This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/09/questions-unanswered-snoopers-charter

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Big questions remain unanswered over the government's 'snooper's charter' Big questions remain unanswered over the government's 'snooper's charter'
(40 minutes later)
The coalition has pushed ahead with its plans to introduce monitoring of who is talking to whom over the internet, known as the "header" information of emails, web pages and text messages – although Nick Clegg is insistent that it will not be rammed through parliament and that it will get plenty of scrutiny.The coalition has pushed ahead with its plans to introduce monitoring of who is talking to whom over the internet, known as the "header" information of emails, web pages and text messages – although Nick Clegg is insistent that it will not be rammed through parliament and that it will get plenty of scrutiny.
That's a good thing. Internet service providers (ISPs) and mobile phone operators, which will have to implement this, have been hoping that it wouldn't come. More to the point, nobody has yet answered why the government wants to be able to see our digital breadcrumb trail – telling it, in effect, only where we've been, but not necessarily what was said.That's a good thing. Internet service providers (ISPs) and mobile phone operators, which will have to implement this, have been hoping that it wouldn't come. More to the point, nobody has yet answered why the government wants to be able to see our digital breadcrumb trail – telling it, in effect, only where we've been, but not necessarily what was said.
The problem is that such monitoring can be easily evaded by even slightly tech-savvy criminals or terrorists. (Who you talk to using an internet phone – or "VOIP" – service such as Skype, for example, will not show up on ISPs or phone network records, since it isn't an email or a web page, and is encrypted by default, though paranoid rumours abound of it being hacked by governments to eavesdrop.) The problem is that such monitoring can be easily evaded by even slightly tech-savvy criminals or terrorists. (Who you talk to using an internet phone – or VoIP – service such as Skype, for example, will not show up on ISPs or phone network records, since it isn't an email or a web page, and is encrypted by default, though paranoid rumours abound of it being hacked by governments to eavesdrop.)
That leaves open the question of who the government – more precisely, the police and security services, since they are the ones who have been pushing for this measure – think they are going to catch with this scheme.That leaves open the question of who the government – more precisely, the police and security services, since they are the ones who have been pushing for this measure – think they are going to catch with this scheme.
Clearly, they must have an idea. Here's what a Home Office spokesman said by way of explanation: "It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public.Clearly, they must have an idea. Here's what a Home Office spokesman said by way of explanation: "It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public.
"We need to take action to maintain the continued availability of communications data as technology changes. Communications data has played a role in every major Security Service counter-terrorism operation over the past decade and in 95% of all serious organised crime investigations.""We need to take action to maintain the continued availability of communications data as technology changes. Communications data has played a role in every major Security Service counter-terrorism operation over the past decade and in 95% of all serious organised crime investigations."
The roundup: "It is vital to law enforcement, especially when dealing with organised crime gangs, paedophile rings and terrorist groups."The roundup: "It is vital to law enforcement, especially when dealing with organised crime gangs, paedophile rings and terrorist groups."
Let's be more precise. It's going to be useful against the less well-organised groups, gangs and rings, where some or all of the members aren't well-schooled in the computing field. That effectively means "the older ones" or those who are operating at the bottom of the ladder, because anyone further up the rungs of criminality or terrorism will already be familar with swapping sims, disposable phones, encryption services, and so on.Let's be more precise. It's going to be useful against the less well-organised groups, gangs and rings, where some or all of the members aren't well-schooled in the computing field. That effectively means "the older ones" or those who are operating at the bottom of the ladder, because anyone further up the rungs of criminality or terrorism will already be familar with swapping sims, disposable phones, encryption services, and so on.
That leads us back to the key questions: how often is this data going to be used? And will it be examined as a prelude to an investigation, or only alongside one? The worry is that the police and security services will begin using the fact that this data is collected to go on fishing expeditions against people that they don't like, in order to build a case. That might work in some cases, but it could also amount to a huge intrusion, many times over.That leads us back to the key questions: how often is this data going to be used? And will it be examined as a prelude to an investigation, or only alongside one? The worry is that the police and security services will begin using the fact that this data is collected to go on fishing expeditions against people that they don't like, in order to build a case. That might work in some cases, but it could also amount to a huge intrusion, many times over.
The draft communications bill itself suggests that yes, fishing expeditions are just what this will be about. "The main benefits would be: the ability of the police and intelligence agencies to continue to access communications data which is vital in supporting their work in protecting the public" plus "an updated framework for the collection, retention and acquisition of communications data which enables a flexible response to technological change", reads the draft. The draft communications data bill itself suggests that yes, fishing expeditions are just what this will be about. "The main benefits would be: the ability of the police and intelligence agencies to continue to access communications data which is vital in supporting their work in protecting the public" plus "an updated framework for the collection, retention and acquisition of communications data which enables a flexible response to technological change", reads the draft.
In other words, fishing expeditions – ostensibly overseen by the Interception of Communications Commissioner (ICC), who already exists – it's a job within the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), presently held by the Rt Hon Sir Paul Kennedy (amusingly pictured on the site only through the window of a passing car – no interception there).In other words, fishing expeditions – ostensibly overseen by the Interception of Communications Commissioner (ICC), who already exists – it's a job within the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), presently held by the Rt Hon Sir Paul Kennedy (amusingly pictured on the site only through the window of a passing car – no interception there).
Now, the job sounds like a powerful one, where Sir Paul would be the gatekeeper to the police or security services getting hold of data. However, events from the phone hacking scandal (when some reporters were able to get mobile phone numbers and even immediate locations – something only possible by use of data that the IPT must approve) suggest that the IPT and the ICC aren't as good at holding back incursions on private data as they should be.Now, the job sounds like a powerful one, where Sir Paul would be the gatekeeper to the police or security services getting hold of data. However, events from the phone hacking scandal (when some reporters were able to get mobile phone numbers and even immediate locations – something only possible by use of data that the IPT must approve) suggest that the IPT and the ICC aren't as good at holding back incursions on private data as they should be.
Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the web, calls the plan "a destruction of human rights". Only the police and security services (who, let's remember, were in favour of 90-day detention without charge – despite never being able to describe a case where it would have made a difference) like it.Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the web, calls the plan "a destruction of human rights". Only the police and security services (who, let's remember, were in favour of 90-day detention without charge – despite never being able to describe a case where it would have made a difference) like it.
The price of doing all this? Around £200m every year. While it's hard to put a price on privacy, and equally hard to put a price on prevention of crime, something about the scheme seems out of proportion.The price of doing all this? Around £200m every year. While it's hard to put a price on privacy, and equally hard to put a price on prevention of crime, something about the scheme seems out of proportion.
Perhaps it's the lack of clarity on when the data will be accessible – before, during or after a crime. Perhaps it's the vagueness about how you cope with criminals or terrorists who have moved past simply using web email. Perhaps it's because there's no way to point to the occasions where it could have made a difference.Perhaps it's the lack of clarity on when the data will be accessible – before, during or after a crime. Perhaps it's the vagueness about how you cope with criminals or terrorists who have moved past simply using web email. Perhaps it's because there's no way to point to the occasions where it could have made a difference.
As Nick Pickles, the director of the civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch, said: "The Home Office have been very good at saying what the problem is, but seem intent on keeping the technical details of what they are proposing secret. Is it any wonder that the public are scared by a proposal for online surveillance not seen in any other western democracy?"As Nick Pickles, the director of the civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch, said: "The Home Office have been very good at saying what the problem is, but seem intent on keeping the technical details of what they are proposing secret. Is it any wonder that the public are scared by a proposal for online surveillance not seen in any other western democracy?"
He added: "If someone is suspected of plotting an attack the powers already exist to tap their phone, read their email and follow them on the street. Instead of scaremongering, the Home Office should come forward and engage with the debate about how we improve public safety, rather than pursue a policy that will indiscriminately spy on everyone online while the real threats are driven underground and escape surveillance."He added: "If someone is suspected of plotting an attack the powers already exist to tap their phone, read their email and follow them on the street. Instead of scaremongering, the Home Office should come forward and engage with the debate about how we improve public safety, rather than pursue a policy that will indiscriminately spy on everyone online while the real threats are driven underground and escape surveillance."
He's right. The trouble is that as so often in the past 20 years, few people in the government seem to be familiar enough with the technology at issue to question whether the tradeoff is worthwhile. For the Liberal Democrats, seeing this ship sail through parliament after they holed the ID cards bill will be a terribly painful experience. There's a simple reason why, too – it's an idea with only limited usefulness. If the security services really want to catch the stupid criminals, they didn't need to make it so obvious.He's right. The trouble is that as so often in the past 20 years, few people in the government seem to be familiar enough with the technology at issue to question whether the tradeoff is worthwhile. For the Liberal Democrats, seeing this ship sail through parliament after they holed the ID cards bill will be a terribly painful experience. There's a simple reason why, too – it's an idea with only limited usefulness. If the security services really want to catch the stupid criminals, they didn't need to make it so obvious.