Surveillance

Everything Everywhere, IpsosMori and the mystery of 27m peoples data

Posted on May 13, 2013 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Data Protection, Databases, Information Commissioner, Mobile Phones, Surveillance | 7 Comments

phone Yesterday’s Sunday Times carried an alarming story on its front page about the mobile phone data of 27 million EE customers being sold to IpsosMori, and in turn onto third parties including the Met Police.

The paper would clearly have not published without a sufficiently high standard of evidence and the Met police’s reaction – to suddenly announce it was abandoning the plans, despite high-level meetings in recent weeks – suggests a nerve has been touched.

The paper’s evidence is clearly damming. “Documents to promote the data reveal that it includes “gender, age, postcode, websites visited, time of day text is sent [and] location of customer when call is made”. They state that people’s mobile phone use and location can be tracked in real time with records of movements, calls and texts also available for the previous six months.”

We have already made Freedom of Information Act requests for these documents, and urge IpsosMori to publish them urgently to allay public concerns.

Everything Everywhere needs to come clean on what data it is releasing, and why it is storing this data where there is no business purpose.

What’s in an IP address?

Posted on May 8, 2013 by Big Brother Watch Posted in CCDP, Civil Liberties, Online privacy, Privacy, Surveillance, Technology | 6 Comments

While the Communications Data Bill has scrapped, the one issue that remains live is the ‘resolution of IP addresses’ – particularly where mobile phone operators may have millions of customers using just a few hundred IP addresses. Deputy Director Emma Carr appeared on the Daily Politics yesterday to discuss the issue.

An IP address is (put simply) the address you access the internet through (although ways of masking this are nothing new nor particularly technically challenging). We think it reasonable that the issue is investigated so that where the police have an IP address from a service provider, they are able to trace that back to the person using the service. It may be possible to address this through small, technical changes to existing legislation, rather than a new Bill. Indeed, the draft Communications Data Bill went far, far beyond being a focused attempt to solve this problem.

Is anonymous whistleblowing a thing of the past?

Posted on May 1, 2013 by Emma Carr Posted in Civil Liberties, Privacy, RIPA, Surveillance | 1 Comment

We have warned on multiple occasions about the abuse of surveillance powers by public authorities and the subsequent importance of having judicial approval for officials who want to snoop on us, whether it is in the ‘real’ world or online.

Last year we highlighted that more than three million authorisations under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) were issued, leading to questions about how and why the powers are being used. We also published research that shows that HMRC made 41,351 snooping requests for details of phone calls and mobile texts between 2009 and 2011. The only police forces to make more requests in the same period were the Metropolitan police and Merseyside police.

It has since come to light that HMRC has used surveillance legislation to identify a whistleblower who uncovered a ‘sweetheart’ deal with Goldman Sachs. Osita Mba had used the Public Interest Disclosure Act to write to the National Audit Office and two parliamentary committees in 2011 saying that the head of tax, Dave Hartnett, had “let off” Goldman Sachs from paying at least £10m in interest. The identity of Mba was then revealed to HMRC by the clerk of the public accounts committee, who sought clarification that he was a genuine revenue employee.

Following the story appearing in the Guardian in October 2011, Mba was put under internal investigation by the revenue, useing RIPA to access the emails, internet search records and telephone calls of a revenue solicitor, and his wife, Claudia.

Perhaps shockingly for many, RIPA allows HMRC the ability to view highly personal information of taxpayers, including the websites accessed, the mobile calls made or received, the date and time of emails, texts and phone calls. Despite the revenue claiming that RIPA powers “can only be used when investigating serious crime”, it is very clear from the use of the powers in this case, that this isn’t always so.

We have seen how new surveillance powers that are created, intended only for the most serious of crimes, very quickly becomes available to everyone from councils to the Health and Safety Executive. It is unacceptable for public authorities to keep secret details of why they are spying on the public and their own employees and to do so without seeking a court’s approval. Judicial approval for spying on us should be the norm, not the exception and the public have a right to know why and how these powers are being used.

The snoopers charter is dead

Posted on April 25, 2013 by Big Brother Watch Posted in CCDP, Communications Data Bill, Databases, Featured, Information Commissioner, Surveillance, Technology | 8 Comments

i paper More than a year ago, we learned that the Home Office was resurrecting it’s plan to monitor every British citizens’ internet use.

Big Brother Watch led the charge against these plans, giving evidence to Parliament, urging our supporters to write to their MPs and being the central force in the media campaign against the so called Snoopers Charter. We highlighted how the Home Office had misrepresented the work of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre to support the bill, demonstrated alternatives were available – and that was before the technology companies tore into the proposals.

Big Brother Watch Draft Communications Data Bill committee press conference When the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill published our report, we hosted a press conference that included David Davis MP, Jimmy Wales, Sir Chris Fox and Lord MacDonald.

Last week, we published 15 reasons why the Bill was the wrong approach.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, has just announced that the Communications Data Bill is dead. He said on LBC : “What people dub the snoopers’ charter, that’s not going to happen – certainly with Lib Dems in government.”

(Governments by convention never comment directly on the content of the Queen’s speech so it is impossible for it to be explicitly ruled out, however “not going to happen” is a fairly clear signal.)

Nick Clegg has made the right decision for our economy, for internet security and for our freedom.

The taxman wants to HMRC who you’ve been calling

Posted on April 23, 2013 by Big Brother Watch Posted in CCDP, Civil Liberties, Communications Data Bill, Internet freedom, Surveillance, Technology | 2 Comments

Under the (brilliant) headline ‘We’re Under Atax’ the Sun exclusively reveals today reveals the extent of the taxman’s snooping.

As our Freedom of Information request shows, Between 2009 and 2011, HRMC made 41,351 snooping requests for details of phone calls and mobile texts. The only police forces to make more requests in the same period were the Metropolitan police and Merseyside police.

Given how often these powers are being used by HMRC, it’s strange that nobody has mentioned the Government’s Snoopers’ charter will give the taxman access to who you email or chat online with and what websites you visit.

Indeed, this is before the Communications Data Bill comes in, the taxman is making more than 1,000 snooping requests every month – and clearly if it does ever become law, that number will explode.

The taxman doesn’t need to know if you’ve been reading the Sun online, nor does any other part of Government. But if the data is collected it’ll be a stampede for people to have a look, from the Health and Safety Executive to parking wardens.

Communications data, North Korea style

Posted on April 19, 2013 by Big Brother Watch Posted in CCDP, Communications Data Bill, International, Internet freedom, Online privacy, Privacy, Surveillance, Technology | 9 Comments

One of the Prime Minister’s closest advisors has warned that the Home Office’s Communications Data plans to monitor email and web use could be “disastrous” and compared it to North Korea.

As reported by the Telegraph, Ben Hammersley, a Number 10 adviser to the Tech City project, the told magazine Tank:

“As a society, it would be stupid to build the infrastructure that could be used to oppress us. It just never works out well, because even if you’re using it for good stuff now, the fact that we don’t know who is going to be in charge in ten years’ time means that we shouldn’t give them free toys to play with.”

This follows remarks he made last year, when Mr Hammersley said the plans were ‘hilarious’ because of their technical naivety:

“The idea that the internet is like the postal service or like the copper line phone network in that it can be monitored in such a way is hilarious, because it can’t be technologically speaking, unless you become North Korea. Unless you become massively draconian you can’t either monitor propery or censor completely the internet.”

We previously highlighted the number of public organisations given access to the data – covering who you email, which websites you browse and the social media messages you send – is inevitably going to increase, with more than 30 already asking for the data before the bill has even been presented to parliament. This ‘function creep’ was also identified by Hammersley, who warned :

“I don’t trust future governments. The successors of the politicians who put this in place might not be trustworthy.

Fifteen reasons the Communications Data Bill is the wrong approach

Posted on April 12, 2013 by Big Brother Watch Posted in CCDP, Communications Data Bill, Information Commissioner, Internet freedom, Mastering the Internet, Surveillance | 4 Comments

i paper The Home Office still appears to be pressing ahead with it’s plans to monitor the internet and many of our supporters have asked for an update of what is happening. Simply, we do not know. The process remains as it began – closed, without public consultation and driven by desire to implement the same pre-determined solution we have seen for nearly a decade. So, as we are unable to say what is happening, we can summarise the wide range of arguments – many of which were not considered by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill – why the Bill is the wrong approach at the wrong time.

The policy is based on the argument that less data is available now. This is plainly untrue. Far, far more data is available now, however it is unclear if the police are able to make best use of this new data.
It tries to force the internet into the framework of landline telephones.
The cost of the plan – £2bn – will be taken from front line policing budgets to pay for another massive Whitehall IT project, instead of funding more specialist officers and better training.
It has been formulated without public consultation, while one company – Detica – is apparently both providing advice on what is feasible, while also selling the consultancy and hardware required to implement the law.
Encrypted communications will not be captured, at a time when businesses are moving to more encryption. The policy risks driving the uptake of secure communications, reducing even further the amount of data available.
The policy involves paying private companies to create and store data about how their customers use the internet, when they have no reason to do so other than the state demanding it.
It also allows for service providers to be ordered by the Government to collect data about third party services, including foreign companies.
Less democratic regimes will be at liberty to monitor the emails and internet use of every citizen under the guise of ‘we are doing what Britain is doing’. This destroys decades of foreign policy work on maintaining a free and open internet.
It puts Britain at a major competitive disadvantage internationally – small companies will not want to start here in fear of growing large and being slapped with an Order from the Home Office, while those served will be hamstrung by the technical specifications imposed on them by Whitehall and the need to divert resources to comply with the requirements
It will do nothing to improve the ability of law enforcement agencies to access data held by foreign companies, who co-operate voluntarily.
Equally, it does nothing to speed up the legal process for international requests for data
It retains a model of the police self-authorising access to data, without independent or judicial oversight
As soon as the data is collected, the list of people with access will grow. From the Health and Safety Executive to divorce lawyer, as with every previous law of this type the number of people who have access will only grow.
It risks introducing security vulnerabilities into communications networks that form a core part of our critical national infrastructure.
There is a risk of legislating too soon to fix a perceived problem that turns out to be the wrong approach, without considering a wider range of approaches. (Remember how the Digital Economy Act turned out?) The Home Office decided on this approach a decade ago and have barely revised their approach since the 2009 consultation that ruled out a central database.

In summary, this is an out-dated, poorly formulated policy and risks doing more harm than good. No wonder then that the Home Office don’t seem keen to talk about it or undertake any kind of public consultation.

Boom in private investigators risks avoiding surveillance regulation

Posted on March 17, 2013 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Civil Liberties, Councils, Featured, Research and reports, Surveillance | 18 Comments

photographer 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 tree provisions in the US, and broader protection offered by the Fourth Amendment, UK law risks failing to join up the evidential admissibility process and the regulation of surveillance.

While the surveillance doesn’t come cheap, with some organisation spending thousands of pounds on a single operation, the primary finding of the report is the potential loophole in surveillance regulation that is being exploited following the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Accordingly, we are seriously concerned there is a gap in UK law emerging around surveillance and the ability of third parties to conduct surveillance operations without proper regulation. Some of these operations were conducted at the request of insurers, raising concerns about conflicts of interest.

The government has acted to control surveillance by local councils but this research shows more than ever before public bodies are using private detectives to do their snooping. The law is at breaking point and public bodies shouldn’t be able to dodge the legal checks on them by using private investigators.

Commenting on our report, Secretary of State for Local Government, Eric Pickles (no relation!) said “Such powers can only be used for serious crimes, and require a magistrates’ warrant. It is totally unacceptable if councils are trying to sidestep these important new checks and they should be held to account for acting outside the law.”

With as many as 10,000 people working as private investigators in the UK, we agree with the Home Affairs Select Committee that the current legal framework for regulating their activities is wholly inadequate.

This highlights the ongoing concern that RIPA is not fit for purpose, in failing to deal with evidence and material obtained outside the legislative framework. Equally, the changing nature of surveillance – particularly the ability to search online, through social networks and through semi-public sources of information – further reinforces the need for the law to be reformed to strengthen protection against unwarranted and unauthorised surveillance becoming a frequent occurrence.

Deputy Director Emma Carr appeared on Sky News sunrise discussing the report, with BBC News, Metro, The Daily Telegraph, ITV News, BBC Radio 5 Live, Politics.co.uk, LocalGov and numerous regional media including the York Press, Huddersfield Examiner and the Sunderland Echo reporting our findings.

Who’s snooping on your relationship status?

Posted on March 14, 2013 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Councils, Online privacy, Surveillance | 9 Comments

ITteam Next time you change your Facebook relationship status, think twice about what your local council might think.

As Tony Bell found, saying he was ‘married’ led to his local council deciding he was no longer entitled to his single person council tax discount – despite the ‘marriage’ being a joke to wind up colleagues.

We’ve warned before that the law is badly lacking when it comes to this kind of snooping and this case highlights why it’s a problem that’s only going to get worse.

If the council had sent someone out to see what was going on, they would have to seek a magistrates approval for surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Yet doing it online appears to fall totally outside these rules.

This weekend we’ll be publishing details of public authorities using private investigators, and it is clear this is not an isolated case.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »

Media Enquiries

07505 448925(24hr)