[Ir-l] Guardian 7/11/2001: "Police get sweeping access to net data"

[Caspar Bowden]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293489,00.html 
Police get sweeping access to net data 
Blunkett will not limit scope of measure to terrorist cases

Stuart Millar, technology correspondent
Guardian

Wednesday November 7, 2001


Sweeping proposals to give law enforcement agencies access to the
communications records of every UK telephone and internet user will not
be restricted to anti-terrorist investigations, despite assurances to
the contrary from the home secretary. 

The Guardian has established that the detailed communications data to be
retained as part of the government's response to the September 11
attacks will be available to police investigating minor crimes. It will
also be available for tax collection and public health and safety
purposes. 

Home Office officials involved in implementing the proposals in a
voluntary code of practice with the providers have confirmed there are
no plans to limit access to cases involving national security. 

This directly contradicts what appeared to be an assurance given by
David Blunkett, the home secretary, two weeks ago in an attempt to
soothe the fears of civil liberties campaigners about the privacy
implications of blanket data retention. 

In his column in Tribune on October 26, Mr Blunkett acknowledged that
internet and phone data retention raised serious concerns. 

But he said that more information was needed than was available under
current law "strictly in the case of a criminal investigation against
suspected terrorists. 

"That is why we are working with companies on a code of practice with
the result they will keep billing records for longer than at present, to
allow access in relation to anti-terrorist activity". 

According to the Foundation for Information Policy Research, an
independent internet think tank, data involved would provide a "complete
map of an individual's life". 

It is likely to include details of email addresses they have
communicated with, which internet service providers they use, when they
used them and which sites they visited while online. Officials now claim
that Mr Blunkett did not actually mean that the information would only
be used for anti-terrorist investigations. 

Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, passed last year, law
enforcement agencies can obtain communications data without a court
order for a broad range of purposes. These include national security,
preventing or detecting crime and disorder, protecting public health and
safety and collecting tax. 

One official told the Guardian: "The data will be available for the full
range of purposes listed in the act." 

Mark Seddon, the editor of Tribune and a member of Labour's national
executive committee, said: "He would have known that all the civil
liberties campaigners like Liberty would have read Tribune and that
piece would have done the rounds." 

Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "We
understand the argument for data retention for specific purposes under
terror legislation for the period of an emergency. There is a different
argument, with much less justification, for general powers from now, in
theory, until eternity." 

The development is likely to cause consternation among some internet and
phone companies. 

Steve Rawlinson, chief technical officer of Claranet, which has about
500,000 customers in the UK, said: "The request that came through after
the US attacks to collect certain types of data was reasonable because
it was being used for an anti-terrorist investigation. 

"What worries us is that under Ripa [the act], the criteria for access
are pretty broad, so the police can demand the whole lot whenever they
want on their own authority." 

Tomorrow, the Commons home affairs committee will begin hearing evidence
as it considers the emergency anti-terror bill, which is expected to be
passed later this month. 

Last night a Home Office spokeswoman denied that Mr Blunkett had
intended the Tribune article to mean that the information would only be
used against suspected terrorists. She said: "The article was by
necessity an abridged version of the proposals we are bringing forward."