IP: UK intelligence agencies want 7 years of records of all phone calls, emails and web browsing

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

>From: "Caspar Bowden" <cb@fipr.org>
>To: "Dave Farber (E-mail)" <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
>
>Hi Dave,
>
>get past the title and you'll see the implications are pretty nail-biting
>
>Document referred to now posted at http://cryptome.org/ncis-carnivore.htm
>
>See also:
>
>Observer 3/12/00: EDITORIAL -  Spied on from cradle to grave -
>http://www.observer.co.uk/leaders/story/0,6903,406160,00.html
>"...It is a scandalous proposal. British common law makes no presumption
>that the individual has the right to privacy and this has generated an
>extraordinary culture in British officialdom which presumes a right to
>investigate. As usual, there are no proposals for serious safeguards, such
>as requiring investigating authorities to apply to a court for the right to
>gain access to such information."
>--
>Caspar Bowden               Tel: +44(0)20 7354 2333
>Director, Foundation for Information Policy Research
>UPDATED: www.fipr.org/rip#media over 800 RIP stories archived
>
>
>http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,406191,00.html
>Secret plan to spy on all British phone calls
>
>Kamal Ahmed, political editor
>Sunday December 3, 2000
>
>Britain's intelligence services are seeking powers to seize all records of
>telephone calls, emails and internet connections made by every person living
>in this country.
>
>A document circulated to Home Office officials and obtained by The Observer
>reveals that MI5, MI6 and the police are demanding new legislation to log
>every phone call made in this country and store the information for seven
>years at a vast government-run 'data warehouse', a super computer that will
>hold the information.
>
>The secret moves, which will cost millions of pounds, were last night
>condemned by politicians and campaigners as a sinister expansion of 'Big
>Brother' state powers and a fundamental attack on the public's right to
>privacy.
>
>Last night, the Home Office admitted that it was giving the plans serious
>consideration.
>
>Lord Cope, the Conservative peer and a leading expert on privacy issues,
>said: 'We are sympathetic to the need for greater powers to fight modern
>types of crime. But vast banks of information on every member of the public
>can quickly slip into the world of Big Brother. I will be asking serious
>questions about this.' Maurice Frankel, a leading campaigner on per sonal
>data issues, called the powers 'sweeping' and a cause for worry.
>
>The document, which is classified 'restricted', says new laws are needed to
>allow the intelligence services, Customs and Excise and the police access to
>telephone and computer records of every member of the public.
>
>It suggests that the Home Office is sympathetic to the new powers, which
>would be used to tackle the growing problems of cybercrime, the use of
>computers by paedophiles to run child pornography rings, as well as
>terrorism and international drug trafficking.
>
>Every telephone call made and received by a member of the public, all emails
>sent and received and every web page looked at would be recorded.
>
>Calls made on mobile phones can already be pinpointed geographically, as can
>those made from land lines. The police would be able to use 'trawling'
>computer techniques to look through millions of telephone and email records.
>Campaigners say innocent people could have such highly personal information
>accessed.
>
>The document admits the moves are controversial and could clash with the
>Human Rights Act, which gives people a right to privacy, European Union law
>and the Data Protection Act, which protects the public against official
>intrusion into private lives.
>
>The office of the Data Protection Commissioner, Elizabeth France, has
>already expressed 'grave concerns' .
>
>'A clear legislative framework needs to be agreed as a matter of urgency,'
>says the document, which is dated 10 August and is thought to have been sent
>to Home Office Minister Charles Clarke.
>
>'Why should data be retained? In the interests of justice, to preserve and
>protect data for use as evidence to establish proof of innocence or guilt.
>For intelligence and evidence gathering purposes, to maintain the
>effectiveness of UK law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies to
>protect society.'
>
>The document is written by Roger Gaspar, the deputy director-general of the
>National Criminal Intelligence Service, the Government agency that oversees
>criminal intelligence in the United Kingdom. Gaspar, as head of intelligence
>for NCIS, is one of the most powerful and influential men in the field.
>
>The report says it is written 'on behalf of Acpo [the Association of Chief
>Police Officers], HM Customs and Excise, security service, secret
>intelligence service and GCHQ [the Government's secret listening centre
>based at Cheltenham]'.
>
>Gaspar argues telephone companies should be ordered to retain all records of
>phone calls and internet access.
>
>At the moment many telephone and internet service providers keep data for as
>little as 24 hours.
>
>'In the interests of verifying the accuracy of data specifically provided
>for either intelligence or evidential purposes, CSPs [communication service
>providers such as telephone or internet companies] should be under an
>obligation to retain the original data supplied for a period of seven years
>or for as long as the prosecuting authority directs,' the document says.
>
>'Informal discussions have taken place with the office of the data
>protection commissioner. Whilst they acknowledge that such communications
>data may be of value to the work of the agencies and the interests of
>justice they have grave reservations about longer term data retention.' The
>document says the new data warehouse would be run along similar lines to the
>National DNA Database for profiles of known criminals.
>
>It would cost about £3 million to set up and £9m a year to run.
>
>The report demands that the Government 'should be prepared to defend our
>position'.
>
>A spokesman for NCIS refused to be drawn on the report. 'I am not going to
>comment on a classified document that is in unauthorised hands,' he said.
>
>Meanwhile a Home Office spokesman said it had received the proposals and was
>considering them



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/