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/jun/14/online-snooping-home-office-cost

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
'Online snooping' scheme expected to cost at least £1.8bn 'Online snooping' scheme expected to cost at least £1.8bn
(4 months later)
The government's "online snooping" scheme to track email, Facebook, Twitter and other web use comes with an official pricetag of at least £1.8bn and an official warning that the figure may well prove to be an underestimate, the Home Office has revealed.The government's "online snooping" scheme to track email, Facebook, Twitter and other web use comes with an official pricetag of at least £1.8bn and an official warning that the figure may well prove to be an underestimate, the Home Office has revealed.
Ministers have already agreed to pay all the costs of the scheme, which will require phone and internet companies to collect and store for 12 months the records of internet and mobile phone use in Britain for access by police and intelligence services.Ministers have already agreed to pay all the costs of the scheme, which will require phone and internet companies to collect and store for 12 months the records of internet and mobile phone use in Britain for access by police and intelligence services.
The draft communications data bill published on Thursday says the move will cost £1.8bn over 10 years but that an official impact assessment says the pricetag is in line with the Treasury's "optimism bias" that understates the cost of major projects. It adds that the technical complexity of the scheme may well increase the costs and that the estimate does not allow for inflation or VAT.The draft communications data bill published on Thursday says the move will cost £1.8bn over 10 years but that an official impact assessment says the pricetag is in line with the Treasury's "optimism bias" that understates the cost of major projects. It adds that the technical complexity of the scheme may well increase the costs and that the estimate does not allow for inflation or VAT.
The former Tory shadow home secretary David Davis accused the home secretary, Theresa May, of proposing an "incredibly intrusive'' scheme that was exactly the same as the proposal David Cameron had attacked when Labour proposed it in office.The former Tory shadow home secretary David Davis accused the home secretary, Theresa May, of proposing an "incredibly intrusive'' scheme that was exactly the same as the proposal David Cameron had attacked when Labour proposed it in office.
May, in turn, branded the scheme's critics "conspiracy theorists", risking an even deeper breach with her own party's libertarian wing over the plan.May, in turn, branded the scheme's critics "conspiracy theorists", risking an even deeper breach with her own party's libertarian wing over the plan.
The communications data that police and intelligence services may seek about an individual under the communications bill includes email addresses and phone numbers of people who have been in contact; when this happened; where; and the details giving the police records of suspects' associates and activities. It will remain the case that they will not be allowed to access the content of emails, texts, mobile calls and other confidential web use without a warrant signed by the home secretary.The communications data that police and intelligence services may seek about an individual under the communications bill includes email addresses and phone numbers of people who have been in contact; when this happened; where; and the details giving the police records of suspects' associates and activities. It will remain the case that they will not be allowed to access the content of emails, texts, mobile calls and other confidential web use without a warrant signed by the home secretary.
The Liberal Democrats are expected to scale back their criticism of the legislation after Nick Clegg's intervention secured a series of safeguards, including a scrutiny inquiry by MPs and peers that will report by the end of November.The Liberal Democrats are expected to scale back their criticism of the legislation after Nick Clegg's intervention secured a series of safeguards, including a scrutiny inquiry by MPs and peers that will report by the end of November.
May defended the 550,000 individual requests for data each year made by security officials as a vital tool to catch serious criminals and terrorists.May defended the 550,000 individual requests for data each year made by security officials as a vital tool to catch serious criminals and terrorists.
She told the Sun: "I just don't understand why some people might criticise these proposals. I have no doubt conspiracy theorists will come up with some ridiculous claims about how these measures are an infringement of freedom. But without changing the law, the only freedom we would protect is that of criminals, terrorists and paedophiles."She told the Sun: "I just don't understand why some people might criticise these proposals. I have no doubt conspiracy theorists will come up with some ridiculous claims about how these measures are an infringement of freedom. But without changing the law, the only freedom we would protect is that of criminals, terrorists and paedophiles."
May's comments were backed by the Metropolitan police commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, who wrote in the Times that the powers could be "a matter of life and death".May's comments were backed by the Metropolitan police commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, who wrote in the Times that the powers could be "a matter of life and death".
He said having greater powers to access data was essential to waging a "total war on crime" and that police risked losing the fight against crime unless parliament passed a law enabling them to collect more communications data.He said having greater powers to access data was essential to waging a "total war on crime" and that police risked losing the fight against crime unless parliament passed a law enabling them to collect more communications data.
"Put simply, the police need access to this information to keep up with the criminals who bring so much harm to victims and our society," he wrote."Put simply, the police need access to this information to keep up with the criminals who bring so much harm to victims and our society," he wrote.
But the measure is expected to continue to attract fierce criticism from libertarian Conservatives.But the measure is expected to continue to attract fierce criticism from libertarian Conservatives.
Davis said the fact that there were already half a million requests each year from the police and intelligence services showed just how intrusive it was.Davis said the fact that there were already half a million requests each year from the police and intelligence services showed just how intrusive it was.
"This is exactly the same thing that Labour proposed in 2009. They went from a central database to this and we attacked it fiercely. In fact, David Cameron attacked it," said Davis, referring to a period when the Conservatives were campaigning against the spread of the "surveillance society"."This is exactly the same thing that Labour proposed in 2009. They went from a central database to this and we attacked it fiercely. In fact, David Cameron attacked it," said Davis, referring to a period when the Conservatives were campaigning against the spread of the "surveillance society".
He said serious criminals would quickly find other ways to communicate and the only people it would catch were the innocent and the incompetent.He said serious criminals would quickly find other ways to communicate and the only people it would catch were the innocent and the incompetent.
"It's not content, but it's incredibly intrusive," Davis told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "If they really want to do things like this – and we all accept they use data to catch criminals – get a warrant. Get a judge to sign a warrant, not the guy at the next desk, not somebody else in the same organisation.""It's not content, but it's incredibly intrusive," Davis told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "If they really want to do things like this – and we all accept they use data to catch criminals – get a warrant. Get a judge to sign a warrant, not the guy at the next desk, not somebody else in the same organisation."
Comments
91 comments, displaying first
14 June 2012 1:17PM
Oh,look, the magic money tree just came into leaf!
How are we supposed to be sure that the companies involved aren't going to be padding the bill?
And are the Liberal Democrats anywhere to be seen on this?
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:21PM
It's not the price tag we care about...
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:21PM
no comment do not want to contribute to the cost
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:23PM
There's no money left!!!
Oh, yes there is: £2 billion for a snoopers charter so we can check if people are demonstrating the requisite national socialist zeal. Are their curtains closed? Lazy feckless bastards!
Oh, and there's £5-7 billion for a Work Programme that produces worse results than Jobcentreplus. 3 million unemployed and the Government is using tax payer's money to send free workers to companies!
And more millions for Mandatory Work Activity that leads to more people claiming long term benefits.
There's no money left!!!!
No, there isn't, the Government have poured it all down the toilet.
It's like Fawlty Towers on a national scale.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:25PM
This must be stopped!
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:25PM
Freedom should be defended for everyone, and you always end up defending bad people because good people don't push the boundaries of what the state wants them to do anyway. Being able to look at communication patterns for anyone without needing a warrant is an unnecessary infringement on privacy – this information is already available to police and intelligence if they have a reasonable suspicion about someone, but they need to have that confirmed by a judge, and that's how it should stay.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:25PM
This is a step too far.
This wholesale spying is a bad sign. I don't trust this government; they seem dodgy to me, so why should they spy on us? Are they up to something?
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:26PM
Conspiracy theorists?
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean Theresa May's not out to get me.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:26PM
I rarely agree with Tories but David Davis was dead right when he said that the only people this legislation wouldn't intrude on are terrorists, paedophiles and serious criminals - because they'll use PAYG phones, internet cafes or proxy servers etc. Once again it's a case of the government not understanding how the internet works. Only now we have to pay a staggering £2billion for their folly. Unbelievable.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:27PM
your PC/tablet/smart phone is now fully a realised Orwellian telescreen...
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:27PM
But without changing the law, the only freedom we would protect is that of criminals, terrorists and paedophiles."
Bascially the securitocracy think we're all guilty of something and need to be protected from ourselves.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:27PM
I feel shocked and appauled that I seem to agree with David Davis on this matter...and to use David Cameron's (previous) own words on the subject, it will not succeed in its intentions and is a waste of money.
If they absolutely can't bear to channel the cash into health/schools etc then for the love of god can they at least use it to reduce their precious deficit instead please?
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:28PM
"Put simply, the police need access to this information to keep up with the criminals who bring so much harm to victims and our society," he wrote.

No honestly, we really don't need the police to access this information. And it is highly debatable if this will solve more crimes. We do not need further intrusions into our freedoms on the pretext of security. Absolute security only has a place in prisons, not in free societies.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:28PM
1.8 billion over 10 years !
Why no say 18 billion over 100 years ?
- or 180 billion over 1000 years
- of course you could say 180 million a year
which in terms of the benefits of finding criminals isn't even worth reporting.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:29PM
Big Brother is watching comes to mind.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:29PM
If anything, I feel I need to be protected from Theresa May and her cohort. Can I have all her personal data please?
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:30PM
Are they going to snoop on emails worldwide? What if someone sets up a VPN and only uses foreign email accounts?
This is a complete waste of time because if someone wants to avoid being snooped on then they will be able too.
I apreciate that if you send an email to an english email company then this will be seen.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:30PM
People who commit serious crimes know how to avoid detection by using hugely complex routing systems. This will do nothing but snare morons and petty criminals. And it won't cost 1.8billion as this is the UK. It will cost three times that.
BTW, wasn't this joke of a government elected standing on a civil liberties ticket?
Revolution, please!!
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:31PM
The communications data that police and intelligence services may seek about an individual under the communications bill includes email addresses and phone numbers of people who have been in contact; when this happened; where; and the details giving the police records of suspects' associates and activities. It will remain the case that they will not be allowed to access the content of emails, texts, mobile calls and other confidential web use without a warrant signed by the home secretary.

any criminal with half a brain doesnt do crime using email accounts like gmail and hotmail and any criminal with half a brain uses pay as you go phones that arent linked to an address.
so basically the criminals that arent being caught with the current laws still wont be caught with these proposed new ones.
so all your going to catch are the low level numpties and not the high level ones. which is the same as now.
EPIC FAIL.
i wouldnt worry too much about this stupid bill, the EU commisioners will kick it to the kerb. its posturing and scare mongering.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:31PM
Will they be opening our snail mail before the postman delivers it too? How about tapping our phones? Why not go the whole hog?
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:32PM
Ministers have already agreed to pay all the costs of the scheme, which will require phone and internet companies to collect and store for 12 months the records of internet and mobile phone use in Britain for access by police and intelligence services.
Oh great! We'll send the bill to David Cameron c/o the local pub then shall we?
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:33PM
David Davis to join UKIP--you read it hear first folks
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:34PM
Of the 550,000 requests for emails and personal browsing history last year, does anyone know exactly how many terrorists or serious criminals were arrested as a result?
People using the internet specifically for serious crime are unlikely to be doing it through their Facebook account, logged into a mainstream ISP broadband account.
The more the government try to police the internet, the stronger the measures criminals, and people wanting privacy, will take. Which will then entail the government spending even more money trying to track them.
Highly frustrating when we are paying the bill.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:34PM
Takes the f'ing piss what absolute codshit May, Cameron & Co. speak.
Good on David Davis for sticking the finger up. A conservative with a backbone, who'd have thought it.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:34PM
Oh for the good old days when all one had to do was pop up in a casino, order a Vodka Martini, then off to a desert island to foil a plot to nab a satelite and shot the bad guys with spearguns. Now its all bloody facebook this and twitter that
These pesky kids will put me out of a job. My Aston only cost £5k in 1964, and now its worth £2.6m , so its been an investment
A bloody disgrace
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:35PM
Who guards the guards?
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:36PM
These figures just don't add up.
UKP1.8bn over 10 years is UKP180 million per year. How many people are involved in this? That's enough to pay over 5000 people at national average salary (Incl all the employers costs).
How many serious crimes are commited every year, 10,000? Sorry, can't find any statistics for serious crimes
If so then UKP18,000 is being spent per crime on just "snooping" alone.
Any chance that a journalist could look at the story instead of just dumbly publishing a press release.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:36PM
This from a coalition who abolished ID cards because they were an "infringement of civil liberties"
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:37PM
They are going to track every on-line communication in order to catch the tiny percentage that is used by criminals? Mr sledgehammer, meet Mr nut.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:37PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
14 June 2012 1:38PM
All phone calls are already monitored. Its called Echelon. Not anything you can't read elsewhere so its ok to mention it here. And snail mail is sprayed with a solvent that allows us to read anything suspicious through the envelope without spoiling the contents.
So don't leave fivers in cards
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:38PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
14 June 2012 1:40PM
It's a government IT project, so multiply what they say it will cost by ten. It will go through because Obama's bosses have told him to tell Cameron to do it.
Yes, Teresa, it is a conspiracy theory, but that doesn't mean it isn't true, just that they don't trust you to know.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:41PM
I just realised who Theresa May reminds me of...
Has she got a list of "205 Known Communists in the State Department"?
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:41PM
Well ! George Orwell 1984 seems a long way off now, but at last we have a Fascist government that's willing to make your book achieve great fame. On the positive side at least we have the satisfaction of catching politicians lying and cheating in the near future, yea! you better believe it......
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:41PM
May, in turn, branded the scheme's critics "conspiracy theorists", risking an even deeper breach with her own party's libertarian wing over the plan.
Yet a government that sees huge numbers of its citizens as conspiring against it via electronic media isn't a conspiracy theorist?
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:42PM
It says 1.8billion over 10 years because that's what it has been costed at.... we have no idea of the breakdown....
Year 1 may cost 1.5billion in order to set up the systems and infastructure, with the remaining 300million spread over the next 9 years...... therefore 1.8billion over 10 years AND a lot more than 180 million initial, year one outlay.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:43PM
The real question to be addressed is just why,is the British government hell bent on finding and using,ever increasing ways,of keeping the population of Britain under it's tight conrtol.
To want to know about and record every thought and deed of the people they govern and also to find the vast sums of money to pay American companies to do this. Just has to mean,that they are aware of facts,that are not being disclosed.
Are they expecting an insurgency of the people ?. Just what measures are going to be introduced,that might cause such an insurgency ?. The fact,that these days. There is not even an attempt to disguise these vast removals of people rights and privacy. Can only mean,that the government's contempt for the people who elected them,is such,that this is no longer a consideration.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:43PM
Why do the liberals always argue against this stuff on the grounds of cost and efficacy instead of on the principle? This will certainly help the police to catch criminals, and isn't *that* expensive in the grand scheme of things (prisons cost 3.5bn per year). It's also far from simple to work around, and the effort (for criminals) to work round it would certainly disrupt their operations.
Until we tackle the 'innocent have nothing to fear' fallacy head on, most people will be happy to let this stuff pass.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:44PM
£1.8bn over 10 years is clearly bollocks as the bulk of the cost will be upfront. The government may be paying but who is keeping the info? Twitter? Why don't they just follow @alquaeda or whatever to find out what they're planning? Is it just UK users? UK servers? And who's going to go through it all to find out what might be there?
Or is it really so they can find out where people are on particular times and dates o they know if they're available for work or not really sick? Or planning a demonstration?
The stated reasons from Theresa May are total bollocks; which means she and others are colluding to get this information for reasons they aren't prepared to state. They're doing it to obtain money under false pretences (which sounds like fraud to me) and they're conspiring to do so (which makes it a conspiracy) - better to describe her critics as Conspiracy Pragmatists instead.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:44PM
1.2 bill will deffo escalate to above 4. im sure many dont know how much it will actually cost.
btw is this a good time to introduce people to TOR (people need to look it up as it is going to be huge soon enough)
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:46PM
Wouldn't it be cheaper if we all promised to CC GCHQ with all our emails?
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:46PM
You can talk about the monetary cost but y'know, erosion of privacy is a fairly high price to pay.
I realise your sole reason for coming on here is to completely support everything to government says and irritate lefties, but virtually no-one on either side seems to think this is a sensible idea. Why do you think that is?
Lets put everyone in jail, just to be sure?
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:47PM
Hi,It is a good way to kill off the digital economy; the force that is supposed to underpin our economic recovery?
It does present an opportunity to create a VPN access to the internet elsewhere?
best
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:47PM
The KGB's motto was "know everything".
The unconstrained zeal to collect information will gather its own momentum.
And the consequences may be unintended, as they often are.
"Our motto was to know everything" - Boris Karpichkov, former KGB operative.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:48PM
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!
They say as the come creeping out of their masonic lodges, secret MP clubs, gentleman's clubs with conveniently hidden memberships, so called charitable institutions and all manner of other places we are not allowed to know who is a member.
Why?
After all, yeah you guessed it.......If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

What do these people think terrorist groups do? Send each other customised on line greetings cards with the latest "plot" on it?.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:49PM
this whole idea comes from the USA- the US govt are pressuring our govt behind the scenes to beef up net snooping because they see the UK as the final frontier against so called ant-christian islamist terror. the US already has this kind of crap snooping law and as the UK is essentially just another state of the USA in all but name they want it here to.
as per usual the USA govt says jump and the UK govt says 'how high?'.
bill baileys famous quote about the USA being the playground bully and the UK being the kid on the shoulder poking the finger and saying 'yeeeeaah' menacingly was never so truer than today.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:51PM
There's no money left!!!
Oh yes there is - don't forget the shortfall in the Olympic budget which everyone's so excited about - that' should pay for startup costs and maybe a year's running.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:51PM
It's scary to think that some News International journalist might potentially gain access to the Police by whatever methods to carry out tweet/email searches in the name of 'journalism'. Environmentalists, also beware, I could imagine.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 1:52PM
The problem is they can check anyones with out reason.
Last year they checked over a thousand people a day... That does add up.
It's simple, they should have to get a warrant from a judge.
Otherwise no way.
Link to this comment:
Comments on this page are now closed.
Turn autoplay off
Turn autoplay on
Please activate cookies in order to turn autoplay off
Edition: UK
About us
Today's paper
Subscribe
Home Office reveals pricetag for tracking emails, phone use and Facebook and Twitter accounts as Theresa May attacks critics as 'conspiracy theorists'
The government's "online snooping" scheme to track email, Facebook, Twitter and other web use comes with an official pricetag of at least £1.8bn and an official warning that the figure may well prove to be an underestimate, the Home Office has revealed.
Ministers have already agreed to pay all the costs of the scheme, which will require phone and internet companies to collect and store for 12 months the records of internet and mobile phone use in Britain for access by police and intelligence services.
The draft communications data bill published on Thursday says the move will cost £1.8bn over 10 years but that an official impact assessment says the pricetag is in line with the Treasury's "optimism bias" that understates the cost of major projects. It adds that the technical complexity of the scheme may well increase the costs and that the estimate does not allow for inflation or VAT.
The former Tory shadow home secretary David Davis accused the home secretary, Theresa May, of proposing an "incredibly intrusive'' scheme that was exactly the same as the proposal David Cameron had attacked when Labour proposed it in office.
May, in turn, branded the scheme's critics "conspiracy theorists", risking an even deeper breach with her own party's libertarian wing over the plan.
The communications data that police and intelligence services may seek about an individual under the communications bill includes email addresses and phone numbers of people who have been in contact; when this happened; where; and the details giving the police records of suspects' associates and activities. It will remain the case that they will not be allowed to access the content of emails, texts, mobile calls and other confidential web use without a warrant signed by the home secretary.
The Liberal Democrats are expected to scale back their criticism of the legislation after Nick Clegg's intervention secured a series of safeguards, including a scrutiny inquiry by MPs and peers that will report by the end of November.
May defended the 550,000 individual requests for data each year made by security officials as a vital tool to catch serious criminals and terrorists.
She told the Sun: "I just don't understand why some people might criticise these proposals. I have no doubt conspiracy theorists will come up with some ridiculous claims about how these measures are an infringement of freedom. But without changing the law, the only freedom we would protect is that of criminals, terrorists and paedophiles."
May's comments were backed by the Metropolitan police commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, who wrote in the Times that the powers could be "a matter of life and death".
He said having greater powers to access data was essential to waging a "total war on crime" and that police risked losing the fight against crime unless parliament passed a law enabling them to collect more communications data.
"Put simply, the police need access to this information to keep up with the criminals who bring so much harm to victims and our society," he wrote.
But the measure is expected to continue to attract fierce criticism from libertarian Conservatives.
Davis said the fact that there were already half a million requests each year from the police and intelligence services showed just how intrusive it was.
"This is exactly the same thing that Labour proposed in 2009. They went from a central database to this and we attacked it fiercely. In fact, David Cameron attacked it," said Davis, referring to a period when the Conservatives were campaigning against the spread of the "surveillance society".
He said serious criminals would quickly find other ways to communicate and the only people it would catch were the innocent and the incompetent.
"It's not content, but it's incredibly intrusive," Davis told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "If they really want to do things like this – and we all accept they use data to catch criminals – get a warrant. Get a judge to sign a warrant, not the guy at the next desk, not somebody else in the same organisation."