During the early days of the coalition Big Brother Watch was encouraged by the numerous Home Office announcements declaring "reviews" of some of the previous government's more draconian policies were underway.
One such policy was that of the 'big brother' database of all communications in the UK, designed to allow "police, security services and other public bodies [to be able to] find out which websites a person had visited, and when, where and to whom a text or call was made".
Sadly, the Daily Mail today reports that Home Office ministers have been "persuaded of the case to give the police and security officials enhanced rights to access the public’s communications", a move which will allow officials to snoop on which websites you visit and any online 'phone calls you may make.
While it is encouraging that the coalition appears to have ruled out holding the data collected on one central database, this scheme still represents a significant intrusion on the privacy of the British people which must be strongly resisted.
Click here to read the full story.
If you would like to raise your objections to the scheme, please do get in touch with your local MP. Their details can be found at http://www.theyworkforyou.com.
By Daniel Hamilton.
Trouble is, my MP is a Labour stalwartess, and is all in favour of databases which would record the last time I took a dump, never mind visited an odd website or two.
I have come around steadily over the years to the view that if we take notice of a right-wing-sounding policy stated by a politician, it is immediately an odds-on racing certainty to be dropped quietly in the dung of the socialist state which has been built in this once green and pleasant land. For Tory, read a Socialist with a good PR man!
Rubbish, the lot of them. roll on the Revolution!
Posted by: Mike Cunningham | 20/10/2010 at 04:20 PM
This is a truly worrying revival of data retention plans and I'm sickened by the fact that the Liberals and Tories were giving Labour stick for it only to do the same thing.
The problem with these plans is that they made no mention of the proportionality needed in order to access the info. No one was disputing that security forces may need info at certain points, but it was the fact that they could get it without there being an independent safeguard, such as a warrant being needed from a judge.
We had to look at the intended or unintended (depending on your level of cynicism) consequences of law such as RIPA 2000 to see what could happen. It is not clear to me whether this law would be used in this situation (I think it probably would be applicable) but the 'interception warrants' under this law were not like ordinary warrants. They were secret warrants and there is no independent decision made on the proportionality of accessing your info.
I think there may also now be the real risk that public bodies could get hold of this info under RIPA too, which does not have a sufficient safeguard against abuse (as we have seen on many an occasion) but allows for surveillance if the government deems it proportionate and not an independent assessment (ie by a judge)
Yes, I was also under the impression that our ministers/authorities were using the EU to pass these measures in the first place. When the obligation under the directive was established it also allowed for the infamous practice of 'gold plating', that is going further than what was required. There doesn't seem to be any way to stop this and I agree that our relationship with the EU needs to be addressed. Sadly, trying to get the main three parties to discuss this is a non starter as they all support the EU unwaveringly it seems.
Posted by: Jeremy Hower | 22/10/2010 at 12:59 PM