{"id":43207,"date":"2012-12-11T00:05:42","date_gmt":"2012-12-11T00:05:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/?p=43207"},"modified":"2017-01-09T16:31:52","modified_gmt":"2017-01-09T16:31:52","slug":"snoopers-charter-theresa-may-communications-data","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/?p=43207","title":{"rendered":"Communications Data Bill: Setback for UK government as “snooper’s charter” slammed"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>The coalition’s plan<\/a>\u00a0to store information on every citizen\u2019s use of email, the web, and phones have been dealt a serious blow by a parliamentary committee report. Padraig Reidy reports<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Home Secretary Theresa May\u2019s plan<\/a> to store information on every citizen\u2019s use of email, the web, and phones have been dealt a severe blow by a parliamentary committee report.<\/p>\n

In a report seen by Index on Censorship, the Joint Committee on the Communications Data Bill described the proposed new law as \u201ctoo sweeping\u201d, and going \u201cfurther than it need or should\u201d.<\/p>\n

The committee was particularly concerned by a clause in the bill that would give the Home Secretary the power to extend the remit of the law at any time, without putting the changes before parliament. The government claimed that this was needed in order to \u201cfuture proof\u201d the legislation, saying it would otherwise be impossible to keep pace with digital communications innovation.<\/p>\n

But critics of the Communications Data Bill, including Index, said the clause was unacceptable, allowing huge levels of surveillance and storage without any democratic oversight. The committee today endorsed that view, while acknowledging the need for governments to be able to carry out limited surveillance.<\/p>\n

Currently, communications service providers store data on communications traffic for one year. The government\u2019s proposal would oblige them to hold it indefinitely. The Home Office defines<\/a> “communications data” as: “[T]he information about a communication. It can\u00a0include the time and\u00a0duration of a communication, the number or email address of the originator and recipient and sometimes the location of the device from which the communication was made.”<\/p>\n

The cross-party committee of lords and MPs also criticised the government\u2019s consultation on the bill, saying: \u201cMeaningful consultation can take place only once there is clarity as to the real aims of the Home Office, and clarity as to the expected use of the powers under the bill.\u201d<\/p>\n

The bill\u2019s proposal for a \u201crequest filter\u201d, allowing government agencies to search stored information, also came under fire. While acknowledging the capacity would have certain benefits, the report warns that safeguards should be introduced to minimise the risk of \u201cfishing expeditions\u201d, by restricting search criteria.<\/p>\n

Index on Censorship welcomed the report: Head of Advocacy Mike Harris said:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Joint Committee report supports what Index has been saying all along: that the draft Communications Data Bill would threaten the privacy and free expression of British citizens, effectively reversing the presumption of innocence and potentially chilling the information that we share. If enacted in its current form, it would mean that the UK had one of the most draconian data laws in the western world, giving justification to surveillance tactics carried out by authoritarian states such as Belarus and Kazakhstan.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Comms Data Bill Index Submission 22 August 12<\/a>