[Media-watch] Privacy International Media Release

[Billy Clark]

http://www.stand.org.uk/SnoopersCharter.html

Home Office “Snoopers’ Charter” passes chaotically through the Lords
But crucial victories for privacy advocates make the score 1–1

Privacy International Media Release
13th November 2003
For immediate release

The government's controversial "Snoopers Charter" was today (Thursday)
approved by the House of Lords and will now become law. The decision was 
as
spectacular as it was unexpected.

Until 2pm today it appeared that the government's proposals to place 
every
UK email and phone account under surveillance was doomed. Conservative,
Liberal Democrat and Cross Bench peers had vowed to oppose them. The 
Joint
Human Rights Committee of the Parliament had expressed "grave 
reservations":
about the plans. Independent legal analysis had ruled them unlawful. Grim
faced Home Office Officials sitting in the Advisors Box of the Lord's had
admitted they were expecting the worst.

However, at the eleventh hour the government snatched victory from the 
jaws
of defeat. A "fatality" motion by Deputy Opposition leader Baroness 
Blatch
provoked calculated outrage on the government benches. Her motion, which
proposed to kill the government's Order outright, was a device that had 
not
succeeded in the Lords in thirty years. Government members threatened 
that
the very basis of the House would fundamentally change were the fatality
motion was passed. The government vowed that if the motion succeeded it
would exact revenge by killing any and every Order proposed by a future
Conservative government.

The Liberal Democrats, which until then had agreed to block the "data
retention" Orders, which mandated the long-term storage of all 
communication
records on the entire UK population, reversed its position. By 4pm, faced
with certain defeat, the Conservatives were then forced to withdraw the
motions. The proposals passed unopposed.

This means that after a short period of implementation of a much derided
"voluntary" retention scheme, the government will be able to pass
regulations forcing all communications providers to store and yield vast
amounts of information on all their customers. The data — relating to who
you phoned, who phoned you, mobile phone location, emails sent and 
received
and websites visited — can then be handed over on request to dozens of
government agencies.

However Privacy International and the Foundation for Information Policy
Research, which have campaigned to defeat the proposals were delighted 
that
two important motions were approved by the Lords.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury (L-D) proposed that the Interception of
Communications Commissioner should be compelled to inform "any person who
appears to have been adversely affected by any wilful or reckless 
failure on
the part of any person exercising or undertaking any of the powers and
duties conferred or imposed on him by the Regulation of Investigatory 
Powers
Act 2000". This means that for the first time the oversight body must let
people know when their privacy has been improperly invaded. In the past 
no
such disclosure was made.

The Baroness Blatch also succeeded in a groundbreaking motion requiring 
the
government to report to Parliament the extent of overseas access to 
personal
information stored by communications providers. Such access is 
widespread,
and available to many developed and developing countries.

A furious Baroness Blatch also put the House on notice that a Private
Members Bill would be tabled next year to redress many of the problems
identified by the Opposition.

However, despite these successes, Privacy International believes today 
was a
dark moment in the history of the House of Lords. The Parliament's Joint
Committee on Human Rights in a report released last week on the Snoopers
proposals had declined to approve the Orders dealing with retention.
Outlining grave reservations and fundamental legal problems, the 
Committee
was scathing in its criticism both of the proposals and of the 
governments
tactics — including the consultation, which it criticised for ignoring
public input. The government then entirely disregarded the advice of the
Committee.

"The government should never have succeeded" commented Simon Davies,
Director of Privacy International. "The proposals were approved only 
because
the Liberal Democrats caved in under pressure from unprecedented threats 
by
the government".

"A government ignoring adverse findings from the Parliament's own Human
Rights watchdog is something we would have expected from a Banana 
Republic.
This is a shameful episode".

However Mr Davies warned that the government has still to face its 
toughest
opposition to the proposals and predicted that the proposals would
ultimately collapse. All legal advice indicates that the Snooping
regulations are unlawful under Article 8 of the European Convention on 
Human
Rights (relating to the protection of privacy). Privacy International's
legal document (PDF: 200kb) on this issue can be viewed online.

Mr Davies vowed to continue fighting the proposals, first in the courts, 
and
second through the use of more aggressive campaigning tactics. "I would 
have
no hesitation is taking legal action against Communications Service
Providers who comply with a regulation that is unlawful, regressive,
dangerous and unnecessary" he said.

"Through greed and indolence the phone and Internet service providers 
have
sold their customers' privacy down the river".
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simon Davies of Privacy International can be reached for comment on 07958
466 552 (from the UK) or on (+44) 7958 466 552 (from outside the UK). 
Email
simon at privacy.org

A series of regulations (Statutory Instruments) recently laid before the 
UK
Parliament intends to create a legal basis for comprehensive 
surveillance of
communications. The regulations will allow an extensive list of public
authorities access to records of individuals' telephone and Internet 
usage.
This "communications data" — phone numbers and e-mail addresses 
contacted,
web sites visited, locations of mobile phones, etc — will be available to
government without any judicial oversight. Not only does government want
access to this information, but it also intends to oblige companies to 
keep
personal data just in case it may be useful.

Copies of all documents mentioned in this release can be obtained by
contacting Simon Davies.

Privacy International (PI) www.privacyinternational.org is a human rights
group formed in 1990 as a watchdog on surveillance by governments and
corporations. PI is based in London, and has an office in Washington, DC.
Together with members in 40 countries, PI has conducted campaigns 
throughout
the world on issues ranging from wiretapping and national security
activities, to ID cards, video surveillance, data matching, police
information systems, and medical privacy, and works with a wide range of
parliamentary and inter-governmental organisations such as the European
Parliament, the House of Lords and UNESCO.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 7346 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.stir.ac.uk/pipermail/media-watch/attachments/20031117/ce27b4b6/attachment.bin