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.

Big Brother Watch was established to defend our privacy and protect our civil liberties. The only way these proposals will work is if the state monitors the personal activity of every person online. We have already seen in recent weeks India introducing laws to record every person using a cyber cafe, for example. The great firewall of China – and the associated state surveillance apparatus – were created to control what people do online, and we will oppose any measure to introduce such a system in Britain.

It is clear that many of the arguments being made in the US for greater regulation of the internet are also going to be made in the UK this year. This is the first act of protest against any attempt by the UK Government to take control of what British people can see online or introduce any intrusive monitoring of our online activity.

We believe that those breaking the law should be pursued, to the full extent of the law. Far more needs to be done to pursue criminals, fraudsters and thieves online. We also believe that in a free society, you are innocent until proven – beyond reasonable doubt – to be guilty, and that guilt must be established with a judicial process. Furthermore, we believe freedom of expression is not in the gift of bureaucrats. It is a fundamental part of a democracy.

For these reasons, we will be joining the defence of free speech and privacy online and taking ourselves offline.

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.

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.

This is a positive step to protect privacy, and sets an important precedent in the debate about whether anonymous location data constitutes personal information.

In the spirit of the Dutch discussions, Big Brother Watch will be writing to the Information Comissioner to argue that the collection of location data in the UK – even if not collected with personally identifiable information – does constitute personal information, and that any activity collecting people’s locations should allow people to opt-out, and that the best privacy protection can only be achieved with an opt-in.

You can now listen to Big Brother Watch Director Nick Pickles discussing this on Radio 4′s You and Yours below.

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.’

The letter to residents of Marischal Court and Greig Court reads:

“When a non-resident calls your flat from the entrance, the call would be diverted to a centralised control room, where we will also monitor the current CCTV cameras in your building 24 hours a day. A member of staff from the control room would contact you directly and ask if you agreed to the non-resident being allowed access to the building.”

This kind of invasion of privacy will do nothing to improve safety, and introduces a needless level of interference with visitors. It’s yet another local authority policy that owes more to East Berlin than a Western democracy.

Why should a council official be able to see the visitors to your flat before you do? It’s no business who you have into your own property and the last thing residents should have to put up with is a council official scrutinising everyone they invite round for a cup of tea.

We’ve now written to the council asking what discussions or assessments took place to ensure residents privacy was protected, and that residents should not be forced to use the new system until these serious concerns have been addressed.

“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.

While these safeguards are to be welcomed, we would be far more comfortable with an opt-in system, as ultimately the details of your movements are personal information. It is fair to argue that such a system would require the retention of personal information to prove consent, so would actually be a more serious intrusion on privacy, but

The FootPath technology being used in the UK is not capable of capturing personal information or sending communications to people’s phones. It is certainly not the kind of equipment used to track individuals over large distances, or capable of intercepting phone calls.

However, as technology improves, those facilities will become more accessible, and consumers need to have faith that the law protects their privacy. Uncertainty over when and how technology is being used only undermines trust and confidence in any system using mobile phones.

Illustrating this, speaking at the A Fine Balance – Location and Cyber Privacy in the Digital Age conference in London in December, Jonathan Bamford, head of strategic liaison at the ICO said: “The ubiquitous nature of the devices you carry around that provide data directly to organisations without users being aware means you’ve lost the clear relationship where it’s the users’ choice over which data they provide.”

The legal regulation is this area urgently needs strengthening and it is not good enough that the only way people can be sure they are not being tracked when they go shopping is to turn their phones off.

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.

Having initially refused our Freedom of Information Request ont the grounds of national security, the FCO has now admitted thirteen incidents where data was lost over the past three years.

Information lost included passport applications, payroll details, video interviews and medical records. One incident in Madrid involveda copy of a passport application and corresponding email blow out of an open window while in Caracass a staff laptop was stolen from a car. You can see the full list here.

In an international, disparate organisation there are clearly great challenges with protecting information. Yet the incidents seen by the FCO are in several ways similar to those exposed in our research on local authority data loss, highlighting the need for a more fundamental reassement of how personal information is handled by organisations.

Furthermore, these problems can only be addressed if departments come clean on the incidents and the FCO’s initial refusal further demonstrates the current weakness of the UK’s data protection regime. Only two incidents were reported to the Information Commissioner’s office.

After it was announced in September, we highlighted how the proposals would mean information currently hidden to strangers would become publicly visible, and in response to widespread concern Facebook’s roll out now includes a 7 day review period for users.

The period will allow people to review what will be made public, on a post-by-post basis, and after the 7 day period has elapsed the switch over will be automatic. So tough if you’ve not had time to go through every piece of activity individually, it’s now public.

Facebook’s attitude to privacy remains making as much information as possible about you visible, and commercially exploitable. Why, as is currently the case, can users simply tick one box stating nothing can be visible to people who are not their ‘friends’?

The seven day period is a token gesture to privacy and a grossly inefficient way for users to control what information is publicly visible. Timeline will hijack the personal information of people who had previously said it should be private and Facebook continues to show no remorse for this exploitative agenda.

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.”

We are in agreement with the Information Commissioner and the House of Commons Justice Select Committee that the potential harm of personal information being abused or stolen warrants the availability of a custodial sentence in the most serious of cases. The power has already been passed into law in the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act , but requires the Government to order it’s enaction.

Today the Government has said that it is not yet convinced of the arguments. Responding to a report by the Justice Committee into the theft of personal data and referral fees, which called for custodial sentences to be brought into effect, the Government said it did “not believe that now is the correct time to introduce custodial sentences” because accusations that have emerged during the phone hacking scandal mean the media has a “direct interest” in the issue.

To be clear: the Government is ignoring expert advice because it is worried that journalists (who may or may not have broken the law) would report the plans negatively.

For many years people have cynically suggested that Government policy was beholden to good PR and that journalists could dicate policy as a result. They now have conclusive proof.