Keeping an eye on UK developments
January 9th, 2009
Karlin Lillington has an interesting story in today’s Irish Times on recent UK developments in surveillance and what they might mean for Ireland. Here’s an excerpt:
NET RESULTS: When it comes to abuse of privacy, where Britain goes, Ireland tends to follow. That’s why we should be worried – very worried – about developments across the Irish Sea that emerged as the year rolled over into 2009, writes Karlin Lillington.First came a New Year’s Eve story in the Guardian that home secretary Jacqui Smith will propose the creation of a single giant communications database and the option of outsourcing the storage of all the personal details held under the UK’s data retention regime to a private firm.
That means potentially that a single repository – a massive, national communications database – would hold all the details about, though not the content of, everyone’s e-mails, phone calls, faxes, text messages and internet use.
The same array of data is retained in Ireland as well, though at the moment, as is the case in Britain, data is retained by the communications providers, not in a central database.
Gathering such a spread of private information into a single database would create a “hellhouse” of personal private data that would not only be vulnerable to security breaches on a massive scale but would prove too great a temptation for law enforcement, according to Britain’s former director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken McDonald.
McDonald was scathing in his criticism of the idea. “Authorisations for access might be written into statute,” he told the Guardian. “But none of this means anything. All history tells us that assurances like these are worthless in the long run. In the first security crisis, the locks would loosen.”
While “security” would be cited as the main impetus for such a database, “the notion of total security is a paranoid fantasy that would destroy everything that makes living worthwhile” and bring an “ugly future”, he said.
One of the areas she points out – remote searches or the ability of the police to remotely hack into your computer to find evidence or monitor your activity – will certainly be one of the big issues of 2009. While Irish law doesn’t currently deal with this issue, there are moves at EU level to encourage (and possibly eventually require) all member states to allow remote searches. This becomes more worrying when combined with a growing law enforcement desire to be able to conduct “remote cross border searches” – that is, for the police in country A to be able to hack into a computer in country B. This strategy – also known as “chasing bits across borders” presents its own problems for privacy and especially accountability.
Entry Filed under: Data Retention, Mass surveillance, Privacy - General
5 Comments Add your own
1. barry | January 10th, 2009 at 10:26 am
In addition, here –
http://www.kablenet.com/kd.nsf/Frontpage/267C4AD2FDF4B0D180257537003FA434?OpenDocument
is a report of an interview by the head of MI5 suggesting that communications need to be ‘monitored’
Part of a pattern?? Looks to me like a news management job.
2. paulo | January 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
So what’s been done here in Ireland to stop this type of invasion of privacy? Any legal challenges? Sure if there’s no protest then it’ll just happen.
3. Tom | January 29th, 2009 at 10:20 am
The Unlawful act of ”fishing” for key words in text and phone conversations in Ireland is unfortunately as common as rain here.
I have had a member of my family, who happens to be a member of the Gardai, confront me with carbon copies, so to speak, of the contents of my messages sent to friends etc going back 3 months.
The reason for the blatant disregard for my right of privacy was that I used certain words/phrases like ”meth head” too often.
Apparently the use of these words allowed the authorities to print out my entire message history. I subsequently contacted the Data protection Commissioner (dataprotection. ie)via email reporting the incident but never got any meaningful reply from them. They seemed just…uninterested in what what I had to say, I still have the carbon copies with the details of my messages but the page is a photocopy.
I’ve since realized that the law is only there to protect those who make the laws.
4. barry | February 2nd, 2009 at 8:50 am
Further commentary here,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/30/stic/
This time on the situation in France, where a reprt by CNIL is critical of the various data sets available.
5. barry | February 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 am
re Tom’s post there are a number of examples of the use by the Gardai of telephone data. One remarkable one was during the occupation of St Pats cathedral by Afghanies a while back. A newspaper reported the Gardai as saying there were a lot of calls from inside the cathedral to Afghanistan, presumably the data was obtained through monitoring, which only requires the ok of a superintendant.
To be fair the data commissioner has mentioned several times in his reports the unsatisfactory nature of the controls on monitoring.
Bye, Barry
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed