|
|
Vertaal:
              Grote broer, grote last?
Donderdag, 4 September, 2008 Is de voorgestelde Communicatie Rekening van Gegevens een stap te ver voor de Britse manier van het leven? De rapporten van pitt-Payne van het timoteegras
Door Timoteegras pitt-Payne | Op 15 Juli publiceerde dit jaar, de Commissaris van de Informatie, Richard Thomas, zijn jaarverslag. Bij de lancering van het rapport gaf hij op Communicatie van de Overheid voorgestelde Gegevens Miljard commentaar. Verwijzend naar media suggesties dat de Rekening maatregel voor een massieve holdingsdetails van het overheidsgegevensbestand van de telefoon en Internet van iedereen mededelingen zou treffen, verklaarde hij dat zulk voorstel een „stap te ver voor de Britse manier van het leven“ zou zijn. De manier waarin de persoonlijke informatie door de Overheid wordt gehouden is een onderwerp van stijgend openbaar debat in het UK. Er zijn zorgen over de aard en het volume van informatie dat wordt verworven en behouden - dit is één van de redenen waarom de voorstellen van de de identiteitskaart van de Overheid zo controversieel zijn. Er zijn ook zorgen over veiligheid. Het openbare vertrouwen werd streng beschadigd in November 2007, toen CDs die de informatie van het kindvoordeel over zowat 25 miljoen individuen bevatten door HM Opbrengst & Douane (HMRC) werden verloren. Sindsdien is er een reeks verdere veiligheidsbreuken geweest; onlangs op 19 Augustus, toen een privé contractant het Bureau meedeelde van het Huis dat het een stok die van het computergeheugen persoonlijke details van tientallen duizenden misdadigers bevat verloren had. De wettelijke achtergrond van de Communicatie Rekening van Gegevens is complex, maar moet in een klein detail worden opgesteld om van de zorgen van de Commissaris steek te houden. Het verhaal begint met Richtlijn die een van de Europese Unie (de EU) van 2006 eisen ten aanzien van het behoud van „communicatie gegevens“ door telecommunicatieleveranciers en Internet de dienstleveranciers (ISPs) oplegt over lidstaten. De communicatie gegevens in deze context betekenen hoofdzakelijk informatie over wie communiceert met wie, wanneer en waar zij communiceren, en welke middelen van mededeling zij gebruiken. Het omvat geen informatie over de daadwerkelijke inhoud van de mededeling. Zo met betrekking tot telefoongebruik, zouden de communicatie gegevens de timing en de bestemming van telefoongesprekken, maar niet omvatten wat werd gezegd. Met betrekking tot Internet gebruik, zouden de communicatie gegevens geen details van de daadwerkelijke websites omvatten die van een bepaalde computer worden bezocht, hoewel het informatie zou omvatten over toen en voor hoelang was die computer gebruikt om tot Internet toegang te hebben. Zelfs met deze beperkingen, kan de informatie die door de richtlijn wordt behandeld u a great deal over gewone individuen potentieel vertellen. This kind of information could be used, for example, in order to try and ascertain the whereabouts of a particular individual at a specific time. Implementation of the Directive in the UK has proceeded in two stages. The first stage was the Data Retention Regulations 2007, which implemented the directive in relation to landlines and mobile phones (but not ISPs). The regulations require telecoms providers to retain communications information for a minimum of 12 months. The regulations do not themselves confer any right for Government to obtain access to the retained information. Instead, access is governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000) and related regulations, under which various public bodies can access the retained information on request. The potential bases for access are wide-ranging, and are not confined to national security or the prevention of crime. For example, there is a right of access in the interests of the UK’s economic well-being, and another for the protection of public health. A court order is not required, though an order can be sought if access is refused by the telecoms provider. The Government’s draft legislative programme for 2008-09 was published in May. This contained the first reference to a Communications Data Bill, intended to complete the implementation of the Directive. The draft programme Media concern about the implications of the Bill began with a story in The Times on 20 May, suggesting that the Bill will adopt a radically different approach from the 2007 Regulations. According to the story, what is being contemplated is the creation of a central database under government control, containing all the retained records. Instead of merely retaining communications data and providing it on request, providers would automatically pass all of their communications data to the database. Any proposal of this nature would prompt a number of important questions. One is whether the database would be confined to ISP records, or whether it would also cover telecoms records (the story suggested that both would be covered). A second question is what kind of information would be held. Would the database be confined to communications data, as defined in the Directive? Or would it include information about the actual content of telephone calls, emails and internet usage? And the third and most important question is who would be entitled to use the database, and in what way? On any view a proposal of this nature would also raise some serious concerns, fully justifying the Information Commissioner’s comments. There is the obvious risk of further security breaches. The possibilities range from accidental large-scale disclosure (as in the HMRC case) to isolated instances of unauthorised access by individual employees. Imagine, for instance, an individual with access to the database who wants to know if his new partner still speaks to her ex-boyfriend on the phone. A second and even more serious risk is that, once the database has been created, more and more ways of using it will be found. Under RIPA 2000, both the range of authorities entitled to access communications data and the purposes for which they are permitted to have access can be amended without the need for primary legislation. If the Bill adopts a similar approach, then there would be the risk of incremental extensions, with limited parliamentary scrutiny. Interest in the database’s contents would not necessarily be confined to the UK. For instance, how would the UK Government respond if the US authorities asked for access to any information held on the new database about passengers intending to travel to the US? The Information Commissioner has repeatedly warned about the danger of developing a ‘surveillance society’. The danger comes from a combination of legal and technological developments: legal developments that facilitate the collection of personal information on a wide scale, and technological developments that allow that information to be exploited in ever more sophisticated ways. In real life, the quintessentially British double-decker bus that played a starring role in the Olympic closing ceremony would undoubtedly have been monitored by CCTV cameras. Facial recognition software now allows CCTV images to be linked to databases of information about identifiable individuals. The more information about us is held on centralised databases, the greater the potential risk posed by this kind of linkage. For a description of what a surveillance society of the future might look like in practice, Cory Doctorow’s recent dystopian novel, Little Brother, is highly recommended. Meanwhile, we wait to see the detail of the Communications Data Bill. It is hoped that the fears expressed by The Times and the Information Commissioner will not be borne out when the Bill is published. Public trust in the way in which personal information is held by Government is at a very low ebb. Proposals for massive new databases are not the right way to win it back. Timothy Pitt-Payne is a barrister at 11KBW and visiting professor of information law at Northumbria University. Have Your Say: Big brother, big bother? Please read our posting guidelines before posting. Alternatively you can discuss this report here. Related News
|
Go to Forum
| Latest Topics
 Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More Breaking News  Archive |
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. News Forum |
Loading ...
