Yesterday the new European Union anti-terror chief appeared infront of MPs to discuss various issues, including what people are reading online.
As we’ve previously warned, the UK’s Anti-Extremism task force has already alluded to greater filtering of web content and now the EU has taken it one step further, with Gilles de Kerchove telling MPs he wanted to remove “not illegal, undesirable websites.”
Setting out the action being taken by the EU he said: “The Commissioner for Home Affairs will set up a forum to discuss with the big players – Google, Facebook, Twitter – how we can improve the way one removes from the internet the illegal and if not illegal, undesirable websites.”
Freedom of speech, and of the press, are essential parts of a free and democratic society. It should not be in the gift of politicians to decide what we read or who can write it and absolutely not on the basis of what some may consider undesirable. If content is to be blocked, it should be a decision taken by a court of law and only when a clear criminal test has been met establishing the content is illegal.
If GCHQ or any other agency is obtaining mobile phone data through the Dishfire programme without a RIPA notice, that is circumventing British law.
The statements made have sought to only address questions about content being accessed, not metadata. This confusion should be urgently addressed.
Under UK law, if an agency or police force want access to details of who you have texted, where you were when you sent or received a text or the dates and times of your text massages they can obtain it from your phone company. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) provides for this. Such powers relate to obtaining communications (or meta) data and not content. Acquiring content requires a warrant from a Secretary of State.
There is great news to report from the Reform Clause 1 campaign. The Government has scrapped plans to outlaw annoying and nuisance behaviour in public.
Following a three month campaign by the Reform Clause 1 group and a key vote in the House of Lords earlier this month, where peers voted overwhelmingly for Lord Dear’s amendment to the legislation, the Government have today confirmed that they will accept the key changes.
We had been seriously concerned, along with other civil liberty groups, peers and MPs that plans to replace ASBOs with IPNAs would have a chilling effect on free speech and potentially outlaw many ordinary and hitherto legal activities. The Government had planned to extend the replacement to Labour’s ASBOs, by allowing the Courts to restrict any action “capable of causing nuisance or annoyance” by any person in any place. We warned that the wording and the low evidence thresholds in the Bill were dangerous as, almost anyone and any action was capable of being annoying, or causing a nuisance and would lead to a slew of ridiculous and costly cases.
We are very pleased to announce details of The Freedom Festival, an amazing weekend for anyone who cares about freedom and liberty. From Friday 14 to Sunday 16 March, attendees will play an active part in discussions and debates about the big political, economic and moral issues.
Over the weekend, you’ll rub shoulders with some of the most inspirational pro-freedom speakers from the UK and overseas – Dan Hannan, Robin Harris, Ruth Lea, Mark Littlewood, Tom Palmer, Toby Young and many, many more. There will be politicians, writers, academics, journalists, economists and philosophers. Big Brother Watch’s deputy director, Emma Carr, will also be running an interactive session on the future of civil liberties.
We have warned for many months that the new NHS database is deeply flawed. Not only does it centralise data into what cyber-security experts call a ‘honeypot’ it also puts at risk patient privacy, both from abuse and also later re-identification.
We’ve highlighted how patients still don’t know what is going on, and remain convinced that a national leaflet drop is simply inadequate to ensure people know about a fundamental change to how their medical records are used.
However, it seems the NHS is equally confused about the risks. Compare and contrast:
February 2, 2013: Tim Kelsey, national director for patients and information at the NHS Commissioning Board, said that data sharing was vital for improving the NHS: “This does not put patient confidentiality at any risk. Data quality in the NHS needs to improve: it is no longer acceptable that at a given moment no one can be sure exactly how many patients are currently receiving chemotherapy, for example.”
And today: Mark Davies, the centre’s public assurance director, told the Guardian there was a “small risk” certain patients could be “re-identified” because insurers, pharmaceutical groups and other health sector companies had their own medical data that could be matched against the “pseudonymised” records. “You may be able to identify people if you had a lot of data. It depends on how people will use the data once they have it. But I think it is a small, theoretical risk,” he said.
So is there risk or not?
If you would like to opt-out, you can use the form here. Let us know if you have any problems or feedback from your GP.
Last week we wrote about the leaflet that every household will be receiving from NHS England detailing serious changes to the way our medical records are shared. We warned that such a lacklustre scheme to inform the public is arguably illegal under data protection law and goes against the Government’s commitment to give patients control over their medical records.
Today, the British Heart Foundation, Arthritis Research UK, Cancer Research UK, Diabetes UK, the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust have launched an advertising campaign encouraging people not to opt out of the initiative.
Quite simply, patients should not be forced, or feel pressured, to take part in a scheme that involved sharing details contained in their medical records. Especially at a time when NHS England has failed to properly inform patients about how medical records will be shared and which organisations will be able to see them.
It is absolutely right that regulators have the tools to bring multinational companies to task, yet there are concerns that regulators do not yet have the powers that they need to have a real effect. Trivial financial penalties are at risk of being seen as the cost of doing business, rather than a meaningful sanction. Whether consumer notices, restriction on public sector contracts or interpreting each user affected as an individual breach, regulators need to think long and hard about how they resolve this situation to ensure users privacy is respected and the law upheld.
We are barely into 2014, yet we are faced with yet another serious data protection breach concerning a public sector computer. On this occasion, a police officer has been charged with stealing thousands of accident victims’ details from her police force’s computer and selling them to law firms
This case alone highlights that serious need for our courts to issue much tougher penalties for unlawfully obtaining or disclosing personal information, otherwise these cases will continue to occur.
A court has heard that Sugra Hanif accessed Thames Valley Police’s command and control computer to note down the personal details of members of the public involved in road traffic accidents, including the unique reference number each incident was given.
Last year we warned that everyone from Christian street preachers to peaceful protesters will be subject to new draconian powers proposed by the Home Office which mean that individuals that are considered annoying can be driven from the streets. That is why we are supporting the Reform Clause 1 campaign.
The campaign is in full swing and tomorrow (Wednesday 8th) is a vital stage as the House of Lords will vote on an amendment to replace the “nuisance or annoyance” test in Clause 1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. This is an opportunity to defeat the Government’s plans and force them to think again.
At present Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) can only be issued if a court is fully satisfied that someone has caused or threatened to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” to someone else and the order is therefore “necessary” to protect the victim. Under the new Injunction to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance (IPNA system), the courts will be able to impose sweeping curbs on people’s freedoms if they believe an individual is “capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person”.