Big Brother Watch is very pleased to announce that Mr Timothy Edgar, President Obama’s first director of privacy and civil liberties for the White House National Security Staff, will be joining a panel of guests to discuss the topic of ‘After Snowden – surveillance in a transparent world‘.
The event will consider the impact of the Snowden revelations as well as the special problems of surveillance and spying for democratic societies, with a particular focus on the features of a legal framework that could be adopted in future to ensure public confidence.
When? Wednesday 14th May, 9am to finish promptly at 11am
Where? Committee Room 20, Palace of Westminster
The panel will include:
- Timothy Edgar, President Obama’s first director of privacy and civil liberties for the White House National Security Staff
- Emma Carr, (Chair) Acting Director, Big Brother Watch
- Rt. Hon. David Davis MP, Member of Parliament for Haltemprice and Howden
- Julian Huppert MP, Member of Parliament for Cambridge
- Chi Onwurah MP, Member of Parliament for Newcastle Central
- Gus Hosein, Executive Director, Privacy International
Space is strictly limited, so please RSVP here
An investigation by the Press Association has revealed 300 serious data breaches in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), including information being passed on or sold to journalists. These revelations are likely to have a direct impact on the level of trust between the public and police, so it is essential that MPS now launches an urgent review into the security measures used for confidential and sensitive information.
With increasing amounts of information being collected by police forces, these data breaches make it clear that there is simply not enough has been done to ensure it is protected. The information held on police computers is of huge significance and for details to be disclosed, maliciously accessed or lost is completely unacceptable.
The 300 breaches, which cover a five year period, and range from minor rule-breaks on social media to serious allegations of misconduct leading to arrests. The instances include:
In a welcome step towards giving users increased controls over their personal information, Google has announced that it has stopped scanning millions of Gmail accounts of students, teachers and administrators who use the Google Apps for Education (GAE) service. Legacy users of GAE will also cease to have their emails scanned, as will current and legacy users of Google Apps for Government and Apps for Business services.
It is certainly telling that a company like Google, which is so reliant on data driven advertising, is taking steps to act on people’s concerns about their privacy.
Our 2013 global attitudes to privacy online survey, which included interviews of more than 10,000 people across nine countries, showed that two-fifths (41%) of consumers surveyed globally say that consumers are being harmed by big companies gathering large amounts of personal data for internal use. Two out of three (65%) of consumers surveyed also believe that national regulators should do more to force Google to comply with existing regulations concerning online privacy and the protection of personal data.
Big Brother Watch has today announced that it will start a recruitment process for a new Director as Nick Pickles departs the organisation.
Nick joined Big Brother Watch in September 2011 and has overseen a significant increase in the group’s profile and influence, giving oral evidence to both the UK and European Parliaments and representing Big Brother Watch at events in the US, EU and UK. Nick will join Twitter as UK Public Policy Manager.
Earlier this year Big Brother Watch’s Advisory Council was established, chaired by founder Matthew Elliott.
Matthew Elliott, founder of Big Brother Watch, said: “Big Brother Watch’s profile and reputation is formidable, commanding both media and political attention. Nick’s work has been instrumental in achieving this, but also in ensuring the group is set up for the long-term.
A survey conducted by the NASUWT teaching union, has highlighted that teachers are being subjected to “permanent surveillance” through the use of CCTV cameras in the classroom.
What is clear is that the surveillance experiment of the past twenty years has failed to reduce crime or improve public safety. Yet, schoolchildren and teachers across the country are now expected to accept surveillance for the formative years of their education and in the workplace.
Our report, The Class of 1984, shred light for the first time on the extent of surveillance within schools, highlighting that there are more than 100,000 CCTV cameras in secondary schools and academies across England, Wales and Scotland. Our report also showed that there is a ratio of one CCTV camera for every five pupils, more than two hundred schools are using CCTV in bathrooms and changing rooms and there are more cameras inside school buildings than outside.
Today we have published our latest report, Traffic Spies, highlighting how hundreds of councils have turned to static CCTV cameras and spy cars to raise £312m in revenue.
Many councils are continuing to use CCTV to hand out fines, despite the government publishing a Surveillance Camera Code of Practice highlighting the need to use CCTV for traffic offences “sparingly”, this research highlights that the number of CCTV cars in operation in the UK has increased by 87% since 2009.
The question must therefore be asked, if CCTV cameras are about public safety, why are local authorities able to use them to raise revenue? Furthermore, why are local authorities publishing no meaningful information about their use of CCTV for parking enforcement? Read more
At the end of 2013, we wrote about the Government’s plans to ban CCTV parking cameras, meaning that only traffic wardens and police would be able to film vehicles breaking the law.
The Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government launched a consultation asking whether CCTV parking cameras should be banned, in reaction to many councils who, rather than focusing on specific parking infringements, have taken the brazen approach of using CCTV cars to indiscriminately spy on drivers.
This of course has not gone down well with the Local Government Association (LGA), who have announced that they oppose the Governments plans, saying that the ban will do little to reduce the number of tickets given to drivers breaking the law but would put schoolchildren at risk and worsen road safety. What is clear is that the LGA has stood back and said nothing whilst councils have stung motorists for more than £300 million in fines, highlighting that this is about money rather than safety.
The Interception of Communications Commissioner has published his annual report highlighting the way that surveillance powers, provided under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, are used.
This report is a marked improvement on the quality and quantity of information that has been presented in the past, highlighting that it is certainly possible to be more transparent about how surveillance powers are used without jeapordising security. Yet there is much more than can and should be done to reassure the public.
For instance, whilst we are told that the total number of approved authorsations and notices for communications data (excluding urgent oral applications) in 2013 was 514,608, the fact remains that this report does not include the number of British citizens affected by these powers, or any meaningful detail on what sort of offences are being investigated. The Commissioner acknowledges this fact within the report, stating that “In my view the unreliability and inadequacy of the statistical requirements is a significant problem which requires attention”.
April 7, 2014
Posted in CCDP, Civil Liberties, Communications Data Bill, GCHQ, Mastering the Internet, Online privacy, Police, Research and reports, Surveillance, Technology
Last November we launched our ‘Time for Transparency’ campaign, revealing new polling that showed 66% of people want more information about how surveillance powers are used, with 70% wanting companies like BT and EE to publish their own reports about the requests they receive, as companies like Google, Facebook and Microsoft now regularly release.
Today we are publishing a paper detailing further proposals to improve transparency, following wide ranging discussions with companies, regulators and political figures, as well as discussions with people in the United States. The paper outlines how the Interception of Communications Commissioner should publish a breakdown of how individual agencies use powers to access communications information – currently just one total figure is published – as well as calling for clarification about whether British companies are handing over data ‘in bulk’ on thousands or millions of customers.
Today’s publication of the Health and Social Care Information Centre’s (HSCIC) register of data releases is striking for what it does not include. It is only the tip of the iceberg.
Minister Dr Dan Poulter told Parliament on 25 March that records of the data released by HSCIC would be made public and would cover “all the data releases” made. He said: “Following concerns expressed by the Health Select Committee in its meeting of February 25, Sir Nick Partridge, a newly-appointed Non-Executive Director on the HSCIC Board, has agreed to conduct an audit of all the data releases made by the predecessor organisation, the NHS Information Centre, and report on this to the HSCIC Board by the end of April. Furthermore, a report detailing all data released by the HSCIC from April 2013, (including the legal basis under which data was released and the purpose to which the data are being put), will be published by HSCIC on April 2. This report will be updated quarterly.”
This does not appear to be the case. HSCIC have either deliberately sought to limit the scale of the disclosure by concentrating on one data set – Hospital Episode Statistics – or they have such a poor grasp on what information has been released that they do not want to admit their ignorance. Either way, it is not a full publication and HSCIC must immediately explain why. Read more