Terrorism Legislation

The alternatives to the draft Communications Data Bill

Posted on November 15, 2012 by Big Brother Watch Posted in CCDP, Communications Data Bill, Databases, Information Commissioner, Internet freedom, Online privacy, Surveillance, Technology, Terrorism Legislation | 1 Comment

The internet has clearly changed the way we communicate, and of course criminals are utilising the same technology we do to communicate with one another.

Big Brother Watch has submitted supplementary evidence to the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill highlighting the alternatives and opportunities available. The draft Bill, which would require details of our every email, website visit and social media log to be recorded, is currently under review from a specially convened joint committee of MPs and Peers.

We believe far more could be done without recording the online activity of every citizen and this post summarises our evidence to the comittee.

The Home Office gets some home truths from tech companies

Posted on October 15, 2012 by Big Brother Watch Posted in CCDP, Civil Liberties, Communications Data Bill, Internet freedom, Surveillance, Technology, Terrorism Legislation | 1 Comment

Given the importance placed upon communications data in the PR offensive before the draft Communications Data Bill was launched , you would hope that the process to draft the Bill was rigorous and fully involved the companies affected.

We already know from previous evidence that the main evidential basis for the bill came from a two week survey of selected police forces conducted fairly recently.

Now evidence from the Joint Committee’s private sessions with communications companies Google, Yahoo and Twitter (part 1) Facebook, Microsoft (covering both Skype and Hotmail) and Tor, (part 2) has now been published and casts serious doubt over the Home Office’s assertion that everything was hunky dory with the Bill.

Calling time on the Grim RIPA

Posted on August 22, 2012 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Civil Liberties, Communications Data Bill, Councils, Privacy, Protection of Freedoms Bill, Research and reports, Surveillance, Terrorism Legislation | 22 Comments

Our latest report, ‘A legacy of surveillance‘, looks at how the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act has been used by both local and public authorities in recent years.

A decade on and more than three million authorisations later, our research found how there is still a great deal of uncertainty about how and why the powers are being used – and a clear need for the Coalition to go further to protect civil liberties.

While the Coalition has changed the law to require local authorities to seek a magistrates warrant for RIPA surveillance and only to use it for serious crimes, this is not the end of the matter.

The Olympic pre-crime cover up

Posted on July 19, 2012 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Civil Liberties, Olympics, Police, Terrorism Legislation | 7 Comments

Some time ago, Big Brother Watch was contacted by a person who had just been visited by the police. Not because he was suspected of a crime or involved in one. The Police wanted to know what he was planning when the Olympic Torch Relay came to town. We’re told an 80 year old man was also visited.

This wasn’t based on any evidence something was being planned, nor had the individual been involved in anti-Olympic protests at other points on the torch relay. So we decided to find out how many others had been visited.

It turned out Devon and Cornwall visited 18 people, which seemed a surprisingly high number of people. So we decided to ask every other force in the country if they’d done the same.

On Monday this week we receieved six responses. Since then we’ve had a further ten. All the responses, with one exception, are identical. We can only assume someone, somewhere has supplied the forces with the template response to our request, but the detail is quite remarkable for it’s tone and severity.

The forces claim that “Disclosure of the information requested would cause operational harm to [insert force name] and affect the force’s ability to fulfil the core function of law enforcement in the future”

Apparently it’s a secret that the police talk to people.

It goes on: “The release of information identifying the focus of policing activity in safeguarding public order and the prevention of terrorism could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations.”

So anyone planning to protest during the Olympic torch relay is a terrorist now?

“To disclose intelligence, tactics and methods used to ensure the safety and security of the Olympic Torch Relay may make them ineffectual for future similar events and future Olympic Torch Relays which may pass through the United Kingdom.”

You’d be forgiven for thinking we’re making this up, but alas no.

The fact that police forces are devoting resources to pre-crime investigations about they Olympic torch relay demonstrates how utterly out of proportion the Olympic security operation has become. Rather than investigating crimes that have actually happened, the police are wasting their time questioning people about a potential protest, something that is neither a crime nor a security risk.

The Communications Data Bill – we are all suspects now

Posted on June 14, 2012 by Big Brother Watch Posted in CCDP, Civil Liberties, Information Commissioner, Internet freedom, Mastering the Internet, Online privacy, Privacy, Surveillance, Technology, Terrorism Legislation | 27 Comments

Let’s bust some myths.

Right now – without any new powers – the police and security services can read your emails, tap your phone, plant hidden cameras and microphones in your house and intercept your internet use. All of which can be done without any approval of a judge.

Since 2005, there have been more than 2.7 million requests by police and other public bodies for the communications data belonging to private individuals. Of these, fewer than 10,000 requests have come from local authorities. Oh, and none of those requests were authorised by a judge. For the Home Office to rush out an announcement that local councils will lose their snooping powers is nothing short of deliberate misdirection.

Aside from the blatant spin of announcing unprecedented spying powers during the PM’s testimony to the Leveson enquiry, the Home Office is trying to hide an unprecedented level of surveillance of the entire population behind a miniscule concession of removing the ability to access Communications Data from local councils.

This policy goes against the Coalition Agreement, against Conservative pre-election policy and is fundamentally an illiberal, intrusive boondoggle that will do little to improve national security and do everything to turn us into a nation of suspects.

Before the election, the Prime Minister said that “If we want to stop the state controlling us, we must confront this surveillance state.”

He was absolutely right.

Download our full briefing here.

First reading of the Justice and Security Bill

Posted on May 29, 2012 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Civil Liberties, Terrorism Legislation | 3 Comments

The first text of the Justice and Security Bill has been published, after a prolonged campaign against secret justice that Big Brother Watch has been proud to be a part of.

While Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has been writing in the Daily Mail about how he has rolled back his plans from a Green Paper he admits was ‘too broad’ there are still serious issues with the contents of the draft Bill.

The important thing to note is that while plans for secret inquests have been dropped, the plans for secret courts remain alive and well.

Crucially, there remains no legislative provision for an individual to challenge the process. A minister makes an application to the court, and ‘the court must make such a declaration’ if the criteria set out are satisfied. On first reading, there is no ability to challenge in court that the criteria are not satisfied.

Essential safeguards are still glaringly absent from the Bill, which would allow evidence of wrongdoing by the security services to be withheld with impunity. There is no obligation for the court to consider the public interest when agreeing for evidence to be heard in secret, nor for the judge to question the scope of the evidence to be heard behind closed doors.

Increased Parliamentary oversight of the intelligence services is to be welcomed, however the Bill remains a direct attack on the principle of open justice, and it is regrettable Ken Clarke did not bring forward a white paper prior to allow further discussion of these exceptionally sensitive matters.

Queen points to Communications Data Bill

Posted on May 9, 2012 by Big Brother Watch Posted in CCDP, Civil Liberties, Information Commissioner, Internet freedom, Mastering the Internet, Online privacy, Privacy, RIPA, Surveillance, Technology, Terrorism Legislation | 4 Comments

“My Government intends to bring forward measures to maintain the ability of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies to access vital communications data under strict safeguards to protect the public, subject to scrutiny of draft clauses.”

So there we have it – the Communication Capabilities Development Programme will have it’s day in Parliament. We don’t know what the draft clauses will be or when we will see them, but the Government remains intent on pursuing legislation in the coming session of Parliament.

If someone is suspected of plotting an attack the powers already exist to tap their phone, read their email and follow them on the street. Instead of scaremongering the Home Office should come forward and engage with the debate about how we improve public safety, rather than pursue a policy that will indiscriminately spy on everyone online while the real threats are driven underground and escape surveillance.

The Home Office have been very good at saying what the problem is, but seem intent on keeping the technical details of what they are proposing secret. Is it any wonder that the public are scared by a proposal for online surveillance not seen in any other Western democracy.

They also seem keen to avoid talking about the Black Boxes for real time monitoring capability that we still believe to be part of the plans.

Whether it is a draft Bill or not, if the Home Office needs to tread very, very carefully when it comes to proposing a level of online surveillance not seen in any other Western democracy. The proposals will rightly be closely scrutinised in Parliament and I hope the Conservatives fulfil their commitment to immediately give the plans to the Information Commissioner for pre-legislative scrutiny.

It’s far from clear this is technically possible, with encrypted messages, virtual private networks and onion browsers increasingly part of ordinary people’s online habits. Equally, the ‘black box’ measures risk introducing new security vulnerabilities into the UK’s critical national infrastructure. There’s also the pressing question of what the Bill will propose that isn’t already possible under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

And given that Lord Leveson is only beginning to explore how personal data was illegally obtained from private companies, I’m sure there are many MPs who will want to know how proposal isn’t going to create a huge new risk of people snooping on what politicians, celebrities or members of the public do online.

Before the election the Conservative policy on this was “immediately submitting the Home Office’s plans for the retention of – and access to – communications data to the Information Commissioner for pre-legislative scrutiny.” We don’t know if this has happened.

A draft bill will not offer the same wide-ranging consultation as an ordinary white paper, but there is still a long way to go before this becomes law, if indeed it does. Big Brother Watch will be working closely with privacy and civil society groups to ensure that proposals are scrutinised and if it is the illiberal, intrusive and indiscriminate measure we fear we will work tirelessly to ensure it does not pass into law.

You can also download our key issues briefing and our full briefing.

Key CCDP issues for the Home Secretary

Posted on April 23, 2012 by Big Brother Watch Posted in CCDP, Civil Liberties, Internet freedom, Mastering the Internet, Surveillance, Technology, Terrorism Legislation | 2 Comments

Tomorrow the Home Secretary appears before the Home Affairs Select Committee to discuss, among other things, the Communications Capability Development Programme.

This is a crucial opportunity for the Home Secretary to offer detail that has been badly lacking in the debate around CCDP and to offer the public an explanation of what has been planned. As we have repeatedly highlighted, much of the public concern about the policy could have been addressed with a more transparent and thorough policy making process.

We’ve summarised the key issues below and we look forward to the Home Secretary being able to address the concerns shared by businesses, civil liberties groups and MPs on all sides of the house.

You can also download our key issues briefing and our full briefing.

What we know:

Media statements by the Home Office have confirmed two key aspects of the CCDP proposals:

Increased retention of ‘header’ data (who emailed who & when) extended from phone companies to Internet Service Providers and other services (potentially social media companies)
Real time monitoring through physical ‘black boxes’ being installed on the UK’s internet architecture

What we do not know:

How much it will cost, either the taxpayer or businesses
Detail of what is ‘communications data’ to be retained
Whether it is technically feasible (particularly in respect of encrypted communications)
Who will have access to the data once it is collected, and by what authorisation
Whether it will require deep-packet inspection of web traffic Read more

CCDP : What we know

Posted on April 3, 2012 by Big Brother Watch Posted in CCDP, Civil Liberties, Data Protection, Information Commissioner, Internet freedom, Mastering the Internet, Surveillance, Technology, Terrorism Legislation | 11 Comments

After another day of confusion around the Government’s plans for increased surveillance powers, it now appears there is some back-tracking and the bill will only be a ‘draft’.

Here’s an update of some key points, while Privacy International have highlighted some serious issues with a briefing given to Liberal Democrat MPs.

Key issues:

The Coalition Agreement pledged: “We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason.”
The plans are expected to be announced in the Queen’s speech, meaning it is almost impossible they become law before the Olympics
Plans to install GCHQ’s own physical equipment to give them real-time access to data appear incompatable with proper judicial oversight of surveillance
The new proposals may remove the ability of service providers to challenge requests for data – Google last year only complied with 63% of requests
It is far from clear if this is technically possible, particularly where secure communications are used and it is impossible to expose ‘header’ information without also exposing content.
This will cost taxpayers billions, but also mean businesses incur new costs at a time when the Government is asking them to invest in high-speed internet infrastructure
The fact that this is not a ‘central’ database is being used as a smokescreen to detract from Lib Dem and Conservative promises in opposition
The 7/7 Inquest Coroner’s report discusses the issues involved with large amounts of data and surveillance: One point states “It is unlikely these could have been detected by surveillance given the large number of untraceable “operational” phones used by the bombers and only attributed to them once their identities and details were known.”

Ian Huntley, Surveillance and CCDP

Posted on April 3, 2012 by Big Brother Watch Posted in CCDP, Internet freedom, Mastering the Internet, Online privacy, Surveillance, Technology, Terrorism Legislation | 7 Comments

This morning the Home Secretary has come out and justified the Government’s plans to massively increase their surveillance. It seems that the justification is shifting from preventing incidents to helping convict people afterwards, as in the case of Ian Huntley.

How does this sit with the official enquiry?

“It emerged that Huntley had been known to the authorities over a period of years, coming into contact with the police and/or social services in relation to 11 separate incidents involving allegations of criminal offences, between1995 and 1999. Nine of these were sexual offences. This was not discovered in the vetting check carried out by Cambridgeshire Constabulary when he was appointed caretaker of Soham Village College late in 2001.”

So, the amount of data available to the authorities was not the issue – it was how they used it. This is not an isolated example.

Turning to the 7/7 Inquiry, the Coroner’s report discusses the issues involved with large amounts of data and surveillance:

“However, one must never lose sight of the fact that the material confronting the Security Service at the time would have comprised literally thousands of strands of intelligence of varying degrees of quality, in relation to thousands of possible contacts and hundreds of possible targets. The desk officers must usually work at speed and in very difficult conditions. We do not know the precise details, but we know enough properly to infer that the sheer scale and number of the threats facing the UK was immense. If one plot is discovered to involve an imminent threat to life resources must be diverted to meet it at the expense of other investigations.”

“Post 7/7 enquiries revealed that between 22nd February and 15th June 2005 there were forty one telephone contacts between mobile phones attributed to Tanweer, Khan, and Lindsay and hydroponics outlets. It is unlikely these could have been detected by surveillance given the large number of untraceable “operational” phones used by the bombers and only attributed to them once their identities and details were known.”

“There was some evidence on the question of the quality of the software supplied to the Security Service. G gave evidence that “it can be very difficult” to “dig into” the files and computer systems at the Security Service to try to find out if a particular person has previously come to their attention. Witness G was pressed on the ease with which the Security Service could, today, retrieve all references to someone with the surname Khan. He explained the difficulties given the large number of people bearing the name Khan. Inputting even the name Siddique Khan, for example, may not produce helpful results.”

Scaremongering about terrorists and paedophiles is not only a cheap and petty way of forcing policy through, but if we fail to learn the lessons of history public safety will be worse off.

—-

Update: Compare and contrast the Labour Home Secretary’s arguments with those of the current Home Secretary.

Jacqui Smith:“Communications data is used as important evidence in 95% of serious crime cases and in almost all security service operations since 2004.”

Theresa May: “Such data has been used in every security service terrorism investigation and 95 per cent of serious organised crime investigations over the last ten years.”

1 2 Next »

Media Enquiries

07505 448925(24hr)