• Media Enquiries

    07505 448925(24hr)

Time for surveillance transparency


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

GCHQ faces legal action over mass surveillance


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

Patients win choice of sharing medical records


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

Boom in private investigators risks avoiding surveillance regulation


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

Government to disconnect entire families for alleged illegal downloading

Posted on by Big Brother Watch Posted in Mastering the Internet | 8 Comments

Florian-leppla Florian Leppla is a Campaigner with the Open Rights Group, a non-profit company working to defend freedom of expression, privacy, innovation, consumer rights
and creativity on the net.

The Digital Economy Bill, currently being debated in the House of Lords, would give the Government the power to disconnect people from the internet if copyright files are downloaded without permission. The Government, heavily lobbied by the music industry, seems convinced that's the way to stop illicit file sharing and downloading of music. What's certain is that entire families could be be disconnected if only one member (or lodger or guest) is accused of illegal downloading.

The bill doesn't acknowledge that account holder and infringer can be different people. That's the problem. The account holder will be liable for any infringement, whether he or she has infringed or not. That means that a whole family is punished because of the action of one person. This person can be anyone using their internet: a family member, a guest visiting, a lodger or a neighbour using their open wifi.

A lot of people need the internet for work or depend on if for their eduction. The Government has encouraged that and has pledged to connect citizens to the web, not disconnect them.

Gordon Brown said last year that "the internet is as vital as water and gas". Would he then consider cutting off people's water supply if their kids had shoplifted?

Disconnection is collective punishment. It is unacceptable. It is unfair and it is disproportionate.

What can you do?

1) Ask your MP to help remove the disconnection from the bill. Contact your MP now!

2) Write to your local paper and let people know that disconnection is wrong.

3) Sign up with the Open Rights Group to support our work.

The weaponisation of classical music

Posted on by Big Brother Watch Posted in Home | 12 Comments

Mozart_portrait Over at Reason.com an interesting article by the ever-thoughtful Brendan O'Neill – How Britain is using classical music as a form of social control.

Of course, we all know about the use of Beethoven & friends to deter young people from spending time in train stations – the new story is the decision by schools to subject

badly behaved children to Mozart and others. In “special detentions,” the children are forced to endure two hours of classical music both as a relaxant… and as a deterrent against future bad behavior (apparently the number of disruptive pupils has fallen by 60 per cent since the detentions were introduced.)

… some of the children who have endured this Mozart authoritarianism now find classical music unbearable. As one critical commentator said, they will probably “go into adulthood associating great music—the most bewitchingly lovely sounds on Earth—with a punitive slap on the chops.” This is what passes for education in Britain today: teaching kids to think “Danger!” whenever they hear Mozart’s Requiem or some other piece of musical genius.

Sounds familiar? It should -

Anthony Burgess’s nightmare vision of an elite using high culture as a “punitive slap on the chops” for low youth has come true. In Burgess’s 1962 dystopian novel A Clockwork Orange, famously filmed by Stanley Kubrick in 1971, the unruly youngster Alex is subjected to “the Ludovico Technique” by the crazed authorities. Forced to take drugs that induce nausea and to watch graphically violent movies for two weeks, while simultaneously listening to Beethoven, Alex is slowly rewired and re-moulded. But he rebels, especially against the use of classical music as punishment.

Pleading with his therapists to turn the music off, he tells them that “Ludwig van” did nothing wrong, he “only made music.” He tells the doctors it’s a sin to turn him against Beethoven and take away his love of music. But they ignore him. At the end of it all, Alex is no longer able to listen to his favorite music without feeling distressed. A bit like that schoolboy in Derby who now sticks his fingers in his ears when he hears Mozart.

By Alex Deane

Taking your son’s picture? Really? Are you a paedophile?

Posted on by Big Brother Watch Posted in Home | 16 Comments

Childcatcher Kevin Geraghty-Shewan had taken four-year-old Ben to the Bridges
Shopping Centre in Sunderland and took a picture of him while they were out shopping. He was accused of being a paedophile and threatened with arrest.

He told Sky News:

I took the picture on my phone and suddenly this security guard came up and told me it wasn't allowed because I could be a paedophile.

He told the guard that Ben was his son, but the guard replied that he couldn't prove it. A few minutes later Geraghty-Shewan was accosted by a policeman, who must have been contacted by the centre. The officer demanded his name and address, asked what I was doing in Sunderland, and said he had the right to delete my pictures.

Naturally, being confronted with this nonsense, Geraghty-Shewan became annoyed and raised his voice, and the officer threatened him with arrest "for breach of the peace."

Both the security guard and the police officer in this case are examples of the absurd reaction many people exhibit when they see fathers with their children.

This country has a destructive obsession with paedophilia. It is harming both parenthood and childhood, and it acts as a magic watchword for petty bureaucrats using overbearing powers.

By Alex Deane

The CRB check is a poison in our society

Posted on by Big Brother Watch Posted in Home | 17 Comments

The picture to the right of this text comes to me courtesy of the Freedom in Education blog. Each of those blue pins represents a case of someone with a completely clean CRB check committing child abuse.

CRB Map Please do click this link to take you to the actual version of the map and links to the original news stories. It is an astonishing, albeit very sad, piece of data-collection.

While you consider the map and the horrifying number of those pins, I bring you the following story from the Nursing Times:

Children have missed out on surgery because of “chaotic” Government regulations, medical professionals say.

The Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) warned their members could not cover absences or work at different hospitals due to Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check restrictions.

Young patients either had to wait or travel long distances to see a surgeon at a different hospital, due to “overzealous” interpretations of the rules by NHS trusts and long delays in returning results, it said.

The RCS said medical staff with an enhanced CRB check should be allowed to work in any hospital, and pointed out the restrictions prevented trainee paediatricians from gaining experience in different areas.

Some trainee surgeons went through more than 10 separate checks in two years, according to the college president John Black.

How can this make sense? If the CRB check is supposed to protect children (and, as the map shows, it does a bloody awful job of it) why is it preventing them from being treated for illness and injury in the NHS?

On top of stopping authors reading to children and the slow destruction in after-school clubs and youth groups – because non-CRB checked parents can no longer volunteer their time – the CRB is now hurting young people in a far more direct way.

The CRB check is a nasty poison and it needs to be replaced urgently.

By Dylan Sharpe

“DNA’s Dirty Little Secret”: A forensic tool renowned for exonerating the innocent may actually be putting them in prison

Posted on by Big Brother Watch Posted in DNA database | Leave a comment

Washington Washington Monthly has used the notable "cold hit" case of John Puckett as a starting point for a remarkably significant, researched, extended piece on the use of DNA in court cases. An extract to show the quality:

Typically, law enforcement and prosecutors rely on FBI estimates for the rarity of a given DNA profile—a figure can be as remote as one in many trillions when investigators have all thirteen markers to work with. In Puckett’s case, where there were only five and a half markers available, the San Francisco crime lab put the figure at one in 1.1 million—still remote enough to erase any reasonable doubt of his guilt. The problem is that, according to most scientists, this statistic is only relevant when DNA material is used to link a crime directly to a suspect identified through eyewitness testimony or other evidence. In cases where a suspect is found by searching through large databases, the chances of accidentally hitting on the wrong person are orders of magnitude higher.

The reasons for this aren’t difficult to grasp: consider what happens when you take a DNA profile that has a rarity of one in a million and run it through a database that contains a million people; chances are you’ll get a coincidental match. Given this fact, the two leading scientific bodies that have studied the issue—the National Research Council and the FBI’s DNA advisory board—have recommended that law enforcement and prosecutors calculate the probability of a coincidental match differently in cold-hit cases. In particular, they recommend multiplying the FBI’s rarity statistic by the number of profiles in the database, to arrive at a figure known as the Database Match Probability. When this formula is applied to Puckett’s case (where a profile with a rarity of one in 1.1 million was run through a database of 338,000 offenders) the chances of a coincidental match climb to one in three.

Such coincidental matches are more than a theoretical possibility, as Chicago police can attest. In 2004, detectives investigating a string of robberies on the city’s North Side found some skin cells that the culprit had left behind at one crime scene, which contained six DNA markers. When they ran this profile against Illinois’s offender database, they found it matched a woman named Diane Myers. There was just one problem: when the burglaries in question were committed, Myers was already in jail, serving time on drug charges.

Indeed, the little information that has come to light about the actual rate of coincidental matches in offender databases suggests the chances of hitting on the wrong person may be even higher than the Database Match Probability suggests. In 2005… an Arizona state employee named Kathryn Troyer had run a series of tests on the state’s DNA database, which at the time included 65,000 profiles, and found multiple people with nine or more identical markers. If you believe the FBI’s rarity statistics, this was all but impossible—the chances of any two people in the general population sharing that many markers was supposed to be about one in 750 million, while the Database Match Probability for a nine-marker match in a system the size of Arizona’s is roughly one in 11,000. 

(Emphasis added.)

It's technical stuff admittedly, but that's just what convicts people for things they may not have done. If you're interested in this subject, the article is really a "must read".

The piece is also covered by the security consultant blogging as Mass
Private I
, who highlights the attempts of law enforcement to suppress
information about flaws in statistics rather than share it as they
should – which is significant, and terrible, as juries thinking the
numbers mean something very different to the truth can wind up
convicting the defendant.

This finds support in another useful piece about the Washington Monthly essay over at Rants
of a Public Defender
; after pointing out the significant shortcomings of legal defence teams in relation to DNA evidence, she rightly concludes,

They don't want us poking around too much and investigating the truth of
their scientific claims.  They don't want to do the hard work to get at
the right results; they just want the quick, dirty, and easy answers,
evidently without concern for whether those answers are the right ones. 
Once again, when science and law enforcement come together, scientific
integrity inevitably takes the back seat…

We have got to fight against the criminal justice system's reluctance to
get at the best evidence.  We have got to break the hold that DNA
evidence has over us.  Otherwise, we'll never get to the truth of it.

A selection of related posts – the DNA myth, wrongful arrest due to DNA, the "return my DNA" campaign, DNA madness, less than 1% of crimes solved with DNA, removal of samples from innocent people is random, DNA / PNC, DNA testing and employability, arrests just to get us on the database, and an extended and updated piece from me on Con Home.

By Alex Deane

Yet more abuse of police powers – caught on camera

Posted on by Big Brother Watch Posted in Home | 21 Comments

Oxford_times A remarkable and disquieting piece of footage over at the Oxford Times site. Stephen Russell, in his late 50s, was on a trip to buy fish and chips in Kidlington High Street when he spotted police swarming around. He had his camera with him and took four photos because it was unusual to see so much action in the village.

An officer wrongly demanded the ex-RAF engineer delete the photos. Mr Russell rightly refused – it is not illegal to photograph police in a public place.

He was then searched using powers under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act,.

He recorded the incident. Go and watch the footage. It's simply astonishing. Amongst other things, the fool of a bullying, overbearing policeman said, to a law-abiding member of the public who had done nothing wrong

You are a stranger in Kidlington – tell me who you are – what is your reason for being here

On what possible basis was any of that asked? We don't live in a country in which the police can demand our papers, to state our business. Moreover, just look at the way this oaf treats a palpably honest and reasonable member of the public. The domineering "I'm in charge, you justify yourself to me" attitude is typical of the way that the police are working very hard to lose the confidence of the law-abiding majority, who no longer feel that they're on our side.

Moreover, what absurd bit of self-serving sophistry – total dishonesty, really – to use Terrorism Act powers to search this man. He was very, very obviously not a terrorist. It is behaviour like this that undermines belief in the government's terror agenda and shows that powers such as these can't be given to officers, because they abuse them. The officer should now be required to justify his use of Terrorism Act powers in this case and if he can't, then he should be disciplined.

Let me say this loud and clear, so that there's no mistaking it:

PC Steve Burchett, you are a disgrace.

Also,

1) how fortunate that Mr Russell was able to record this incident. Given the footage, the police should take is seriously – if he had not, it would no doubt have been a "one person's word against another" damp squib.

2) cases like this make me think, more and more, that there needs to be a right to photograph police officers enshrined in law. What do you think about that..?

By Alex Deane

Hat tip: Old Holborn, Simon Richards at the TFA

The steady creep of the Identity Card

Posted on by Big Brother Watch Posted in ID cards | 1 Comment

As I forewarned yesterday, The Office of The Identity Commissioner has presented his First Annual Report to Parliament to very mercifully little fanfare.

300_Image_ID_card_pic The document, which can be viewed on his website, is a mostly unremarkable piece of work with very little insight into the government's plans for the Identity Register.

Despite this, it does reveal that in the past three months around 5,000 people have been issued with identity cards and the Commissioner's office has spent £565,000.
 
That's over a hundred quid a card. At this rate if the government fulfills its aim of getting the whole population onto the National Identity Register, Britain will go bankrupt before Portsmouth FC.

And that's without mentioning the fact that both the Conservatives and Lib Dems have pledged to scrap the entire project.

In other woeful privacy news, this morning Blackburn Council held a launch event for the roll-out of the ID card scheme in their town; with Councillor Suleman Khonat weakly toeing the party line and being the first in the birthplace of John Morley to sign-up to a lifetime of noxious intrusion.

Money is being frittered away on a scheme that is supposed to be voluntary, yet has more publicity churned out about it than most other government campaigns.

Expensive, intrusive and unnecessary…remind you of anything?

By Dylan Sharpe

CCTV cameras have minimal value in the fight against crime

Posted on by Big Brother Watch Posted in CCTV | 1 Comment

Bruce-blog Over at CNN, a brilliant extended article by security expert Bruce Schneier (who blogs here):

Pervasive security cameras don't substantially reduce crime. This fact has been demonstrated repeatedly: in San Francisco, California, public housing; in a New York apartment complex; in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; in Washington; in study after study in both the U.S. and the U.K. Nor are they instrumental in solving many crimes after the fact.

There are exceptions, of course, and proponents of cameras can always cherry-pick examples to bolster their argument. These success stories are what convince us; our brains are wired to respond more strongly to anecdotes than to data. But the data are clear: CCTV cameras have minimal value in the fight against crime.

And later, crucially, a paragraph which effectively reflects the approach of our report:

The important question isn't whether cameras solve past crime or deter
future crime; it's whether they're a good use of resources. They're
expensive, both in money and in their Orwellian effects on privacy and
civil liberties. Their inevitable misuse is another cost; police have
spied on naked women in their own homes, shared nude images, sold
best-of videos and even spied on national politicians. Though we might
be willing to accept these downsides for a real increase in security,
cameras don't provide that.

RTWT.

By Alex
Deane

P.S. also of interest – a useful article on drones and surveillance more generally over at Comment is Free

Body scanners – airport charges on the rise

Posted on by Big Brother Watch Posted in Body Scanners | 10 Comments

Canada The Canadians levy a security fee for travellers at the airport. Guess what – it's going up as a result of the body scanners:

Fees now range from $5 to $16, depending on the length of a flight and
its destination.

At least the Canucks are honest enough to single it out and make the excess clear in a separate charge. Here in the UK, they'll just whack it on top of the price of the ticket.

Oh, and in Canada, you can opt for another form of search instead of the scanners – unlike here.

By Alex Deane

Want out of Google’s all-seeing eye?

Posted on by Big Brother Watch Posted in Online privacy | 10 Comments

However meritorious Google Earth, and its urban counterpart Google StreetView – for those that enjoy the altogether different charms of privacy, do keep reading.

Assuming you do not want your abode to be nakedly featured on the all-seeing eye-view of our world, it is possible to remove it altogether. Google’s presence may be ubiquitous – but doesn’t the aphorism go something like 'too much of one thing can be bad for you'?

Opinion aside, here is a simple guide to removing all trace of your dominion, face, or number-plate: 

Here are the basics: When on the Google applications, go to the following link in the bottom left of the screen: 

Google SV3 

Once you have clicked on that, the following page contains a list. Click on the icon that best describes the problem: 

Google SV1

Finally – focus on the face, car, or house on the ‘Street Image’

They provide a detailed version of the street view image you reported, where you need to adjust the red box in 3D by moving your mouse and focus on the part of the image you are reporting. Like so: 

Google SV2

Submit it, and your privacy is restored.

By Edward Hockings