"Anti-Terrorism" snoop laws are attacked by the
"Information Commissioner"

So-called "Anti-Terrorism" snoop laws are attacked by the "Information Commissioner" [who's he? Why did no-one inform me we had an Information Commissioner?] as being against our human rights, as stated in the EU Bill of Human Rights.

Now our whole lives can be mapped out [it says in the article.] Whoopee!

Why don't they just plug a transmitter into my brain and make their surveillance complete?

Read the article here:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2107547,00.html
Privacy comes under attack
06:31 Saturday 30th March 2002
Wendy McAuliffe

The right to privacy of correspondence received a disproportionate shake-up in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York

The events of 11 September provoked a new urgency in the need for powers that would allow law enforcement officers to retain traffic data for anti-terrorist investigations. Within a matter of weeks, the privacy rights of British citizens had been hugely compromised by emergency legislation, which allowed the automated surveillance of all electronic communications.

Now at the start of 2002, British surveillance laws are at risk of infringing what are seen by some as basic human rights. Huge demands have been placed on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to stockpile traffic data on customers under the new Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill (ATCS), and the Information Commissioner has characterised the requirements as "disproportionate general surveillance".

Traffic data collected under the voluntary Code of Practice within the ATCS would provide a "complete map of a person's private life" according to the Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIRP). Records will include an individual's geographical location determined through their mobile phone, the sender and recipient information from emails, a complete log of a person's Internet sessions including their IP address, and the address of all Web sites visited.

The Data Protection Act 1998 states that a communications provider must only retain traffic data for the length of time necessary for legitimate billing purposes. But contained within the Act is a provision for cases of national security, where personal data may be stored for longer periods of time in order to assist in the prevention or detection of crime.

In her scrutiny of the ATCS, Elizabeth France, information commissioner, warned that the Act might pose difficulties for data protection and human rights compliance. "Although recent events have prompted these measures to be brought forward," she said, "law enforcement agencies will make use of them on a day-to-day basis for a variety of matters. Careful consideration must be given to ensure that the provisions are appropriate to addressing these more routine needs."

Before the publication of ATCS, the home secretary, David Blunkett, stated that traffic data obtained under the new arrangements would be used "strictly in the case of a criminal investigation against suspected terrorists." This promise was broken within the Act's report stage, when part 11 endorsed the stockpiling of traffic data for minor criminal investigations. But Blunkett u-turned his decision a matter of hours before the Act received royal assent, and accepted a proposal tabled by the Liberal Democrats to separate out data that is relevant to terrorists, as opposed to organised criminals. The Code of Practice now makes the ambiguous requirement that in order for surveillance powers to apply, the investigation must relate "directly or indirectly to national security."

Data retention powers included in ATCS will be regulated under the terms of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). This Act allows access to traffic data for broader reasons than national security, including public order, minor crime, health and safety and tax. Any ISP can be required to install a "black box" capable of relaying intercepts back to a central monitoring facility at MI5. Content and traffic data can be directly collected by the black boxes, without the need for a content warrant or traffic notice on the ISP. A superintendent is able to request access to all traffic data stored by an ISP, and a single interception officer has sole responsibility for overseeing all interceptions conducted under RIPA.

Chapter II of Part I of RIPA, which makes it possible for law enforcement to access traffic data without a court order is still to come into force. The Home Office has set no date for its passage, but hopes that it will become law "shortly".

Oh, and this just in....

The award for complicity in keeping shtumm about the Government's recently acquired powers to take your private medical records and rifle through them [even giving them out to 3rd parties] goes to....

Channel 4 News, BBC News, ITN News, Sky News, The Media in general, and our beloved Doctors, who as far as I'm aware, don't tell you that what you're about to share with them, may now be viewed by the Government, civil servants and "selected third parties."

Of course all that stuff you shared with them in the past under the belief it was private and confidential, is subject to Government scrutiny now, too.

Is this what people were voting for at the last General Election? I'm sure I would have noticed it, if it'd been printed on one of those leflets New Labour shoved through my door.

I.G.


research material

  

     



Back to the European Continent Menu
Back to News Archive Menu




Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.


FAIR USE NOTICE. This site may at times contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

United States Code: Title 17, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/unframed/17/107.html

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.