Big Brother Watch

Use of RIPA to spy on individuals has increased in the last year

Under the previous government, legislation designed to combat terrorism and serious crime was utilised by local councils to spy on residents for trivial matters such as school catchment areas and putting rubbish bins out too early. In their coalition agreement, the two parties in power promised to roll back the unnecessary, intrusive use of these powers, but unfortunately the reality has been very different.

Last year, public bodies made 552,550 requests under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to request access to confidential communications data. This is a 5% increase from 2009 and a massive 10% increase from the 504,073 requests in 2008. Although the majority are from police and security services, 1,809 were made by local authorities, an increase from 1,756 requests last year.

As well as the rise in the use of the RIPA, the results revealed there were over 1,700 errors amongst the requests. This can lead to the monitoring of incorrect numbers or email addresses, affecting innocent people who are not connected to any investigation.

Conservative MP Dominic Raab, who is a staunch supporter of civil liberties, said:

“This disturbing data demonstrates the importance of the coalition's Freedom Bill – to reverse the legacy of Labour's surveillance society.”

Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, has already revealed that surveillance technology is advancing at such a rapid rate that regulators are finding it almost impossible to deal with the changes. He claimed that recent changes had seen snooping techniques “intensify and expand” to the point where watchdogs do not fully understand the methods utilised under the act.

The Coalition proposal to require all local council use of the RIPA to be sanctioned by a magistrate is currently going through Parliament, but the increasing use of the powers highlights the necessity to enforce tight regulation on these intrusive measures which should only ever have been used to combat terrorism and serious crime as they were intended.

Links of the day Tuesday 14th June 2011

Human rights warning over school discipline plans

CCTV website rapped on privacy

Should we repeal the Human Rights Act?

Government split over enforcing the Digital Economy Act

Metro Bank in email error snafu

Commons hit by rash of laptop thefts

CCTV parking blitz nets more than £43k

Links of the day Friday 10th June 2011

Please note these are articles and opinions we found interesting, however they do not necessarily represent the views of Big Brother Watch

Council CCTV award win criticised

Hackers warn NHS over security

Cabinet Office talks to Facebook & co about new ID system

Personal data stolen from UK developer Codemasters

Facebook facial recognition tool probed by UK regulator over 'obvious' privacy issues

Two fined for mobile data breaches

CCTV car plans approved

One Year On: The Coalition and Civil Liberties

Big Brother Watch has today (11th May) released a research paper outlining the progress the Coalition Government has made on civil liberties issues during its first year in office.

The paper concludes that, while real progress has been made, many of the Coalition's promises to roll back the power of the state remain unfulfilled.

Click here to download the report

Commenting on the report, Big Brother Watch Director Daniel Hamilton said:

"The Coalition has some real achievements to speak off. 

"Ministers should be congratulated for taking steps to scrap ID cards and remove the profiles of the one million innocent people held on the national DNA database.   They should also be praised for doing away with the ContactPoint database of children’s details and reforming the criminal record check regime.

"They do, however, have more work to do. 

"Police stop and search powers remain in place, Control Orders remain virtually unreformed and there has been no opt-out from the European Arrest Warrant.  When it comes to E-Borders, the Summary Care Record and Intercept Modernisation Programme, they have continued to implement the previous government’s policies – warts and all." 

Drivers to be fined £80 for littering – even if it wasn’t them

In what seems like a continuing war on motorists, drivers will face £80 fines which could rise to £2,500 for litter being thrown from their vehicle, even if the driver themselves did not throw it.

Ministers are considering changing the law via the Localism Bill, currently progressing through Parliament, so that motorists are responsible for any rubbish which comes out of their own vehicles. Council Officers will take down number plates as well as using CCTV cameras to identify offenders. Fines will then be issued to the owner of the vehicle. If the owner cannot identify who actually dropped the litter, they must pay the £80 fine. If drivers refuse, they could face a magistrates’ court, with a fine up to £2,500. This is designed to stop appeals and to scare motorists into paying quickly.

Clyde Loakes, vice-chairman of the Local Government Association's environment board said that litter louts are currently getting away scot-free, and closing the current loophole should cover some of the £850m needed to keep streets clean.

"It's time to get tough on lazy, selfish people who toss rubbish from moving cars and expect other people to cover the cost of cleaning it up," he added.

The potential change to the law comes after councils and environmental campaigners have pressed for years, claiming the current system makes it nearly impossible to prosecute drivers for littering.

Of course littering can be a problem on roads, as well as occasionally being dangerous when vehicles are moving at speed, but this seems like yet another attempt to raise council funds by enforcing harsh penalties on drivers, who may not have even known about the littering. Local councils should look at reducing their costs in this financial climate before spying on people in cars in an effort to impose draconian fines.

Eastleigh Borough Council leak secret list of 'undesirables’

According a news report sent through to the BBW team this morning by a supporter in Hampshire, Eastleigh Borough Council have been compiling a secret list of "undesirable" local residents which is made available to councillors, council staff and private contractors.

Following an administrative blunder, however, the list is no longer a secret!  Father-of-five Matthew Myatt, a regular contributor to the Eastleigh News, has been handed a copy of the list of "potentially aggressive clients" which council chiefs feel its staff need "protecting from".

Mr Myatt is understandably upset to have been included on the list - especially given that he has no criminal convictions and whose only 'crime' appears to have been a disagreement with a council official several years ago.  Quite rightly, he is angry that his name has "been circulated to private contractors who could decline to offer him goods or services because some faceless council official". 

The council have written to Mr Myatt demanding he return the list to them, yet have not offered him any form of explanation or apology. 

We have written to the Chief Executive of Eastleigh Borough Council, Bernie Topham, demanding the council issue a full and public apology to Mr Myatt and all those included on this list.  You can ask her yourself, by e-mailing [email protected] or 'phoning 02380 688257.

You can view the whole story here. 

Council refuses bin collection on grounds of weeds being "covered in mud"

The Big Brother Watch team are no strangers to petty municipal bureaucracy, a story we've been sent this morning really does take the biscuit...

According to a report in the Daily Mail, a 74-year-old green-fingered grandmother has been told by council binmen that they are unable to collect her rubbish as a result of her bin containing weeds which have "too much mud stuck to their roots".  When she complained about their nit-picking, a 'Community Recycling Officer' was promptly dispatched to her home who then conducted a thorough sift through her rubbish in order to "examine just how dirty its contents were".

The lady in question, Kay McIntyre said: "‘It’s the lunatics in charge of the asylum. Are we going to be asked to wash our weeds next?".  The answer, Mrs McIntyre, appears to be "yes".

Click here for the full story.

The Blackshirts of Barnet

By Amy Wevill

Security guards wearing secret cameras on their lapels have been hired by Barnet council to control local meetings. The cameras, which also record sound, were used to “amass evidence” claims a director of the private security firm MetPro Rapid Response.

Not only were the guards wearing these cameras but it seems they had an altogether threatening demeanour and approach. One 85 year old local resident claimed they reminded him of the Blackshirts. Seven such guards were present at the budgetary meeting on 1^st March where no criminality took place.  

Barnet council claims to have terminated their contract with MetPro Rapid Response, which has now gone into liquidation. However, a new company was set up in January called MetPro Emergency Response which boasts testimonials from Barnet council on their website. It remains unclear whether a contract exists here.

The response from Barnet council to an article in the Ham & High states that they never authorised the cameras. This is frankly unsatisfactory. These measures were completely unnecessary and this case demonstrates how local councils should take greater when contracting out such services.

Kingston CCTV car snapped on double yellow line

In this week's Kingston Guardian there's an amusing story about a CCTV car which was captured parking on double yellow lines outside a Police station.   Residents rightly feel aggrieved that these expensive vehicles have the right to snoop on us at will also feel free to disobey the rules the rest of us must follow, for fear of being hit with extortionate fines.

A Kingston Council spokesman said: “Stopping on the double yellow line is permitted while undertaking enforcement. The CCTV vehicle was enforcing an appropriate restriction, where loading/unloading is not permitted on Kingston Hall Road.”

That's us told!  It's one rule for them, one for the rest of us...

Darlington councillors furiously protest repeal of RIPA

By Frank Manning

It seems some councillors cannot see the writing on the wall when it comes to councils using covert surveillance to snoop on residents. The Northern Echo reports that Darlington Borough Council considers their use of surveillance (a frankly staggering 124 times since 2007) appropriate.

The Conservative councillor Charles Johnson criticised the Council’s use of the RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) last week, instead advocating their use only for serious crimes such as benefit fraud. But Chris McEwan, the Council’s Cabinet Member with the Portfolio for Efficiency and Resources, was bullish in his response:

"I make no apology for using these powers… If people object to the use of these powers, they need to speak to the residents I deal with who are asking for us as a local authority to deal with inconsiderate neighbours who make noise, people who cause anti-social behaviour and shops who sell to underage drinkers.”

Considering those residents have no way of knowing if they themselves have been under surveillance, I wonder if they would appreciate the use of expensive, wasteful and intrusive methods of snooping on local residents. These people have been monitored without their knowledge, simply on the whim of a council, with no accountability and no requirement of reasonable suspicion. How anyone can justify using these methods to deal with something as trivial as noise is astounding.

In a statement which showed his lack of awareness on the issue, another councillor Bill Dixon, claimed:

“Whose civil liberties are we putting first here? I would put the civil liberties of the victims above the civil liberties of the perpetrators…. I don’t understand why something that works so well, and has no history of abuse, is being targeted in this way. It beggars belief.”

Aside from the litany of abuses of the RIPA, discussed at length by Big Brother Watch before, including monitoring a family to check if they lived in a school catchment area, the fact that Mr Dixon does not even realise the damage done to civil liberties by the misuse of the RIPA truly does beggar belief.

Thankfully the coalition has announced that:

“We will ban the use of powers in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) by councils, unless they are signed off by a magistrate and required for stopping serious crime.”

The sooner these changes come into effect and councils no longer have the power to justify these wildly disproportionate levels of surveillance the better for everyone… except Darlington councillors, apparently.

Bailiffs deploying ANPR cameras to catch out Southwark residents

According to a report in the South London Press, baliffs are increasingly turning to automatic number-plate recognition (ANPR) cameras in their efforts to track down motorists who have failed to pay their parking fines. 

A spokesman for Southwark Borough Council confirmed that "it is something they have been doing very actively in the last six months". The SLP's report goes on to say:

"The number plate scanners are set up in main roads and sound an alarm when a wanted number plate is read from the roadside.

"Bailiffs are then able to locate the car and follow it to find out where the driver lives.

"A warrant of execution to recover property, such as the car that sparked the ANPR alarm, can then be issued"

It’s outrageous to think that bailiffs are using ANPR cameras to snoop on all motorists going in and out of the Borough. This technology should be used only sparingly by trained professionals, not by glorified bounty hunters who are then able to follow people to their private homes.   Through the new Freedom Bill, which will toughen up the regulation of CCTV cameras and their use by local councils, the Government should take urgent steps to prevent bailiffs from abusing ANPR technology in this way.

Click here for the full story.

Gran fined - for picking up litter!

Occasionally, the Big Brother Watch team are confronted with examples of truly mind-blowing stories about the behaviour of local council officials.

The case of Lesley Apps is one such example. While walking through Coventry city centre, the 64 year old grandmother noticed a cigarette wrapper had fallen out of her pocket and onto the pavement below. Noticing her inadvertent littering, she stooped to pick up the wrapper, struggling with back problems as she did it. At that very same moment, a local council official swooped in and issued her with a £50 fine for littering the pavement.

Whatever happened to common sense? (The likely answer is that, in council officer-land, common sense has been surplanted for a culture of commission based fines - the more you issue, the more money you dosh you take home).

The whole torrid tale, which is brought to us c/o the Coventry Telegraph, can be found here.

Hat-tip: PT

Victory for Big Brother Watch: Fenland Council backs ditches staff kiss-and-tell policy

Last week, Big Brother Watch spoke out against an instrusive proposal put before Fenland District councillors which would have allowed council officers to intrude into the personal lives of their employees.  The story received widespread coverage across the country and was featured in almost 150 different newspapers.

According to the proposal laid before councillors, employees who are engaged in relationships with other members of staff would have been forced to "declare the relationship to his/her manager in writing" with the information then being "recorded on the personal files of both employees" and shared across the HR department. Failure to comply with the rules would have been treated as a disciplinary offence.

Thankfully, councillors thought better of adopting this policy and unanimously rejected it.  Indeed, according to a report by Brian Famer "one councillor labelled the proposal the "bonk and be booted out" policy and said it had come from the "database of daft ideas". Another said publicity about the plan had turned the council into a "laughing stock"". 

This is a real victory for common sense, but it's tragic that this bullying council had to be humiliated in the international media before the management conceded defeat. If this story hadn't gone around the world, they'd still be intruding on their staff - they haven't admitted they're wrong, they've just been beaten.

The absurdity of this overbearing snooping is apparently obvious to anyone who doesn't work in local government.

"Tell us who you're sleeping with"

Late yesterday afternoon, news reached the Big Brother Watch team of a report which will soon be placed in front of Fenland District councillors which seeks to place restrictions upon "close personal relationships" in the workplace.

According to the report, which will be examined by the council's Staff Committee, council employees who are engaged in relationships with other members of staff must "declare the relationship to his/her manager in writing" with the information then being "recorded on the personal files of both employees" and shared across the HR department. Failure to comply with the rules will be treated as a disciplinary offence.

Big Brother Watch's view on this is simple: people should not be expected to divulge details about their personal circumstances to their employers. Quite apart from the fact it's wrong for Fenland District Council to build up this kind of database, what people do in their own time is up to them. If people are good at their jobs, they should be left alone – regardless of who they share their bed with at the end of the day.

The full "relationships at work" report can be accessed here.

Big Brother Watch Campaign Director Daniel Hamilton will be discussing this issue on BBC Look East at 1:30pm today.

Public sector snooping has to stop

Over at the Yorkshire Post, Jack Blanchard brings news of the "dozens of police officers, nurses, social workers, council staff and other public servants caught snooping in the private files of people living in Yorkshire".

Among the examples offered in his article "include numerous police officers caught running criminal record checks against ex-partners and family members, a council finance officer in Rotherham found looking up the private details of 72 friends and neighbours, and a doctor in Doncaster caught looking at a colleague's medical records".

It is scandalous to think that people in positions of trust have abused their access to sensitive personal information in this way. 

It should not have been possible for this gross invasion of privacy to take place., yet is perhaps unsurprising given the sheer number of (often-unvetted) individuals who have access to our sensitive personal information.

It is clear that an urgent public sector review is needed in order to ensure that access to private data is restricted to only a small number of trusted staff, rather than applying the 'scatter-gun' approach to database access that many bodies currently employ.

Let's be clear here: access to information such as one's medical records, criminal record status or financial records is common theft.  Any staff member working for a public or private sector organisation who is found guilty of misusing private records must face immediate dismissal.  No excuses.

Into the Lion's Den...

Our Director, Alex Deane, took part in a debate in Newcastle at an international security conference in November, with

•DCC Graeme Gerrard, deputy chief constable of Cheshire and the ACPO lead on CCTV
•Colin Murphy, deputy chair of the PCMA and CCTV coordinator of the Safer Birmingham Partnership
•Gordon McLanaghan, manager of the Emergency Control Centre at Bristol City Council
•Simon Adcock,  a member of the British Security Industry Association's (BSIA) CCTV Technical Committee (TC/10), and advises on CCTV related issues
•Dr Pete Fussey, Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Essex

Do check out the footage. A fair crack of the whip is extended to BBW but you'll see tha that the slant of the audience and panel is obvious. You will see some very interesting inside chat from the security industry, for example about how little compliance there is with the law within the industry - and, in one highlight, Alex is confronted by a pleasingly angry representative from Bromley Council, who was named and shamed in our RIPA report - you will enjoy Alex's response.

With thanks to the guys at Security Media for recording the event so well

Lambeth Council bans sparklers

Ah, Bonfire Night; that great British tradition.  Barking dogs, children cheering, mulled wine, hot dogs - even sparklers.

Well, unless you live in Lambeth where Town Hall officials have issued a statement ordering residents not to bring sparklers to their local firework display "as they will be confiscated on safety grounds".

By banning sparklers on “health and safety” grounds, Lambeth Council are indulging in nanny-statism of the very worst kind.  Surely parents should be responsible for their kids’ safety on Bonfire Night - including the decision about whether or not they can use sparklers - not council officers?

By Daniel Hamilton

Speed cameras 2.0

As if speed cameras weren't widespread enough, motorists will soon have to contend with a new generation of roadside snooping devices surveying their every movement.

At a cost of £1.7 million, a fleet of 'ASSET' (Advances Safety and Driver Support for Essential Road Transport) speed cameras which are able to ascertain whether or not drivers are wearing seat belts, the status of their tax disc and insurance coverage and the speed they are travelling are set to be installed in many areas across Britain.  The manufacturers hope that the cameras will ultimately be able to identify lorries carrying excessive loads, assess poor road surfaces and automatically inspect the quality of motorists' brakes and tyres.

The quality of the technology aside, there is little evidence to suggest that speed cameras actually improve road safety - but rather that they serve as significant income-generators for local councils.

Of course, a large part of the reason for introducing such technology is to replace the function of existing Police road patrols - just as the expansion of CCTV coverage in urban areas has been concurrent with a reduction in effective community policing. 

By Daniel Hamilton

My speech to the Libertarian Alliance: Anonymity is not a Crime

I gave this speech this weekend and thought that readers might be interested. It's a bit long and I look like the left side of my face is slowly being cooked by the lighting, but it's not a bad speech I think.

Topics covered:

* Intercept Modernisation Programme

* Stop and Search

* ID Cards

* Control Orders

* NICE databases

Topic I would have covered if I had time, and will be addressing again very soon indeed: European Arrest Warrant

By Alex Deane

Allotments and privacy

I've personally never really seen the attraction of having an allotment - they seem like a lot of hard-work for a very limited around of return. But that's just my view.

With allotments in mind, news has reached Big Brother Watch of the ludicrous situation of a Lincolnshire council demanding to know the sexual orientation, race and religion of those applying for one of the eighteen vacant plots in the City of Lincoln.

Local allotment-holders' association leader Fred Hyde was correct when he said:

"It's damned intrusive. Why do they want to know all these details? All these people are doing is trying to grow some fruit and veg. If I got one through, I'd send it right back and would be advising my members to do the same"

Quite why the sexual orientation of an allotment holder should be a matter of concern to Lincoln City Council is a mystery - although it does constitute a gross invasion of privacy which should be strongly resisted.

Click here for the full story.

By Daniel Hamilton.

Smoking and surveillance

Big Brother Watch has long been critical of the way in which local councils utilise the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIPA) in order to pursue vendettas against businesses and individuals. The act, which allows council to undertake cover surveillance, was originally passed under the auspices of cutting down on benefit fraud yet is now utilised by councils for a variety of purposes.

A Big Brother Watch supporter has written in alerting us to the case of a Norwich pub who were spied on following concerns that they may not be adhering to the smoking ban.

Regardless of one's views on smoking, it is clear preposterous that town hall officials should be utilising legislation like RIPA in order to enforce the smoking ban. Would a forcefully-worded letter to the pub owner warning them about their infrigement of the rules banning smoking in public places not have been more appropriate than launching a James Bond-style covert surveillance plan?

Click here to read the full story.

Hat tip: DA

By Daniel Hamilton.

From "ciggy busters to "eco detectives"

Schools are always keen to be seen as integral parts of their local community; rightly encouraging young people to get involved in volunteering in order to improve the area in which they live.

A new scheme operating in North London, however, goes one step too far.

Rather than simply encouraging a considerate approach to the environment, school children are being actively encouraged to sign up as "eco detectives" in order to identify and personally harrass individuals who have failed to clean up their dog's mess, dropped litter or such like.

Enfield Borough Council's website explains:

"120 children... aged between eight and eleven are helping the Council to improve their local area by reporting environmental problems. By 2010 all Enfield primary schools will be invited to join Eco Detectives to help improve their environment. We hope that the scheme will then extend to secondary schools"

The Council's website further goes on to show pictures of children dispensing "graffiti removal kits to would-be offenders" and discussing drawings they made made "depicting the environmental problems they encountered" while 'on patrol'. 

It doesn't stop there. 

Eight year old Michael tells us, in no uncertain terms, that "flytipping can happen anytime, anywhere, is illegal and if you get caught the fines are huge".  Super sleuth school-kid Dimitri remarks that "graffiti can be drawings, pictures or tags sprayed, painted or etched onto surfaces, usually fences or walls".  You learn something new every day.  Finally, Alisa lands the knock-out blow when she informs us that "dogs' mess is smelly, not nice if you tread in it and it’s against the law for owners not to pick it up".

Enfield's scheme follows on from the comically-inspired "ciggy busters" scheme operated by a Medway school in which teams of school-kid vigilantes patrolled the streets whipping cigarettes out of the mouths of smokers.

Schools: why not focus on education, not the never-ending pursuit of "right on", politically-correct initiatives?

By Daniel Hamilton.

A review of the current playing field for civil liberties

I have written an extended piece for the website Critical Reaction reviewing the various outstanding civil liberties issues under the Coalition. Part 1 is here - Part 2 is here.

By Alex Deane

Does the Human Rights Act really protect our freedoms?

Francis Hoar is a barrister specialising in criminal law

The recent, sad and untimely death of Lord Bingham, KG, one of this country's finest jurists, calls for a reflection on the importance of the rule of law, about which he wrote so recently. Most importantly, what lessons can we learn from three decades in which Lord Bingham sat as a judge?

It is right to speak with pride of the legacy of Britain's common law system. Its principles are the foundation of legal system throughout the world protecting the individual against the State. The common law experience shows the merit of laws derived not from the codification of abstract principles but through the resolution of real conflicts and disputes. Yet anyone who watched the BBC's brilliant Garrow's Law will have had an insight into how little protection was trial by jury in a world without a fair police force, thorough investigation and  strict rules of evidence and disclosure.  As we all know, the experiences of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four demonstrated how inadequate protection against such abuses lived on into the late 20th century.

The recent general election again brought into the fore debate about the effects of the Human Rights Act 1998 ('the HRA') and the European Convention on Human Rights ('the ECHR') it incorporated. As a criminal barrister, though, I would rather start with one of the finest pieces of legislation of the 20th century, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ('PACE'). It is through this Act that suspects' interviews must be tape recorded, identification parades held and evidence obtained through oppression excluded. These parts of the criminal justice process may not appear particularly important to a layman but they are critical. Fine principles are toothless without carefully drafted rules (whether from statute or case law) to ensure a process that appears fair isn't corrupted at critical stages, leading to injustice at best but at worst the imprisonment of the innocent for years, even decades.

Binning leaves draws £1000 fine

It is hard to think of a more pointless and pathetic set of rules than those implemented by local councils around what not to put in your bins.

Today the Daily Mail reports on the latest case of law-abiding people being threatened for ridiculous bin-based non-crimes:

Community-minded residents have had a ticking off for sweeping up leaves from outside their homes - because it is against council rules.

The rules outlined in Street Pride documents state leaves off the highway should not be put into brown bins because of 'contamination'.

Persistent offenders who break waste collection rules, including placing the ‘wrong’ materials in bins, could potentially face a fine of up to £1,000.

There isn't much more that needs to be said about the stupidity of this action from Walsall Council, but perhaps of more interest is the statement from Council leader, Mike Bird:

'Anyone who has made comments to people about sweeping up leaves is taking the rules to the extreme. We are trying to encourage more pride in the community and this is the perfect example of a lady doing that and she should be praised.'

The very same Mike Bird that won our inaugural 'Bad Boy of the Week' award back in May for praising his council's ridiculously high usage of RIPA.

Not yet forgiven Mike, but a welcome and unexpected slice of commonsense nonetheless.

By Dylan Sharpe

Big Brother Watch reports to become Government policy?

Of course, since our creation around 12 months ago we have campaigned for the scrapping of ID cards and ContactPoint (two pledges that the Government has so far honoured); and we are but one organisation in a field of several fine campaigning groups who are having real influence on Coalition policy.

But, of the five major reports we have produced to date, at least three have been specifically aimed at protecting yourselves and your homes from council officers and government inspectors.

In focussing on the dizzying number of powers of entry provided to town hall bureaucrats (our Barging In report is available here), the proliferation of microchips being placed in our rubbish bins (our Lifting the Lid report is available here) and the gross exploitation of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (The Grim RIPA report is available here) - we were hoping to push those in power into making the right decision and scale back (and in, some cases, remove) the enormous ease that the state had to snoop, stalk and intrude on our privacy.

So, the article entitled 'Tories call time on town hall snoops' which appeared in the Sunday Times yesterday, comes as an enormous vindication of our hard work and your support:

(you will forgive me for printing a substantial section of the article as it is currently hidden behind a paywall)

Town Hall snoopers who use anti-terrorist legislation to spy on law-abiding local residents are to have their surveillance powers removed in a rollingback of the Big Brother state. Eric Pickles, secretary of state for communities and local government, has accused the previous Labour government of creating "a modern day Stasi" and said he was putting an end to the abuse of civil liberties by officials.

The minister also plans to stop council officials using spy satellite images to monitor home improvements when assessing properties for council tax. He also intends to curb the powers of council tax valuers to enter people's homes.

A "Freedom Bill" being drafted by civil servants will also prevent local government snoopers from going through bins to check whether households have disposed of their rubbish properly.

Ministers are also considering stopping councils from using microchips on bins to monitor the amount of rubbish people throw away.

"It used to be the case that an Englishman's home was his castle - but no longer. Our new coalition will stand up for the privacy and liberty of lawabiding citizens. We are calling time on this modern-day Stasi."

Under the reform proposals, councils will be banned from using the Ripa surveillance powers except to tackle serious criminal offences that would lead to a custodial sentence, if the person was convicted. The coalition government will also require a magistrate to authorise use of the act to provide another check on abuse.

The Labour government created more than 500 new powers allowing officials, including bailiffs, to enter people's homes. Pickles is planning to scrap a law introduced by Labour that allows bailiffs to force entry into houses to collect civil debts.

One government source said: "A series of policy measures are under active consideration. Big Brother snoopers will be curtailed."

Big Brother Watch exists to expose the worst excesses of our surveillance state and through media, on-the-ground and online campaigning; lobby and, where necessary, shame decision-makers into rolling-back the intrusive powers they would otherwise cling to.

Of course, we are not planning the victory parade yet, and will have to wait and see how this promised "Freedom Bill" arrives, but the early announcements are very promising and we want to thank you for all your support in helping us to bring these issues to the fore.

By Dylan Sharpe

The council won't let you sell your own car

Medway Council are at it again. In a week in which I thought the bullying autocrats at Sandwell Council were going to be the focus of my ire, Medway have sprung from nowhere to be Britain's most overbearing authority.

Their other misdemeanours are chronicled here, but the latest one probably takes the biscuit.

Medway Council's Environment Enforcement team have forbidden anyone to place a 'for sale' sign on their own car and park it outside their own house, on their street.

As the Kent Chronicle explains:

Trainee plumber Pete Dolling stuck no more than a sheet of paper inside his windscreen advertising his R-reg Ford Escort outside his mum's house in Hempstead.

Soon after, he got a notice slapped on the window from the council's Environment Enforcement Team telling him he had to get their permission to sell his car and then shift it within week four weeks, or risk having it forcibly removed.

The notice said: "The vehicle to which this notice is attached is being offered for sale without consent from Medway Council."

The notice demanded Pete, 32, wrote to the council to prove ownership of the car, that he was not a trader and that it was not causing a nuisance where it was parked, otherwise it would be removed and he would be charged for the cost.

That's right, Pete should have written to the council to ask if he could sell his car. But since when did councils have any sort of jurisdiction over the sale of private property?

If they really wanted to establish he wasn't a trader (although - as a commenter on the Kent website points out - in order to be done as a trader he would have to be advertising in "two or more motor vehicles parked within 500 metres of each other") then they could simply leave a note asking him to call and confirm.

But no, they would rather threaten, demand foreknowledge, and finally give a time limit before they send one of their jobsworths round to tow his car.

The hand-written note in the back window is officially banned.

By Dylan Sharpe

Oxfordshire council deliberately deceives drivers

With the politicians on holiday and tasty news stories thin on the ground, BBC Breakfast returned to an old favourite this morning, choosing to discuss whether speeding had become "socially acceptable".

The kicker they used was a clever little experiment conducted by Oxfordshire Council who told everyone a couple of their speed cameras had been turned off but actually...they hadn't.

Oh what pranksters!

But hold on; the council is bandying around the figures for the number of people they caught speeding, who's to say the photographs weren't taken or the numberplates logged? How many other councils forced into turning off their money-making machines due to 'budget constraints' have actually been merrily snapping away?

The deception is dubious, but I personally found the inversion from the way CCTV operates (everyone thinks it's on, but it's regularly off) particularly poignant. 

By Dylan Sharpe

Council officers given access to police records

One of the major reasons we are opposed to local councils possessing the RIPA powers (as detailed in our last report - The Grim RIPA) is that council officers do not have the respect or the accountability of the police - and have not had the same training - yet for some reason they do have the power to place members of the public under covert surveillance.

This latest story from the Uxbridge Gazette suggests that in some local authorities, council officers may have gained an additional advantage:

Seven staff members at Three Rivers District Council (TRDC) have been granted special powers, including access to the police national computer - which holds sensitive information including previous arrests, cautions and convictions.

Four environment officers, two housing officers and an animal control enforcement officer are now able to ask for the name and address of anyone suspected of causing anti-social behaviour or noise nuisance, such as minor offences including leaving car alarms unattended.

As with RIPA, the council's defence is that they are tackling the issues their residents want tackled. But I am certain that most people living in TRDC would rather the police cracked-down on anti-social behaviour, than a bureaucrat with a few weeks training.

Then there is the question of what other information these council officers could see or get hold of while carrying out their duties?

On the day that the Home Secretary admits more civilians will have to be involved with the police to balance the books, the slow, sly transfer of policing powers to faceless bureaucrats and private firms is a very worrying trend.

By Dylan Sharpe

A small win on RIPA

Almost exactly a month ago, Big Brother Watch released a report analysing the use of RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) by local councils in Britain.

Every council was assessed on the number of times they had authorised RIPA requests over the past two years, and a number of the local authorities found themselves under pressure from their local media.

While some of these - for instance, the Leader of Walsall Council Mike Bird - shrugged off our accusations of excessive and overbearing use of what is essentially anti-terror legislation; others have recognised the need for change and this latest announcement from West Berkshire Council is particularly commendable:

Changes to the controversial legislation under which West Berkshire Council carries out covert operations have been introduced.

At the council’s Executive meeting last Thursday Hilary Cole outlined a report which covered alterations to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which came into force on April 6, and how it would affect the council.

The latest changes include the appointing of a Senior Responsible Officer (SRO), who would be responsible for maintaining the integrity of the process and the management of covert human intelligence sources.

The council is also required to provide quarterly update reports to the governance and audit committee, and become a member of the Anti-Fraud Network.

While Big Brother Watch would like to see the RIPA powers taken away from councils permanently, changes like this one proposed by West Berkshire show that some local authorities are finally recognising the intrusive potential that RIPA provides - and taking steps to curb it.

By Dylan Sharpe

The end is just the beginning

Two weeks ago I wrote with some distaste that the Government - or perhaps more accurately, Environment Minister Caroline Spelman - had performed a wicked u-turn and ruled-out banning the use of "pay-as-you-throw" taxes.

But over the weekend it emerged that the Coalition's conscience had fought back as the Sunday Express explains:

Labour's plans for pay-as-you-throw bin taxes will be dumped tomorrow, freeing householders from the threat of £100 charges for producing too much rubbish.

A senior source at the Department for Communities and Local Government said pilot schemes underway would be “consigned to the dustbin of history,” making good on a Tory election promise.

As Big Brother Watch revealed earlier this year, over 2.6 million households have had their bins microchipped - a devious form of waste surveillance that provides councils with yet more private data and is the first step on the road to home-owners being charged for the amount they throw away.

But while we can all be pleased with the announcement this morning (one which we made a call for in our election manifesto), there is still some cause for concern.

From the BBC News website:

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles is backing a recycling reward scheme pioneered by Windsor and Maidenhead council in Berkshire.

Households in the borough will be awarded points for the amount they recycle, which can be redeemed at shops, restaurants and leisure centres, or donated to schools.

The government argues that such incentives are more effective than taxes or fines in reducing the amount of rubbish sent to landfill sites.

The move away from fine to reward is welcome, but the Government's encouragement to install microchips in our bins for any reason must be treated with suspicion.

Any scheme can start out with pure motives before being used for bad reasons. And Big Brother Watch is committed to reducing the level of surveillance in this country.

Therefore we support the end of 'bin taxes' but warn that these so-called reward schemes should be resisted wherever possible.

By Dylan Sharpe

Today Programme interview about Council RIPA surveillance

The transcript of my interview on the Today Programme this week is now online at our YouTube channel.

Have a listen - whilst you're there, why not take the opportunity to watch some of our other videos online, and perhaps subscribe to our channel?

By Alex Deane

Bad boy of the week

In our report out this week about Councils (mis)using RIPA, Walsall Council came third in the table of most-likely-to-spy-on-you, thankfully a quality unlikely to appear in High School Graduation Yearbooks, you might think. The Council used covert surveillance to watch residents 215 times in the past two years (the vast majority of whom, incidentally, will have been entirely innocent in every way).

Yesterday on BBC West Midlands, I debated against the leader of the Council, Conservative Councillor Mike Bird. Well, what an experience. Some might blush at the news that their authority is a snooptastic bunch of snoopers. Not our Mike. He said, inter alia -

I'm proud that we do this. When I heard we'd come third, I was disappointed. I wish we'd come first. Now we've got something to aim at next year!

I said, but if you watch people and find that they're innocent, you never tell them that they've been watched - are you proud of that too?

Dear old Mike replied:

Oh, yes - that's how it works! It wouldn't work, otherwise! The police don't tell terrorists they were watched - so why should we?

That is, he is happy his Council doesn't tell innocent residents they supposedly represent and look after that they and their families were watched by council officers via covert surveillance for days or even weeks. Still, he's probably right - if people were told they were spied on, it wouldn't work - because the uproar would swiftly lead to an end to these powers. And he is, erm, disarmingly honest. So... Mike Bird (in post as a Councillor since 1980, don't you know, and in no way a captive of the bureaucratic machine over which he presides): you are our first Bad Boy of the Week...

If you live in Walsall, you are so lucky!

By Alex Deane

Your nominations for future holders of this position are most welcome. For those who might claim gender inequality in the title, I point out that I can only regret starting this after Meg Hillier's welcome fall, as she would inevitably have got the gong - more than once

**UPDATE here's the link to listen. My recall above of some of the phrasing he used in the interview wasn't exact (I'd spoken to a supporter in the region who'd listened to another interview Bird had given on the day, in which he'd made similar boasts) - but on listening again Bird's comments are, if anything, even worse than I'd recalled**

The Grim Ripa: Local councils authorising 11 covert surveillance operations a day

New research conducted by Big Brother Watch - the non-partisan grassroots campaign fighting intrusions on our privacy and freedom - reveals that councils in Great Britain have authorised over 8,500 RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) operations in the past two years

To read the full report - The Grim Ripa - including a complete break-down of authorisations by councils in the periods 2008-09 and 2009-10, please click this link

Top lines from the report include:

• 372 local authorities in Great Britain have conducted RIPA surveillance operations in 8,575 cases since 1st April 2008

• Councils alone have carried out over eleven surveillance operations every day in England, Scotland and Wales over the past two years
  

• Newcastle-upon-Tyne is the worst local authority in the country for RIPA investigations, having spied on their residents 231 times in two years. West Berkshire and Walsall follow closely behind with 228 and 215 authorisations respectively since 1st April 2008.
  

• Authorities have used covert surveillance for reasons including spying on their own employees, dog fouling, people breaking the smoking ban and even the test purchase of a puppy!

Research conducted by Big Brother Watch has revealed that 372 local councils in England, Scotland and Wales have authorised 8,575 Directed Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Source authorisations under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) and RIPSA in the period 1st April 2008 - 31st March 2010. Dividing the total number of authorisations (8,575) by the number of days (730), this is the equivalent of councils authorising over 11 covert surveillance operations a day in the past two years.

In the coalition document released last week, the new government pledged to "ban the use of powers in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) by councils, unless they are signed off by a magistrate and required for stopping serious crime." Although Big Brother Watch welcome a restriction on the use of RIPA, we believe that councils should not have these powers at all. If an alleged wrongdoing is serious enough to merit covert surveillance, then it should be investigated by the police. Our research has found that innocent people have been placed under surveillance for minor crimes ranging from littering and dog fouling to smoking in a public place.

Alex Deane, Director of Big Brother Watch, said:

"Now that the absurd and excessive use of RIPA surveillance has been revealed, these powers have to be taken away from Councils. The Coalition Government plan to force councils to get warrants before snooping on us is good, but doesn’t go far enough. If the offence is serious enough to merit covert surveillance, then it should be in the hands of the police."

To read the full report - The Grim Ripa - including a complete break-down of authorisations by councils in the periods 2008-09 and 2009-10, please click this link

Snooping powers enter the election debate

On Sunday, the Conservatives followed-through on the proposals first revealed by Dominic Grieve at the Big Brother Watch/CPS event An Unwarranted Intrusion - and announced that all officials except police officers and emergency workers would be required to obtain warrants before demanding access to properties.

As the Daily Telegraph explained:

The Conservatives say there are now 1,242 pieces of legislation public servants can use to enter homes, including powers to search for unregulated hypnotists, a dancing bear without a permit, bovine semen or a fridge with the wrong energy rating.

The plans would require officials from Whitehall, councils or quangoes to obtain a magistrates' warrant before raiding a home.

Warrants would only be issued where a serious criminal offence or clear threat to public safety was suspected. 

For those unaware, powers of entry was the topic of the second major report produced by Big Brother Watch, called Barging In (read the full report here). These proposals by the Conservatives are welcome and timely, especially the curbs on council powers of entry.

As it stands, there are too many laws allowing too many state inspectors and bureaucrats into our homes. When a council official knocks on the door, we shouldn't have to be worried that they are going to go snooping through our bedroom.

The sooner that fear is erased and the number reduced, the sooner we can rectify this dangerous loophole compromising our private space.

By Dylan Sharpe

Westminster Lifestyle Survey

Whilst my walk home from work takes me past the Home Office and countless CCTV cameras, it is not often that one returns home to find the Big Brother state staring up from the doormat. Yet, that is exactly what happened last night when I stepped inside my front door and found the 'Westminster Lifestyle Survey' waiting patiently for my return.

The stated purpose of the document is to 'paint a clearer picture of the daily lives of our local community' which, although intrusive, could be seen as having some utility in terms of local service provision. But it is hard not to be shocked by the intrusiveness of some of the questions.

The survey successfully nails each of the 'big hitters' in terms of interfering, nannying government. If you click on the thumbnails to the right you will see a few of the pages residents are encouraged to answer.

There is, of course, a 'what you eat' and 'smoking and drinking' questionnaire; the more concerning 'how do you feel?' and then the terrific 'About You', which not only requires you hand over all the standard information, but also your estimated household income and 'working status'.

NHS Westminster skillfully plays to its intended audience by offering a £10 high-street shopping voucher to the first 100 people to return the document completed, and claim that any personal information is kept 'strictly confidential'. 

There are several questions that come to mind. Why, for instance, does the survey require a name, address and financial income? - if it were simply for targeting local services it would not matter who was responding.

But the overall impression one gets reading this survey is that it is all about building a profile for each person in the area, so that they can be targeted and sold-to at every opportunity. The state wants to know what we eat, drink, smoke and feel because it already knows where we go, how much we spend and what our interests are.

Privacy is a foreign country.

By Dylan Sharpe

Powers of entry to private property - Lord Selsdon leads the way

Lord Selsdon's Bill limiting powers of entry by bureaucrats to private property is progressing. in the Lords - it is but the latest of his many admirable efforts to restrict the remarkably wide-ranging powers available to many officials up and down the country for a multiplicity of reasons. Big Brother Watch is proud to support him in his work and I am on the steering committee he's setting up to assist with the Bill and the aftermath.

You'll remember our recent research and event on this issue (which the great Lord S attended!).

We'll keep you posted on the progress of the Bill.

By Alex Deane

State sanctioned vigilantism

Some excellent work from the Daily Telegraph this morning reveals that the Government is planning on handing out police powers to several more members of the public under a major expansion of its 'Community Safety Accreditation Scheme' (CSAS).

As the Telegraph reports:

Under CSAS, a chief constable can give employees of local authorities or private companies limited powers such as the right to hand out on-the-spot fines for offences including disorder, truancy and littering; stopping vehicles for roadside tests and confiscating alcohol.

They have their own uniform and badge and can demand names and addresses as well as take photographs of offenders.

The Government has quietly announced it plans to review the scheme with chief police officers to see how it can be expanded further.

A section buried in a recent Home Office neighbourhood policing strategy document read: "CSAS is a powerful way for the police to work with partners and to make the most out of other people whose job is to keep their neighbourhoods safe by giving them a limited range of powers to tackle ASB (anti-social behaviour).

"The Government and ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officer) will review CSAS to see how it can be expanded to more forces and organisations."

There are already 1,667 so-called "accredited persons" in England and Wales and a further 478 civilians have been given the power to stop vehicles to check for out-of-date tax discs. The vice-chair of the Police Federation has said that the scheme is growing "out of control" and it is deeply unpopular with rank and file police officers.  

The fact is that councils are trying to plug a gap created by their wasteful spending and the excessive law-making of our present government. Town Halls are sending out civilians in police clothing to find people to fine for the litany of pathetic non-crimes we are now subject to.

Those empowered by these schemes don’t have anything near the proper training, experience or respect to try and boss around members of the public.

By Dylan Sharpe

Edinburgh Council send support workers on snooping classes

Edinburgh City Council has begun sending staff on courses designed to train them to look out for anything that might resemble 'terrorist activity'.

According to the Edinburgh Evening News:

Staff sources say that the sessions have included being told how to spot anything suspicious, and being asked to report anything – no matter how trivial – to police, such as quantities of empty bottles of bleach.

Support workers who visit a range of clients in their own home including vulnerable groups, people with addictions and elderly people, have been among the first to get the training.

Concierges, community safety teams and other front-line staff across the council are also to be sent on the sessions, which are hosted by police as part of the Home Office's counter-terrorism strategy.

This is disgraceful fearmongering that erodes trust in society and encourages spying, snooping and suspicion.

Perhaps most shocking of all is Edinburgh Council's decision to start the course with 'support workers working with the elderly and infirm, physically disabled, and those with mental health and learning disabilities, as well people with drug and alcohol addictions and the homeless'.

So, instead of prioritising the most disadvantaged in society, Edinburgh's hard-pressed social workers will now be searching for anything that looks vaguely 'terrorist', even something as benign as empty bottles of bleach. 

A sad state of affairs.

By Dylan Sharpe

Lancashire Council has used snooping powers over 300 times since 2004

One always thinks that covert surveillance powers are meant for suspected serious crimes and and terrorist offences.  And then, as we've revealed before, a local council pops up to disabuse you.

Over at the Lancashire Evening Post, some good Freedom of Information request research by the newspaper has revealed that Lancashire County Council has used RIPA powers over 300 times since 2004.

In the "statement that should never have had to have been made" of the week, Mark Jewell, Liberal Democrat councillor for Preston North West ward, said:

"it is not acceptable for authorities to spy on their own cleaners – as the county council did."

But then, why try to develop good management practices when you can instruct the boys in black to whip out the telephoto lenses?

RIPA powers should be banned for local authorities, or at least heavily curtailed.

By Alex Deane