INDEX Q&A: Talking to Europe’s most wired politician
In a world where digital policy is written by politicians who barely know how to send an email, Marietje Schaake is a breath of fresh air. Marta Cooper meets the pioneering Dutch MEP
(more…)
Policing the internet
The more we live our lives online, the greater the temptation for governments and private companies to spy on us. Padraig Reidy highlights the dark side of our increasing dependence on digital communications
(more…)
Debate: The real problems with the Communications Data Bill may not be what you think
Any extension of state powers of surveillance are — rightly — hotly contested. The current Data Communications Bill is no exception. There are problems with this bill — but maybe not the ones you’ve heard of.
Almost universally, it has been labelled the ‘snoopers charter’ by its opponents, representing an enormous encroachment of state spying into the lives of innocent citizens. Journalists are outbidding each other in their vitriol toward it, usually calling on Orwell. One example from many is Index’s Mike Harris in the Independent: “This proposed scale of state surveillance will add the UK to the ranks of countries such as Kazakhstan, China and Iran.”
This, to me, is misleading. Yes, China, Iran, and Kazakhstan use “Deep Packet Inspection”, which this Bill proposes. But we also bug citizens’ homes — far more intrusive. What matters is the way it is regulated. There is a difference between governments that pass surveillance laws through a vote of elected representatives of those that will be monitored, and governments that do not.
Nor is it about mass surveillance by the state. This Bill is asking/demanding/paying communications companies to collect and retain data on the existence of people’s communications for 12 months, so that in the event that a request is made for that information, it is available.
Crucially, the state only accesses this information when a successful application is made through the existing Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This does not include the content of a communication — which has to go through a more stringent process of access. In that respect, not so much has changed, because this all happens already, it’s just that rather often, the information the police want is not there. (And in case no-one noticed, little brother is already miles ahead of what Big Brother is doing.)
That is not to say that the bill is perfect. Four changes would improve it considerably.
First: clarity. All infringements on our civil liberties need to be based on some kind of public understanding and consent that the measures being taken are proportionate and necessary. But the Bill is vague, the technology complicated, some specifics necessarily secretive. Is should be far more explicit: this would allow for at least an informed debate about whether the measures proposed are necessary and proportionate.
Second, given the value of the Internet to the economy and society (something RIPA is pledged to defend); and the potential misuse of modern technology – including the difficulty of splitting content from communication — only the very strictest system of oversight and redress will do here. More is needed.
Third, the root of RIPA is that the more serious the intrusion, the fewer agencies can do it, and for fewer purposes. RIPA makes a distinction between content and communications data — the latter being considers far less intrusive, and so much easier to obtain. But when RIPA was passed, communications data used to be mainly be about who you phoned and when. Now it means what websites you visit, where you are, and whom you email. Therefore a new category for this ‘use’ data may need to be created. The authorisation for accesses should be higher than the current bill proposes, but lower than the Home Secretary signing if off, as with content intercept, ideally a warrant from an independent magistrate.
The final problem troubles me most. It is now far easier for the state to access personal information that we citizens happily put into the public domain. Twitter can be mined in real time, open source Facebook groups can be monitored, networks and relationships contructed: all outside the RIPA legislation. None of this is mentioned in the new bill — but I think it is this that worries the public and many journalists. As I argued in #intelligence this type of widespread, mass social media monitoring needs to regulated, limited, and put on a legal footing. The bill is a chance to tackle this tricky problem: otherwise it could make the current furore seem like a minor skirmish.
Jamie Bartlett is Head of the violence and extremism programme at the UK think-tank, Demos, and Director of the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media. Follow him @JamieBartlett
DEBATE: Index’s Mike Harris on the Comms Data Bill and surveillance
In Britain, the government is proposing legislation (the Communications Data Bill) that will grant the Home Secretary the power to blanket retain data on every citizen for an undefined purpose. It won’t require judicial approval — but potentially every text message, every Facebook message, every phone call, every email from everyone in Britain would be stored on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. If the Bill passes, companies will have to collect data they don’t currently collect and the Home Secretary will be able to ask manufacturers of communications equipment to install hardware such as ‘black boxes’ on their products to make spying easier. This proposed scale of state surveillance will add the UK to the ranks of countries such as Kazakhstan, China and Iran. This total population monitoring would break the fundamental principle that a judge and court order is required before the state invades the privacy of its citizens by holding their personal data.
Read Index on Censorship’s position on the Comms Data Bill here
Freedom of expression: Is Cameron getting it right?
Cross-posted at Bright Blue
The political hue of a government by no means tells you where it will stand on defending freedom of expression when the chips are down. The signals from Cameron and his team so far are mixed but by the end of 2012, judgements good or bad are likely to start rolling in. A whole mixture of issues, laws, domestic statements and foreign policy stances add up to a picture of whether a government is promoting, defending or limiting freedom of expression – free speech, a free press, freedom to receive and share information online and off. So why is autumn 2012 likely to be so critical in telling us if the government is standing up for one of our most fundamental rights in a democracy?
Three particular issues are on the agenda this autumn, crucial to whether the UK can stand proud in the world as a democracy where free speech thrives: the defamation reform bill, the communications data bill, and the report from the Leveson Inquiry. The rough state of play on these goes as follows: defamation report bill — very welcome but some critical gaps need plugging at committee stage this month; communications data bill — very unwelcome, risks the UK being the pariah of the democratic world in digital surveillance; government response to the Leveson Inquiry — all to play for. If all of these go in the right direction, there will be reason for celebration and plaudits for Cameron indeed. If the three go in different directions, the government may well end up looking confused on freedom of expression. If they go in the wrong direction, criticism is likely to come in from around the world.
Index has been campaigning for three years (with its partners English Pen and Sense about Science) for a reform of England’s libel laws for the last three years. And it was a huge step forward to have the defamation reform bill in the Queen’s speech this May – the bill is likely to complete its path through parliament by the end of the year. In its current form, there is much that is positive — major steps have been taken to tackle libel tourism, so that nationals of other countries no longer use the English courts on the excuse of a small even negligible extent of publication in the UK, just to benefit from the complainant-bias in the existing law. But some of the most notorious cases of libel in recent years — such as those of Simon Singh or Ben Goldacre, both dragged expensively and at length through the courts (even though ultimately cleared) for debating and challenging scientific and medical practices – could still occur. The defamation bill crucially needs a proper public interest defence to be added at committee stage — so that open, reasonable debate can take place without the chill of possible expensive libel suits. Without it, a major opportunity to bring English libel law firmly into the 21st century will have been missed.
The Comms Data Bill – aptly labelled a ‘snooper’s charter’ by the press – has no saving graces. The Bill would lead to collection and filtering of data across the entire British population – emails, mobile and landline calls, websites visited, the list goes on. Monitoring and surveillance of this kind impacts directly both on the right to privacy and on the right to freedom of expression. No other democracy is proposing such an extensive approach to data collection – and it is the kind of approach that would normally be associated with regimes such as Iran and China, who will certainly be watching whether the Bill goes through with interest. If it does, it will be very difficult for Cameron or Hague to tell Iran, China, Russia and others that they must allow and respect internet freedoms when they will no longer be doing so at home. The report stage of the Bill is expected to conclude in November – the committee has an opportunity then to call for the withdrawal of the Bill, and the government should do so.
Then there is Leveson — expected to report in mid-November. It is too soon to say exactly what Lord Leveson will propose, or how Cameron will respond. But many are speculating that Leveson will recommend introducing a so-called ‘light’ form of statutory regulation of the press — through a statute that would go to parliament determining what an ‘independent’ regulator should look like. If so, this would be the thin end of the wedge — introducing government control over how the press can behave — a development which would risk taking the UK in the direction of Hungary with its increased state intervention in the media. Tougher, more effective independent regulation of the British press is surely the direction of travel. But if Leveson goes down the statutory route, Cameron needs to stand up for the basic principles of press freedom — journalists cannot hold government (and opposition) to account if government in the end determines how the press is controlled.
Three crucial choices face the government in the next two months — by December, we hope Index will be applauding Cameron on all three fronts. If not, it will be a sad moment for freedom of expression in the UK.
Kirsty Hughes is Chief Executive of Index on Censorship