearing to be broadcast.
Progress, yes, but let's not get ahead of ourselves - the head of the CIA first appeared on TV speaking to congress in 1975, so it's hardly a revolution in oversight.
Today we have published new polling by
Today Big Brother Watch, working with the Open Rights Group, English PEN and German internet activist Constanze Kurz, has announced legal papers have been filed alleging that GCHQ has illegally intruded on the privacy of millions of British and European citizens.
We allege that by collecting vast amounts of data leaving or entering the UK, including the content of emails and social media messages, the UK’s spy
Earlier this year, we led the concern that a new NHS data sharing plan would see every patient's medical records uploaded to a new information system without the right to opt-out. We warned at the time that patient records would be out of patient control.
On Friday, the Secretary of State confirmed that this will not be the case.
We have worked closely with MedConfidential and Privacy International to ensure
Our latest report highlights the growing use of private investigators by local and public authorities, particularly the number of times they are used without RIPA authorisation.
The law in the UK, particularly the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, is broadly drawn to allow evidence to be introduced in court that in other jurisdictions would not be deemed admissible. Contrasted with the fruit of the poisonous
Late last year, we reported on the case of an East Midlands school which had installed a costly and invasive facial recognition system in order to log their pupils in and out of lessons.
Up in the North Eastern corner of Scotland, it appears as if schools in Angus have gone one step further. According to reports in the Tayside and Fife Courier, parents are up in arms following reports that schools in the Borough have collected biometric data from their children without informing parents of their right to opt-out of the service.
Councillor Peter Nield, the Chairman of the council's education committee has gone on record as stating there had been "no opt-outs" by any parents across the borough, a claim directly contradicted by a pupil's father Graham Galloway whose children have effectively had their biometric data 'stolen' despite his objections.
Big Brother Watch has grown used to receiving reports of local councils misplacing, losing and accidentally leaking confidential information about their local residents. Indeed, earlier this month, we reported on the worrying case of a Hampshire council who divulged confidential information about the mental health of a resident.
A supporter has written in alerting us to the loss of an unencrypted memory stick containing the personal details of 40 children in care in the city of Stoke-on-Trent – a council rated one of Britain's worst performing local authorities.
Commenting on the case, the Information Commissioner's Office said:
"When handling sensitive personal information, particularly information relating to the care of vulnerable children, it is important that authorities ensure the necessary measures are in place to protect this information.
"This incident occurred before April 6 so the powers now available to the Information Commissioner to issue penalties of up to £500,000 for serious breaches of the Data Protection Act, could not be considered."
In this case, Stoke City Council appears to have effectively gotten away with it.
How long, for example. until a council divulges the identities of women on the run from abusive relationships? Is it out of the question that information on the identities of children on the 'at risk' register might become public property as a result of a lack of adherence to data protection laws? Could we see a repeat of central government's loss of personal bank account details on a local level?
Not for the first time, however, this type of data loss only serves to heighten the need for increased staff training to improve the awareness of the importance of maintaining standards of data security at Britain's local councils.
If you click the DNA button in the cloud on the right, you'll see that there's a lot of debate over DNA on this site (and in my columns elsewhere). I wonder if in 80 or 90 years' time, it will emerge that doubts over DNA detection will emerge to have been correct?
Lord Justice Leveson, an appeal judge and chairman of the Sentencing Council, called into question the “century old” identification process, which he said was often considered “virtually unassailable” in tying a person to a crime.The judge said that there have been “numerous” recent cases of innocent people being wrongly singled out by fingerprint evidence.In a speech to the Forensic Science Society in London, he said the analysis of fingerprints by experts was “fundamentally subjective” and that it was therefore “inherently capable of misidentifications”.
Lord Justice Leveson called for new research to be carried out to ensure fingerprinting is “robust” and reliable.“There is growing unease among fingerprint examiners and researchers that the century old fingerprint identification process rests on assumptions that have never been tested empirically,” he said.Speaking about the use of expert evidence in court cases, the senior judge said it was vital to have a “methodology and a hypothesis that are capable of withstanding robust testing”.“Arguably, as it currently stands, the science of fingerprint identification does not,” he added.
If (only now, after countless thousands of convictions based on it) we are told that we should doubt the century-old "proven" fingerprint technique, what problems might lie with DNA (or ANPR, or facial recognition technology…), discovered in the future, but resulting in wrongful convictions today..?
In a keynote speech at the Political Studies Association/Hansard Society Annual Lecture on Tuesday evening, Nick Clegg spoke of the protection of civil liberties as being one of the core elements of the modern British Constitution.
He outlined in very clear terms that he believes people should not have to put up with unnecessary spying or interference and continued, “no law abiding citizen must ever fear arbitrary intrusion or harassment from the state”. He specifically mentioned ID cards, unregulated CCTV, fingerprinting of children without parent’s consent and the indefinite retention of DNA as “illegitimate intrusions”. He also drew attention to the current reviewing of counter-terrorism legislation.
It is reassuring to hear that the Deputy Prime Minster still has these issues in his top priorities, and this hopefully suggests that the forthcoming Freedom Bill will deliver real changes.
I gave this speech this weekend and thought that readers might be interested. It's a bit long and I look like the left side of my face is slowly being cooked by the lighting, but it's not a bad speech I think.
* Intercept Modernisation Programme
* Stop and Search
* ID Cards
* Control Orders
* NICE databases
Topic I would have covered if I had time, and will be addressing again very soon indeed: European Arrest Warrant
The Public Service Journal carries news today of Portsmouth City Council's failure to ensure adequite data security for information it holds about local residents. In this particular case, it appears that confidential information regarding the mental health of an individual that ought to have been redacted was released to another member of the public in error.
According to the Information Commissioner's office – which has this week effectively cleared Google for their harvesting of confidential data from thousands of private home-owners – the "breach of the Data Protection Act was entirely avoidable, and would not have happened if the individuals dealing with the request had been given proper training and the necessary levels of support".
Details of the case aside, ICO raises an interesting point; chiefly, that awareness among employees of both public and private sector organisations of the importance of handling personal data sensitively is woefully low. In light of this case and that of Healthcare Locums, the ICO must take a more proactive role in helping to raise awareness of the importance of professional training to avoid harmful mishaps such as this occuring.
Big Brother Watch was recently alerted to the case of an East Midlands school which had deployed automatic facial recognition software as a means by which to sign their pupils in and out of school.
Rotterdam City Council, it appears, have gone one step further in announcing the roll-out of facial recognition scanners on their public transport network as a means by which to prevent those with travels bans from boarding trams.
"The scanners will record the biometric features of passengers as they enter the tram. If a passenger with a public transport ban is spotted, an alarm will sound in the driver's cabin and the passenger will be removed.. At the moment, drivers are issued with photos of banned passengers and have to recognise them from these"
So there, you are warned: if you board the tram while in Amsterdam, the Dutch authorities will forever hold both your biometric data and details as to where you boarded and disembarked the tube.
Ah well, you needn't worry; at least the scheme isn't being introduced in Amsterdam, so they'll never find out about that trip you're planning to De Wallen…
Tomorrow afternoon Members of Parliament will, for the first time, have the opportunity to fully debate the issue of privacy and the internet – an astonishing thought given that more than 60% of the public use the internet every day.
The debate was secured following a successful application by Robert Halfon MP to the Backbench Business committee and will take place in Westminster Hall from 2:30pm to 5:30pm.
The debate will be wide-ranging in tone, examining issues such as the implicatons for privacy of the Google Street View service, the targeting of online advertising to internet users based on the websites they have visited in the past and data security concerns surrounding Facebook.
It is crucial, particularly in light of the discovery that Google has recently harvested thousands of personal e-mail addresses and other sensitive personal information from domestic WiFi connections, that as many Members of Parliament as possible attend and contribute to the debate.
During the early days of the coalition Big Brother Watch was encouraged by the numerous Home Office announcements declaring "reviews" of some of the previous government's more draconian policies were underway.
One such policy was that of the 'big brother' database of all communications in the UK, designed to allow "police, security services and other public bodies [to be able to] find out which websites a person had visited, and when, where and to whom a text or call was made".
Sadly, the Daily Mail today reports that Home Office ministers have been "persuaded of the case to give the police and security officials enhanced rights to access the public’s communications", a move which will allow officials to snoop on which websites you visit and any online 'phone calls you may make.
While it is encouraging that the coalition appears to have ruled out holding the data collected on one central database, this scheme still represents a significant intrusion on the privacy of the British people which must be strongly resisted.
This evening will see the launch of civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch’s new publication, ‘Fight Terror, Defend Freedom’ by Dominic Raab MP.
The launch of the book will take place between 5:00pm and 6:00pm today in the Thatcher Room in Portcullis House, Houses of Parliament.
Mr Raab, who was an international lawyer prior to his election to Parliament, will introduce his publication, followed by a panel discussion including former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis MP, Centre for Technology Policy Research Jerry Fishenden and Big Brother Watch Director Alex Deane.
Commenting on the launch of the publication Raab said:
“Today’s publication of the National Security Strategy, highlights the flaws in the last government’s approach to counter-terrorism. Too much time, money and effort was wasted on ‘sound byte’ security. Too many of Labour’s measures, like ID cards and prolonged detention without charge, were unnecessary or irrelevant to our security.
“The government has a golden opportunity to break with this flawed approach. We should be defending our freedoms, like free speech and the presumption of innocence. At the same time, the justice system is an underused weapon in the fight against terrorism. We should be strengthening our capacity to prosecute terrorists – not least by lifting the ban on using intercept as evidence.”
Alex Deane, Director of Big Brother Watch said:
“The case for action is now irresistible. Dominic Raab’s publication shows the injustices being done every day in this country. Stop and search and control orders are being reviewed – why? Why review something when you know it’s wrong?“