YouGov :"POLL - Blunkett's proposals on internet privacy: for or against"

[Caspar Bowden]

Thought this useful background on climdown of government over Anti-Terrorism
Bill measures on data retention Thurs night.

If anyone would like a copy of FIPR Press Release on Oct 14th (to which
sections of this, and subsequent parliamentary debate, bear strong
resemblance) or our detailed background paper (6 pages - 50K .rtf format),
please e-mail me.

Regards
--
Caspar Bowden                           www.fipr.org
Director, Foundation for Information Policy Research
Tel: +44(0)20 7354 2333

(you must be logged in to vote)
 For     Against     Abstain

http://www.yougov.com/pp.jsp;jsessionid=1wb2pvn8k2?news.id=20016033
Blunkett's proposals on internet privacy: for or against

The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, last month proposed that Internet
Service Providers should be "enabled" to track and store the broad
communications data of their customers including addresses of e-mails, sites
browsed, articles read and use of newsgroups.
Part 11 of the emergency anti-terrorism, crime and security bill will allow
internet service providers (ISPs) to keep a year's worth of information on
their customers' internet activity. Two reasons are given: safeguarding
national security, and the prevention and detection of crime. Importantly,
clause 102 allows the home secretary to force traffic data retention if he
feels the voluntary code is failing to work. He would force compulsory
retention through a statutory instrument, a relatively easy procedure
compared with getting a bill through parliament. So although Mr Blunkett
used the term "enable", it is a very real possibility that data retention
could be made compulsory and enforced through civil law.

No new legislation will be necessary for authorities and intelligence
agencies to obtain the data once it is recorded by ISPs and telephone
companies; the regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 allows such
"communications data" to be collected for a number of purposes including
tax, public order and minor crime investigations. This process is
effectively self-regulated, as it requires only the say-so of a police
superintendent or equivalent rank to gather the data.

Current data protection legislation protects individuals' privacy by
prohibiting blanket storage by ISPs of data such as websites browsed,
addresses of e-mails and which 'newsgroup' articles a subscriber reads.
Other communications data, such as the telephone number used to dial-up the
Internet, may be kept so long as it is relevant to billing or fraud control.

The Government intends to establish a Code of Practice - developed in
consultation with ISPs - which will specify exactly what data can be
gathered and for how long it can be kept. The terms of the debate so far
suggests that the electronic communications data to be recorded is best
understood in a wide sense and can provide a complete map of an individual's
private life. If a government agency wanted to read the contents of an
individual e-mail it would require a warrant from a Secretary of State; if a
government agency wanted to search for entire documents it would require a
court order.

Supporters of the proposal argue that the data should be collected to
safeguard national security and prevent misuse of the Internet. The
proposals were included as part of anti-terrorist legislation to prevent
subversive groups or individuals operating effectively in the UK and also to
prevent cyber terrorism. Supporters of the plans maintain that law-abiding
individuals have nothing to fear provided they are not abusing the Internet.
Indeed, they argue that the new measures will provide a comprehensive
deterrent to paedophiles using the Internet to circulate pornographic
material and will allow police to gather important evidence in catching such
criminals.

Those opposing the new and as yet undefined measures argue that the Mr
Blunkett's proposals will in fact only be efficient at tracking law-abiding
individuals because terrorists and those with something to hide will take
steps to avoid detection. Furthermore, they maintain that the Government is
cynically using the events of September 11 to establish a policy of blanket
data surveillance. It has also been suggested that forcing ISPs to record
data on Internet use will inhibit the use of the medium as a means of
business and personal communication.

ISPs have suggested that they will be forced to move if the proposals are
implemented for both privacy and cost reasons. The cost of a year's worth of
traffic data retention could soar into the millions for some ISPs. Steve
Rawlinson, managing director at London-based ISP ClaraNet claims the
sweeping powers will force ISPs to locate more hosting infrastructure
outside the UK to guarantee confidentiality of communications data for
business customers.

FOR

Tracking and storing data on Internet use for extended periods of time will
help in the fight against terrorism and crime. Law-abiding citizens have
nothing to fear and should not oppose the new measures. We must be prepared
to accept to accept some limited restriction on liberty of privacy if we are
to combat the threat of terrorism. The mere existence of the security
measures will inhibit the spread of crime, such as paedophile rings, over
the Internet. The costs to ISPs are negligible compared to the benefits of
ensuring national security.

AGAINST

Tracking and storing data on internet use will be ineffective in the fight
against terrorism and crime and will serve only to record information on
law-abiding citizens. This information can then be used for a multiplicity
of purposes; the individuals being investigated could deem many of these
purposes illegitimate. Legitimate groups whose policies or attitudes
conflict with the State's could be tracked and illegitimately discriminated
against. ISP' s will incur greater costs and are more likely to move their
hosting infrastructures abroad.