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

[Charles Lindsey]

	On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 13:48:05 -0000
	"Caspar Bowden" <cb@fipr.org> said...

> "S.102(6) - A code of practice or agreement under this section may contain
> any such
> provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary-
> a) for the purpose of safeguarding national security [unchanged]
> b) for the purposes of prevention or detection crime or prosecution of
> offenders WHICH MAY RELATE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO NATIONAL SECURITY"
> (amendment was what was added in caps)
> 
> This is what Blunkett had to say about it (my caps):
> 
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm011213/debtext/
> 11213-36.htm
> 
> "On part 11, we had a suggestion from those who have been extremely busy on
> the Liberal Democrat Benches that we should separate out, because it is
> about not access but retention, those parts of data that someone could
> second-guess as being relevant to terrorists, as opposed to organised
> criminals and others. They have considered it necessary to press that.
> ...Part 11 therefore suggests that we should try to separate out those parts
> of data. As I tried to explain on a number of occasions, including last
> night, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO THAT, BUT PARADOXICALLY, BECAUSE IT IS NOT
> POSSIBLE TO DO IT, IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO SUGGEST THAT WE CANNOT DO IT
> [sic - caspar]. I am therefore prepared to accept the amendments that have
> been tabled. In order to be able to implement what they want, we will have
> to retain the data, so that it can be accessed to test out whether the
> intelligence services are right in believing that it is relevant in tackling
> terrorists. That is how stupid the Liberal Democrats are."

OK, I don't see the problem. They can "voluntarily" (or compulsarily if
it is made so) keep logs of "everything" (i.e. of such communications
data as it is reasonably practicable to keep).

BUT Plod cannot come along and say "see if you have any communications
logged from Al Qaeda" (or, more precisely, he needs to specify some
domain names or IP ranges or whatever that he is interested in) UNLESS
he needs that data for purposes related to National Security).

SO if Plod is just chasing after petty theft (or even paedophilia or
drug trafficking) he can only ask for very recent stuff (which would
have been retained in the absence of this act), or else he can request
that you report future logging material for his specified targets as it
comes in).

Of course, if he asks nicely, and says "Please", the ISP might give him
a little bit more than his strict entitlement (as happens now with the
NCIS "requests"), but only if it was for data that could reasonably have
been retained under the present EC Directive (i.e. billing data, or
whatever the ISP needs to retain for use by its abuse department).


> I would paraphrase this as saying, no matter how much UK and other govts.
> try and bend the wording of the new Directive on traffic data, blanket
> retention on the whole population (solely for law enforcement purposes,
> beyond period of business utility) is still illegal under ECHR and Charter
> of Fundamental Rights.

That may well so, in which case Blunkett's Bill falls at the first
hurdle. But if the Bill is interpeted as "may retain beyond normal ISP
requirements, but must not divulge except for specified purposes", as I
have suggested above, then it might fly.
> 
> Some, some questions about the amendment :
> 
> 1) Does that "which may relate directly or indirectly" have any force
> whatsoever (after all, it 'may' NOT)

I think that would be interpreted as "there are reasonable grounds for
supposing that it may", in each particular case.


Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5