Big Brother Watch

European Parliament approves reforms to Data Protection Directive

Following the publishing of the ICO’s annual report this morning, the European Parliament has approved reforms to the Commission’s Data Protection Directive of 1995. These are designed to give more control to individuals over any information held on them by organisations and companies, as well as placing a responsibility on those bodies to inform people of any data breaches which occur involving their personal information.

Axel Voss, the German MEP, wrote the report for the European Parliament, which had demanded more accountability from businesses with regards to data breaches. E.U. citizens will now be able to delete, correct or block their information easily.

The EU Justice Commisioner, Viviane Reding, claimed: “Putting people back in control of their personal data is a priority for me.”

By the end of the year the European Commission is expected to finalise new legislation to dramatically modernise European data protection rules.

Dr Miguel-Angel Meizoso and the European Arrest Warrant

At Big Brother Watch, we have long warned about the pernicious nature of the European Arrest Warrant and how it can be misused to persecute those who have either commuted no crime at all or an offence so minor that international extradition would be inappropriate.

Alex Deane, a member of the Big Brother Watch Advisory Council has written to the Home Secretary in order to seek clarifications from her surrounding the case of Dr Migel-Angel Meizoso, a Spanish national whose extradition is currently being sought by his home nation:

"I am writing to draw your attention to the case of Dr. Miguel-Angel Meizoso, the Spanish citizen who has claimed political asylum on 27 June 2011. It is, of course, very unusual for an EU national to claim asylum; especially for someone who, like Dr. Meizoso, has lived in this country for the past 20 years. Furthermore, it is an EU mechanism - the European Arrest Warrant - that he is asking protection from.

"We at Big Brother Watch are gravely concerned about the EAW regime and other threats to civil liberties arising from the European Union. We welcome the fact that the government has recognised that EAW system is open to abuse and commissioned the independent review led by Sir Scott Baker.

"In these circumstances, it is my view that Dr. Meizoso's case raises issues of great public importance, and the Big Brother Watch intends to follow it closely. We are confident that you will give his asylum claim a fair and careful consideration."

We will keep you in touch with this case, including the response we receive from the Home Secretary Theresa May MP.

European Parliament Civil Liberties Committee release report on data protection

A report by the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee has called for businesses in the E.U. to make it more straightforward for customers to access and delete any data stored about them.

The report, released on Wednesday by chairman Juan Fernando López Aguilar, suggested that companies should consider the appointment of specific data protection officers to facilitate this.

It also recommended that children who use social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter must be protected by EU data privacy rules

The report received almost complete approval from the Committee, with 49 MEPs voting in favour and only one voting against.

The main conclusions of the report can be found here.

EU-wide DNA database ruled out... for now

Over at Public Service, there's an article drawing our attention to comments made by Europol Director Rob Wainwright about the future of DNA record sharing across Europe.

Speaking to the website, Wainwright said:

"I am not sure a major European DNA database for every citizen would be the right balance, it would be disproportionate so it's not something that is going to happen in the short term, I am sure".

While it is encouraging that such a database has been ruled out in the short term, his comment is hardly a forceful rejection of the principle of such a database. 

We will be pushing Home Secretary Theresa May to confirm, if such a scheme is mooted, that she has no such plans for the UK to cooperate with such a scheme. Watch this space...

European Commission aims to ban plastic shopping bags

In their infinite wisdom, the European Union risked further alienating people in Britain last night by calling for a ban on plastic shopping bags. The move, designed to benefit the environment, will mean imposing an expensive tax on shopping bags or banning them altogether.

Retailers have reacted angrily to the suggestion, claiming it will damage the already precarious state of the economy by putting people off shopping. It could dramatically reduce impulse purchases, or force people into buying expensive semi-permanent bags instead. Richard Dodd, spokesman of the British Retail Consortium said yesterday:

“A Europe-wide ban on bags is unnecessary. It is likely to alienate customers from the green agenda, which is the opposite of what the European Union is trying to do. It is not appropriate for the EU to get involved.”

“Retailers have been very successful already at working with customers on reducing the number of bags handed out. This has been achieved on a voluntary basis and is the best way. Many people already carry their own bags around with them – but because they want to, not because they are being forced to.”

“Climate change is important, but these bags are the wrong focus and should not be demonised. They are not the major issue. Food waste, for example, is a far more important issue.”

But the European Commission are keen to make the case for the environment. EU Environment Commissioner Janez Potocnik said:

“Fifty years ago, the single-use plastic bag was almost unheard of. Now we use them for a few minutes and they pollute our environment for decades. That’s why we are looking at all the options, including a Europe-wide ban on plastic carrier bags.”

“Social attitudes are evolving and there is a widespread desire for change. We need the views of as many people as possible to complement our scientific analyses and help drive policy on this issue, which is suffocating our ­environment.”

Efforts to move consumers from disposable plastic bags to reusable, more durable bags have resulted in every home in the country having dozens of these ‘bags-for-life’ which are summarily forgotten virtually every time anyone goes shopping, leading to the purchase of yet more. While they have various uses around the home such as rubbish bags and storage, this is not solving an environmental issue.

To change habits which are so entrenched in Britain requires a step change in behaviour. Many supermarkets are leading the way with loyalty incentives for re-using bags, which is more likely to work as a subtle way of influencing people. We do not need the E.U. to legislate a solution to this problem.

UPDATE:

Previous research by the Government-funded Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) (reported in The Telegraph) found that a levy on plastic bags in Ireland only made matters worse. They revealed that plastic bags make up less than 1 percent of litter, which is highly efficient compared to other forms of packaging. Industry bodies claimed Ireland's levy led to a fivefold increase in the use of plastic. Although WRAP doubted this figure, they were certain more plastic would be used as thicker, heavier rubbish bags would be used instead. They warned that local authorities may end up paying more in administration for the tax than they would receive from implementing it.

EU watchdogs to demand high level of protection for mobile phone users’ location data

It is expected that the EU data protection watchdogs will tell the European Commission that the location data stored by mobile phones should be considered personal data, and therefore receive a high level of protection. If accepted by the Commission, it is highly likely that provisions will be written into the Data Protection Directive later on in the year for the protection of location-based data.

This advice follows worrying reports that mobiles such as the iPhone and those containing Google’s Android interface store location data in an unencrypted manner, allowing potential hackers to see all your movements for the preceding months or even years.

The New York Times has reported that the Article 29 working party will explain its findings this Friday, where it is highly likely their report will contain opinions about geographic locations. This body contains regulators of data protection from all 27 member countries, operating independently of the Commission to avoid any conflict of interest.

Matthew Newman, a spokesman for the Commission's vice president Viviane Reding, said that protecting personal data obtained through new technologies was a priority for the Commission. Reding is leading a review of European privacy laws. Newman said:

"The Commission is currently analysing all forms of new technology and we will take into consideration social network sites and the rise of data-sharing like photos and the use of cloud computing and behavioural advertising when we reform the Data Protection Directive later this year.

"The technology has moved on in leaps and bounds since the Directive came into force more than 15 years ago, so what we want to do is see how people are using the technologies and how that relates to personal data to make sure that people's fundamental rights are protected.”

Location data from your mobile phone is self evidently personal data and should be treated as such in law. It's just a shame it's the EU, not Westminster who are stepping up to take action on this issue.

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." 

EU director calls for new EU Intelligence Agency

By Michael Heaver

In a potentially worrying new development EU counter-terrorism director Oliver Luyckx has called for a new EU-wide intelligence agency, aimed at becoming a “one-stop shop for information sharing”.

The EU already has instruments such as the European Arrest Warrant that demand compulsory extradition, with Baroness Ashton acting as the EU’s High Representative for Security Policy and Foreign Affairs.

Luyckz’s demand for a new powerful EU terrorism division would see the creation of a massive new agency, forcing Britain’s MI5 and MI6 to share its information on citizens with this new EU counterpart that would see the merger of EU security bodies including Frontex, Europol, Eurojust and Cosi. It could become the largest and most powerful counter-terrorism unit ever since in Europe, with information on British citizens being easier to access by foreign security agencies than ever before.

Habeas corpus and the European Arrest Warrant

Long-standing Big Brother Watch supporter Lord Vinson has been active in Parliament this week on the issue of the European Arrest Warrant.  In the exchange below, he questioned the Home Office Minister Pauline Neville-Jones on the compatibility of the EAW with the age-old concept of habeas corpus. 

Lord Vinson: To ask Her Majesty’s Government to what extent the European Arrest Warrant and European Investigation Order conform with the principle of habeas corpus.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones): The UK’s transposition of the European arrest warrant complies fully with the concept of habeas corpus.  UK implementation of the European investigation order will also be fully compliant.However, I understand that the noble Lord’s principal concern is the separate issue of European arrest warrants being issued for trivial offences. The Government share this concern and are talking to other EU countries, bilaterally and through the European Union, to stop this happening.

Lord Vinson: I thank the Minister for her considered reply, but I am not as optimistic. The fact remains that hundreds of UK citizens are being compelled to appear before any EU court without the merit of the often frivolous charges being first assessed. They can be locked up without pre-trial. Is she not concerned that this totally overrides the ancient liberties of the British citizen enshrined in Magna Carta and habeas corpus?  Will she assure the House that this will be resolved?

Three member states of the EU have already declared the European arrest warrant unconstitutional.  We should do the same. It really is time that we started to say no to damaging EU legislation.

The many and varied problems with the EAW are discussed at length in the new Big Brother Watch book which can be purchased here.

The European Arrest Warrant

Nick De Bois MP speaks on the European Arrest Warrant

 

 

By Alex Deane

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.

The European Investigation Order - foreign police, looking at YOU, without judicial oversight

As we've covered before, The European Investigation Order (EIO) is intended as a partner to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), to which Britain is already a signatory. Unless we opt out pronto, it is due to come into effect at the end of this month.

The EIO is intended to make it easier to gather evidence on another member state's soil. Amongst other things, it would grant foreign police the right to carry out the ‘real time’ interception of communications, monitor a person’s bank account, demand bodily samples, DNA or fingerprints from a person in another EU state. They would be able to order British officers to conduct undercover-spying missions, and pursue people for 'crimes' which are not recognised in UK law - such as the Portuguese offence of criminal defamation:

Other EU countries could demand the personal details of entire plane-loads of holidaymakers, and force hard-pressed British police to trail suspects on their behalf. The countries demanding the new powers on behalf of the European Union include ex-Eastern Bloc states Bulgaria, Estonia and Slovenia.

A decision will be taken in the next two weeks. Tory MP and friend of Big Brother Watch, Dominic Raab, raised his concerns in the Commons:

"Britain should not opt into this half-baked measure. It would allow European police to order British officers to embark on wild-goose chases. It would force our police to hand over personal information on British citizens, even if they are not suspects and the conduct under investigation is not a crime in this country. And it gives foreign police law enforcement authority on British soil. The Order won’t help tackle crime – it will waste police time and ditch safeguards that UK citizens expect from the British justice system."

Big Brother Watch understands that Raab's parliamentary colleague, civil liberties champion David Davis MP, is on the case - more on this as it emerges.

Fair Trials International points out that, under the EIO, the Spanish police investigating a murder in a nightclub to demand the ID of every British citizen who flew to the country in the month the offence took place. They could force the UK to search its DNA database - which contains the profiles of nearly one million innocent people - and send the Spanish police profiles of anybody on the database who was in Spain at the time. FTI is also concerned about UK police being obliged to investigate matters which are not even crimes here, such as the Portuguese offence of criminal defamation.

Worst of all, as barrister and former MP Jerry Hayes points out in strong terms, none of this even requires sign-off from a judge:

In its present form the EIO would allow any EU police force to start investigations and gather evidence on UK soil... where it offends against everything we hold sacred, is that no judicial authority is needed to verify whether there are reasonable grounds for an offence to have been committed. In this country the police can’t investigate on a whim, they have to have reasonable grounds to believe that someone is up to no good. So, potentially, every corrupt police officer in the pay of the Mafia in Southern Italy, could come over here, obtain your DNA and bank balances without going to obtain permission from a judge first. Insane. And downright dangerous.

A decision on the British position on the EIO is due by July 29.

But given all of the above, isn't it worth asking... why might we even think about entering into such a terrible arrangement?

Well, as the Mail points out, the Liberal Democrat manifesto contained a telling policy commitment: "Keep Britain part of international crime-fighting measures such as the European Arrest Warrant, European Police Office, Eurojust, and the European Criminal Records Information System."

A Government spokesman said the coalition was 'actively considering whether or not to opt in to the proposed EIO':

''The coalition agreement states that the Government 'will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country's security, protecting Britain's civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system.''

We'll see.

By Alex Deane

Placed under surveillance by order of Brussels

As reported in the Daily Telegraph this morning, the Government only has until the end of the month to decide whether to opt-in to the new European Investigation Order (EIO).

The EIO is an amendment of sorts to the 'European Evidence Warrant’ (EEW) established in December 2008, which provided for the transfer of certain but restricted amounts of data between EU member states in the event of an arrest. 

The EIO changes this considerably to include immediate access to criminal records as well as almost every conceivable investigative measure. As the Telegraph explains:

Under the terms of the order, any prosecutor or police officer in all 27 members of the EU could be given the power to issue demands for evidence, regardless of the cost involved.

Judges in this country would be powerless to block the requests, even if they related to offences that are considered trivial in this country.

Overstretched police resources could then be expended on demands to launch lengthy surveillance operations, take DNA samples or secure documents such as bank statements or phone records.

There also appear to be very few conditions to refuse an EIO, as the Directive effectively scraps the main grounds that have been available to refuse a request for mutual assistance or the execution of a European evidence warrant.

There are any number of concerns that arise from the EIO. From wasting police time to British police being compelled to take biometric data or place people under surveillance on the urging of countries for whom the rule of law is a relatively recent innovation.

The article ends with a meaningless quote from an unnamed Home Office official, which suggests that the Government may not be giving this looming deadline the proper consideration.

By Dylan Sharpe

The EU want to keep a record of every internet search

As reported on the Register, more than 300 MEPs in the European Parliament are set to lobby the EU to keep a log of every internet search made in Europe, under the dubious logic of cracking-down on paedophilia:

They have signed a written declaration urging that the European Data Retention Directive - which mandates that ISPs should retain basic session data for up to two years - is extended to cover web search providers..

Written declarations are the European Parliament's equivalent of the the Commons' Early Day Motion system, whereby MPs sign up to causes in the hope of drawing attention to or action on their cause.

Sponsored by Italian MEP Tiziano Motti and Slovak MEP Anna Záborská, written declaration 29 (pdf) is close to being adopted by the Parliament. It has 324 of of the requisite 369 MEPs' signatures.

If 369 MEPs do sign the declaration it will have no legal affect, but will be sent to the European Commission for consideration.

There can be no doubt: monitoring every internet search is a completely unjustifiable and disproportionate intrusion on our privacy.

The MEPs responsible for proposing this law under the guise of preventing paedophilia should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting such an emotive issue in this way.

With Data Retention Directive already in place, this latest move suggests that the EU Parliament is intent on controlling what we look at on the internet.

The full declaration is available online here: http://smile29.eu/doc/DS29_EN.pdf

By Dylan Sharpe 

An escalation in EU surveillance powers

In our election manifesto, Big Brother Watch calls for 'a commitment to exercise the British opt-out of the European Arrest Warrant on 1st June 2014'.

Our reason for including this as one of the 30 key pledges, is that we are increasingly concerned about foreign countries being able to hold sway over our liberty and privacy, seemingly without much accountability. As the Gary McKinnon case showed - in cases of extradition, more often than not the person and the issue get ignored and the case becomes a political football.

So we are very concerned by this morning's revelations about a potential increase in the powers afforded by both the European Arrest Warrant and European Evidence Warrant; as the Daily Telegraph explains:

The European Union has put forward a proposal for a continent-wide search warrant, which could be issued in any state, and which would be binding on all police forces.

Under the proposals, authorities in countries such as Poland would be given the power to demand that British police seize the bank account details of a suspect living in this country.

Warrants could also be issued which would force police to intercept phone calls, set up CCTV surveillance, monitor bank accounts, and even demand body samples such as fingerprints or DNA.

This European Commission Green Paper proposes going much further than the European Arrest Warrant and is in essence, an expansion of Ripa powers to every state in the EU.

It would even allow magistrates or judges in one EU state to authorise searches of a person's property in another state, and seizure of evidence.

This is a very dangerous escalation in EU surveillance powers that needs to be stopped - and the privacy implications properly discussed - before it is too late. Tragically, the minutes of a parliamentary committee show that BBW's old bête noire, Home office minister Meg Hillier, has backed the new proposal, saying:

"We would in principle support a new and comprehensive instrument based on mutual recognition that covers all types of evidence."

By Dylan Sharpe

Your data on 500,000 terminals across the EU

It emerged this weekend that large amounts of confidential personal information held about British citizens is currently being stored on a giant computer network spanning the European Union, and can be accessed through more than 500,000 terminals. Once again, the two things that aren’t being given proper consideration are privacy and security. 

As reported over at the Guardian:

The figure was revealed in a Council of the European Union document examining proposals to establish a new agency which would manage much of the 27 EU member states' shared data. The sheer number of access points to the Schengen Information System (SIS) - has triggered concerns about the security of the data.

Half a million access points – that’s more than the population of Luxembourg. It goes without saying that the SIS system has already been subject to serious breaches of security. Statewatch, a civil liberties outfit that follows security related issues across the EU, claim that personal information was extracted from the system by an official in Belgium - and was subsequently sold to an organised criminal gang.

As EU business report, the official line, sounds all too familiar:

“The second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) will be a large-scale information system containing alerts on persons and objects.” “It is a communication infrastructure between the central system and the national systems providing an encrypted virtual network dedicated”.

In reference to the expansion of the SIS database, Tony Bunyan, director of Statewatch, endorses two principles with which we can all agree:   

"The greater the points of access, the greater the number of people who have access and the greater the chance that data will be misplaced, lost or illegally accessed." Furthermore, "the idea that mass databases can be totally secure and that privacy can be guaranteed is a fallacy."

Sound logic, Mr Bunyan.

By Edward Hockings

CCTV designed to spot 'suspicious behaviour'

Having published our report concerning the British Isles’ submergence in CCTV, there is now cause for concern that CCTV will soon being doing more than just watching us. It seems that the prospect of unmanned airborne spy drones is only the begining.

An outfit dedicated to covering the European Security Research Programme named NeoConOptican, reported yesterday that the European Commission are funding a project called Samurai -  a “next generation” CCTV system, which is, they write: 

capable of identifying and tracking individuals “acting suspiciously” in crowded public spaces. The project has received €2.5 million in EU funding under the Fp7 security research programme.

The blurb on the official Samurai project website, makes it clear that their intention is take surveillance to a whole new level:

Existing systems focus on analysing recorded video. SAMURAI is to develop a real-time adaptive behaviour profiling and abnormality detection system for alarm event alert and prediction.

We aim to develop an abnormal detection system based on a heterogeneous sensor network consisting of both fix-positioned CCTV cameras and mobile wearable cameras with audio and positioning sensors.

These networked heterogeneous sensors will function cooperatively to provide enhanced situation awareness.

There we have it. Research into surveillance systems designed to identify and follow unusual behaviour and which are capable of tracking people, vehicles and luggage are being funded by our contributions to the EU.

Let’s picture the future: a spring afternoon, in 2015, silent Drones hover above our head; cameras equipped with the ability to listen to the conversation I am having surround me; images of the Golfing equipment I’m carrying are being sent across the system as possible weapons of mass destruction.

Samurai is just the beginning. The potential is frightening. 

By Edward Hockings 

Another tale of counter-intuitive EU surveillance

About a week ago, we wrote about a debate which occurred in June in the House of Lords over EU plans to tag sheep with electric implants.

This intrusive and expensive measure has been accepted largely without argument by the government, despite Britain having the largest sheep flock in Europe and our sheep farmers being on their knees financially.

Perhaps most galling of all, when questioned about the possibility of an entirely reasonable opt out of the scheme, the government representative in the Lords, Lord Tunnifcliffe, replied by saying:

"I accept that this regulation is probably, on balance, not a good idea. It will create more costs than benefits in most of the industry. Nevertheless...this is part of being in the club called the European Union...My Lords, it is absolutely clear, I am afraid, that the industry and the individuals in the industry will pay." 

The argument resumed recently, with Lord Vinson once gain imploring the government to find some way out of 'this unnecessary, expensive and crazy EU regulation'. But yet again the voices of reason were met with a stony refusal to act in the interests of their own constituents.

It seems that EU surveillance is here to stay; sadly for both our farm animals and ourselves.

- - UPDATE - -

If you want to know more about the expense and difficulties in sheep tagging, click through to around 37.00 on this latest episode of Countyfile.

EU recommends installing black box recorders in cars

The EU has reportedly spent £2.4 million on a three-year study into the feasibility of installing black box recorders or 'Event Data Recorders' (EDR) in all new European cars.

'Project Veronica', as the study is known, has recommended the mandatory installation of the boxes and said they will record 20 types of data, including speed, the car’s most recent movements and the actions of the driver - when and how often the brakes, indicators and horn were applied.

According to the Daily Telegraph,

Supporters say they could be used to reconstruct what happened in the event of a collision which would make it easier for insurance companies to decide who was at fault and, where necessary, enable police to take action against the driver.

Equally, the director of the study, Ralf Schmidt-Cotta, has described the boxes as "an independent, neutral witness". 

However, in truth they are yet another new tool of surveillance which would give anyone with the means to decode the data the ability to track your daily movements.

It starts with the police and insurance companies and ends up being used by suspicious employers and vengeful partners.

Then there's the cost of placing one of these recorders in every new car and the implications for challenging their data in court.

Early signs are that the DfT and car-makers are wary about the idea, but it will require consistent opposition to make sure these tracking devices don't see the light of day.

By Dylan Sharpe  

Britain in the dock over internet privacy

A shocking story in the Independent today which reports that Ministers from the Home Office could find themselves hauled in front of the European Court of Justice after the European Commission accused Britain of failing to protect its citizens from secret surveillance on the internet.

The article states that:

the legal action is being brought over the use of controversial behavioural advertising services which were tested on BT's internet customers without their consent to gather commercial information about their web-shopping habits.

Under the programme, the UK-listed company Phorm has developed technology that allows internet service providers (ISPs) to track what their users are doing online.

The Commission said the UK had failed to comply with both the European e-Privacy Directive and the Data Protection Directive. The Commission also criticised the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) as it does not require that people give informed, specific consent to their communications being intercepted for purposes such as behavioural advertising

I never really thought I'd say it, but congratulations to the EU. As I have written before, there is much wrong with Brussels' approach to individual privacy; but on this matter they are entirely correct.

At Big Brother Watch we are very concerned by Government attempts to regulate the internet or track users' habits. This story confirms that we should be concerned and we will continue to watch this case with interest.

By Dylan Sharpe

Belgium fights EU Data Retention Directive

Hurrah for the land of waffles, sublime chocolates and "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" for it is the civil liberties groups of this diminutive nation, and they alone, who have so far had the brussels sprouts to stand up and oppose the pernicious EU Data Retention Directive.

For those unaware, the aforementioned DRD is an unnecessarily intrusive piece of EU legislation which came into force on 15th March this year, forcing internet service providers across the continent to store all the communication information they get from customers for 12 months at a time.

Under the directive, details of every email, phone call and text message sent or received - including information such as IP address and time of use - have to be recorded. In addition, police and security forces will be able to request access to the information using a court order.

Well, now several Belgian organisations including the League for Human Rights, the Flemish Association of Journalists and the Flemish Bar, have launched a website petition against the directive. Hurrah.

Last word to the organisers of the petition (approx translation!):

This campaign stems from the sincere conviction of the promoting organisations that a general data retention programme can not bring a solution to the security problem...data retention is a serious violation of the right to privacy...

...there is no need for data retention at either a European or Belgian level and we point to the fact that many experts have demonstrated that a policy of general data retention in is practice no guarantee against terrorism or crime.

By Dylan Sharpe 

Hat tip to the fantastic Open Europe

BioP@ss: The next stage of ID cards

No sooner than the Prime Minister signals a u-turn on the introduction of ID cards in Britain; news has seeped out of the continent that the EU may be next to try and impose a system of biometric cataloguing and identification on its citizens.

According to this report, chip manufacturers are being lined up to participate in a new European research project called BioP@ss, with the intention of developing a 'high-security chip card platform'.

It goes on to say:

..BioP@ss is the biggest chip card research project in the EU. Its goal is to do the technical spadework for the introduction of an electronic ID card in chip card format valid throughout the entire EU.

In addition to its function as an ID card, it will be capable of providing a secure means of authentication for services offered by governments and public authorities..

The BioP@ss research project is apparently due to be completed in 2011 and already has a total budget of €13 million.

From one nightmare scenario - the DNA, fingerprints, vital statistics and personal details of the entire British population available at the click of a button to the government, police, local and other authorities - we now see on the horizon a far more scary prospect: that very same data available at the click of a button to any state official across the entirety of Europe.

My most grateful of acknowledgements to Aaron K Martin for alerting us to this article - it is a topic on which Big Brother Watch will be extremely vigilant in the coming months.

By Dylan Sharpe 

Personal data of UK taxpayers could be shared around EU

As highlighted by the European Foundation today, proposals by EU taxation commissioner Laszlo Kovacs which provide for the sharing of VAT data between member states, pose a significant threat to individual privacy in the UK and across Europe.

According to the European Foundation, HM Revenue and Customs would be required to grant "direct access" to personal information contained on national taxpayer databases, without the knowledge or consent of the UK taxpayer.

The move, which is designed to combat tax fraud, would not only increase the burden on the HMRC, at a significant cost to the taxpayer, it would also change the current culture of tax data sharing in the EU, making it compulsory rather than being dealt with on a case by case basis.

The reality is that European bureaucrats have no right to know any of this information about us.

Furthermore, we know from long experience that our own revenue can’t keep confidential information safe. Yet believe it or not, in the European context HMRC are amongst the BETTER taxmen.

Britons can say goodbye to their privacy if and when the government gives away our data like this.  

By Alex Deane

In case you missed it...Project Indect

Project Indect – the very name sounds Orwellian – was revealed last weekend by Open Europe and the Sunday Telegraph to be a five year research programme ‘to develop computer programmes which act as "agents" to monitor and process information from web sites, discussion forums, file servers, peer-to-peer networks and even individual computers.’

As well as receiving close to £10 million in funding from the EU (which means from you) this sinister enterprise also forms part of a call from the European Commission for a “common culture” of law enforcement which includes sending batches of our own police out to Brussels for training in the European Union’s new enforcement methods.

The Project, despite the far-reaching implications for individual privacy, seems to have met with little opposition within the current UK government. Although this is hardly surprising given that a recent report from Sir Daivd Varney, close adviser to Gordon Brown, called for the creation of 'a single source of truth' on the citizen.

However, Stephen Booth from Open Europe sensibly questioned the project saying "there is no evidence that anyone has ever asked 'is this actually in the best interests of our citizens?'" While the ever vigilant Shami Chakrabarti said "Profiling whole populations instead of monitoring individual suspects is a sinister step in any society. It's dangerous enough at national level, but on a Europe-wide scale the idea becomes positively chilling."

But the chorus of disapproval, to which Big Brother Watch today adds its voice in the strongest possible way, could well be ignored as the EU seeks to economise in a credit crunch. A spokesman from the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who are involved in Project Indect’s development, said: “Our budgets are shrinking, our human resources are shrinking and we are looking for IT technology that will help us five years down the line.”

Scary stuff and proof that it isn’t only the British government BBW needs to be watching.

By Dylan Sharpe