Every phone call, email and internet click stored by 'state spying' databases

Every phone call, email and internet click stored by 'state spying' databases

All telecoms companies and internet service providers will be required by law to keep a record of every customer's personal communications, showing who they are contacting, when, where and which websites they are visiting.

Despite widespread opposition over Britain's growing surveillance society, 653 public bodies will be given access to the confidential information, including police, local councils, the Financial Services Authority, the Ambulance Service, fire authorities and even prison governors.

They will not require the permission of a judge or a magistrate to access the information, but simply the authorisation of a senior police officer or the equivalent of a deputy head of department at a local authority.

Ministers had originally wanted to store the information on a massive Government-run database, but chose not to because of privacy concerns.

However the Government announced yesterday it was pressing ahead with privately-held "Big Brother" databases which opposition leaders said amount to "state-spying" and a form of "covert surveillance" on the public.

It is doing so despite its own consultation showing there is little public support for the plans.

The Home Office admitted that only a third of respondents to its six-month consultation on the issue supported its proposals, with 50 per cent fearing that the scheme lacked sufficient safeguards to protect the highly personal data from abuse.

The new law will increase the amount of personal data which can be accessed by officials through the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which is supposed to be used for combatting terrorism.

Although most private firms already hold details of every customer's private calls and emails for their own business purposes, most only do so on an ad hoc basis and only for a period of several months.

The new rules, known as the Intercept Modernisation Programme, will not only force communication companies to keep their records for longer, but to expand the type of data they keep to include details of every website their customers visit – effectively registering every click online.

While public authorities will not be able to view the contents of these emails or phone calls – but they can see the internet addresses, dates, times and users of telephone numbers and texts.

The firms involved in keeping the data, such as as Orange, BT and Vodafone, will be reimbursed at a cost to the taxpayer of £2billion over 10 years.

Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary, said he had fears about the abuse of the data.

"The big danger in all of this is 'mission creep'. This Government keeps on introducing new powers to tackle terrorism and organised crime which end up being used for completely different purposes. We have to stop that from happening".

David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, added: "What is being proposed is a highly intrusive procedure which would allow Government authorities to maintain covert surveillance on public use of telephones, texts, emails and internet access."

He added that the permission to access the data should be granted by judges or magistrates.

"Whilst this is no doubt necessary in pursuing terrorist suspects, the proposals are so intrusive that they should be subject to legal approval, and should not be available except in pursuit of the most serious crimes," he said.

The Information Commissioner’s Office also opposed the moves.

"The Information Commissioner believes that the case has yet to be made for the collection and processing of additional communications data for the population as a whole being relevant and not excessive."

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, has criticised the amount the scheme will cost for what is effectively "state spying".

He said yesterday: "Any legislation requiring communications providers to keep data on who called whom and when will need strong safeguards on access.

"It is simply not that easy to separate the bare details of a call from its content. What if a leading business person is ringing Alcoholics Anonymous?

"There has to be a careful balance between investigative powers and the right to privacy."

Ministers said that they have still got to work with the communications industry to find the correct way of framing the proposals in law – meaning it will not come before Parliament until after the General Election. But the Home Office yesterday insisted it would push the legislation through.

Jacqui Smith, then Home Secretary, originally launched a paper in April for consultation called "Protecting the Public in a Changing Communications Environment".

The responses, published yesterday, disclosed that more than 40 per cent of 221 respondents rejected it outright as the growth of the surveillance state.

Of those whose repsonses were considered, exactly half said that the proposed safeguards for the information to be stored were not adequate.

Only 29 per cent third supported the Government approach, whereas 38 per cent were against it.

Meanwhile the communications providers themselves questioned the cost of the scheme and whether it was even technically feasible.

The latest figures on the use of the RIPA legislation by public bodies, show that state bodies including town halls made 519,260 requests last year - one every minute - to spy on the phone records and email accounts of members of the public.

The number of requests has risen by 44 per cent in two years to a rate of 1,422 new cases every day, leading to claims of an abuse of using the powers for trivial matters such as littering and dog fouling.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "The Big Brother ambitions of a group of senior Whitehall technocrats are delayed but not diminished.

"We need a bold alliance of phone companies who fear losing public trust and concerned citizens to come together in opposition to these plans.

"If the authorities need to build up an intimate picture of a suspect's communications, they should have to go to a judge for a warrant.

"Law-abiding people have sustained too many blanket attacks on their privacy and they've had enough."

Alex Deane, Director of Big Brother Watch, said it was an "enormous and unwarranted intrusion into every aspect of our private lives" and said that the laws are in effect an "illiberal snoopers' charter."

John Yates, Britain's head of anti-terrorism, has argued that the legislation is vital for his investigators.

The Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner said: "The availability of Communications Data to investogators is absolutely crucial. Its importance to investigating the threat of terrorism and serious crime cannot be ovetrstated". continues here

Intelligence agencies develop 'terrorist Facebook' to find links between key players

Intelligence agencies are using a complex computer programme to build up a Facebook-style database that will help establish the links between international terrorists.

By analysing the social networks that exist between known terrorists and suspects and even innocent bystanders, military leaders hope to open a new front in the "war on terror".

They plan to amass intelligence on a large range of people, even those who seem obscure or irrelevant, and feed it into a computer which will use an algorithm to investigate associations or connections that could be missed by a human.

The intelligence agencies are gleaning the raw data from multiple sources including information from interviews with suspects captured in the field and telecommunications data collected from emails and telephone calls.

When the information is fed into the computer programme it can help identify key figures in terrorist organisations and predict attacks before they happen. continues here

Outrage as police chiefs are secretly told to hang on to unlawful DNA

Police have secretly been told to continue with the unlawful 'Big Brother' policy of indefinitely storing DNA samples taken from entirely innocent people.

It is more than seven months since European judges ruled that DNA taken from 850,000 people who were not convicted of any crime could not be stored for life.

But a leaked letter by one of the country's most senior policing officials reveals that forces have been warned against starting to destroy the unlawful samples.



Chief constables have been 'strongly advised' they should stick to the old rules allowing blanket retention of DNA samples until at least 2010.'It is not up to police forces to ignore court judgments because they or their masters do not like them.'

In the meantime, officers are free to trawl through the records of innocent people in search of a possible DNA match.

Last night, MPs condemned the tactic. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: 'It is unacceptable that new guidance won't be provided to police forces until 2010.

'In that time thousands more innocent people will have been added to the database, where they will remain for years.

'It is not up to police forces to ignore court judgments because they or their masters do not like them.'

Under current rules, DNA samples may be taken from anybody arrested for all but the most minor crimes. They can be stored indefinitely, even if the person is later cleared by a court or no charges are brought.

The sample will be removed only following a successful personal plea to a chief constable. The number destroyed in this way is tiny.

Last December, the European court ruled that the policy was unlawful and disproportionate. continues here

BAN ON OUTDOOR SMOKING

SMOKING outside pubs and offices could be banned under plans to be announced by the European Union tomorrow.


Brussels bureaucrats want to outlaw it in areas like beer gardens and covered patios – and even extend it to concerts such as last weekend’s Glastonbury Festival.

The European Commission says the current ban in enclosed public places doesn’t go far enough and non-smokers are still in danger. continues here

SHOP STAFF WILL TAKE CHARGE OF ID CARDS

STAFF in supermarkets, post offices and even photo shops will be asked to take fingerprints and facial scans for the new ID card, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said yesterday.


Card opponent Phil Booth, of No2ID, said: “It’s almost comical that the organ­isation in charge of national security thinks they can trust the local camera shop with your most private information.” continues here continues here

Civil liberties groups condemn 'Big Brother' plan to keep DNA of innocent people for 12 years

Innocent people will have to wait up to 12 years to have their DNA removed from the Government's 'Big Brother' database, under controversial new plans.

Even those cleared of the most minor offences will have to wait six years, while some innocent children will have their profiles stored long after they have turned 18.

The proposals, which require a change in the law, were last night slammed by civil liberties groups, who are threatening to sue the Home Office.

They accused Home Secretary Jacqui Smith of an ' undignified rearguard' action designed to do as little as possible to comply with a European Court of Human Rights' ruling that storing the DNA of innocents is unlawful.

UNDER THE NEW PLAN:
Profiles of adults and children arrested, but not convicted of serious crimes, will be kept for 12 years;
Profiles of those arrested but not convicted of minor offences stored for six years;
Youngsters convicted of only one minor offence will be deleted from the database when they turn 18;
Children convicted of serious crime to have their profile stored indefinitely.

There will also be a 'two strikes and you're out policy', whereby children accused twice of a minor offence must remain on the database for at least six years - even if they are cleared both times.

Campaigners had hoped that the samples of all 850,000 innocents stored on the database - the largest in the world - would be destroyed in the wake of last December's judgment.

Home Office officials admit what is being proposed may not even be acceptable to the European courts, but insist to go further would weaken the fight against crime. And they claim 4,500 more crimes will be solved each year. Currently, under laws introduced by Tony Blair, anyone accused but not convicted can have their profile stored for life.

The process of removing innocents already on the database will take two years. Officials estimate that, at most, only 500,000 samples will be removed.

The proposals remain far tougher than in Scotland, where DNA is kept for a maximum of five years, even for those accused of the most serious crimes.

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: 'People in Britain should be innocent until proven guilty.

'Ministers are just trying to get away with as little as they possibly can instead of taking real action to remove innocent people from the DNA database. It's just not good enough.'

Tory police spokesman James Brokenshire uncovered figures showing that - despite the huge growth in profiles on the database from 2.1million in 2002 to 5.6million today - the number of detected crimes in which a DNA match was available has fallen, from 21,098 to 17,614 last year.

Civil liberties groups have threatened legal action over the plans, which they said would leave Britain 'massively out of step with the rest of the world'.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: 'With regret we shall be forced to see her (Miss Smith) in court once more.'

Police will also track down around 30,000 criminals who committed serious crimes before the database was built so their profiles can be added. All genetic material taken will be destroyed - at a cost of almost £60million. continues here

Russian journalist blasts 'Big Brother Britain' and compares it to life in the old Soviet Union

A Russian journalist believes the level of surveillance is worse in ‘Big Brother Britain’ than it was in Russia during the Soviet era.

Irada Zeinalova, who is based in London, said she felt she was being constantly spied on by security cameras.

She highlighted how in the UK the level of monitoring is such that even rubbish bins have computer chips fitted so councils can check what householders are throwing out.

‘Security has got absurd,’ she said. ‘I don’t like that level of intrusion into my private life.

‘London is a Big Brother city. It is all watched by cameras. Even in the days of the USSR you couldn’t imagine such a number of cameras or observers. Your moves are even monitored by your bus tickets. There are CCTV cameras on every building and computer chips on the rubbish bins.

‘They can tell a lot about your life by studying your rubbish bin. All aspects of your life are plainly visible here.’

Mrs Zeinalova, 37, an award-winning correspondent in London for the Kremlin-controlled Moscow TV station Channel One, accepted that some Russian journalists in London face close monitoring by British counter-intelligence.

One, from the Vesti TV programme, ‘had a full-scale spying operation on him. It’s a normal thing here’.

She said Londoners seemed reassured by the level of security and imagined that if some calamity occurred they would be rescued by the emergency services.

‘They explain the CCTV cameras on every corner by fighting terrorism and crime – but sadly it doesn’t solve the problems,’ she told the Moscow newspaper Komsololskaya Pravda in an interview.

‘Watching the rubbish bins, they waste more money than on the actual fight with the problems.’

On a different note, Mrs Zeinalova added: ‘And as for smokers – they are treated like lepers here.’

She said the English believed they were ‘masters of the world’.

‘The Englishmen’s position is: let all the rest of the nations argue about who is the master of the world, we won’t take part in it. We know who is the master.’

The British were also proud of their reputation for being stand- offish. ‘The British are a very special separate-nation,’ she said. ‘I have been here for two years and I communicate closely with quite a lot of people. But no matter how closely we chat, they never let me in.’

Mrs Zeinalova said the British worship TV and football.
Enlarge

Being a ‘safe society’ exciting things don’t happen very often, so the British become obsessed with TV.

‘Recently, one of the TV show participants – a small and not very famous one – decided to leave,’ she said.

‘The papers were going on about it for a week. We would never have it like this in Russia. It is a completely different perception of life.’continues here

1. Post a comment on AAWR


2. Subscribe to AAWR


3. link to AAWR


4. Bookmark AAWR


5. View Incidence Map

a vaporous freedom

We live in really quite reprehensible times, at least here, here at home in the UK, however friends abroad, tell me that this spreading tyranny grows, that moves to create a global hell continue apace. In this country what passes for government, seeks to eavesdrop upon the people, seeks to place us all upon a database, controlled, scrutinised and shackled. You may have taken the time to read many AAWR posts here, that refer to big-brother, if not you should do so now, you should realise the extent they rob us of freedom, the extent of the growing menace.

We posted here an article concerning this reprehensible regimes plans to record every email and website visit made, alongside that of telephones, yet as reported only quite recently, even car users are not immune, this regime means to obtain complete and unshakable control and I cannot feign surprise.

Leftism is by its very nature artificial and therefore needs draconian law and repression in order to function, it warps reality feigning victim status whilst in reality it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Undercover of humanitarianism it will instigate oppression and once the time is right, it will unleash the people’s misery. Of course there have been countless “practices”, countless times when leftism thought it had it right, that is until the people triumphed. Yet for how long can the people triumph, for how long can we hold fast to freedom and inhibit the left, we live in an age of technology, an age whereby machines can and indeed do, replace humans in the workplace.

It is now possible to control a people en-masse with little dependency upon man-power, in the future even the need for the army will become redundant, as weapons become evermore automated and are focused upon the frailties of the human condition. Already weapons are in production that can serve no other purpose than to control the masses, weapons instead of focusing solely upon a singular human being are now developed to control and attack population densities. Instead of targeting group offenders weapons will target the group, the same of course can be said for this mass eavesdropping, they no longer even care if we know, so very certain are they of victory, they know full well that the dysfunctional society they have purposely created allows for no unity, no common purpose, save for what they themselves create.

In fact, as in days of old they ferment disunity, create chaos in order to function, have we no backbone, no courage, did it die long ago, are we so weak, they mean us harm, they ride out for evil and we barely stir. Again I beg you, do not fall for this it is all Islam rubbish, do not let them lead you, it is a trick, a ruse and we sleepwalk to our end, they need a boogieman, need an evil group, need it to implant their security measures. Have you never wondered why it is, in this the age of political correctness, why Muslims can be so maligned, why the owned media can disparage seemingly at will.

What if forces similar to those igniting anti-Islamic sentiment here, operated in the east, spewing anti-western sentiment, what a hotchpotch, what a brew, what a cauldron of cleverness, what if the intent was purposeful, had common purpose and the result a global hell. Here at home they destroy all, is it not the case in the east also, here at home freedom crumbles and tyranny marches in, everything we say, everything we do, everything we are is under scrutiny, is it not fast becoming time that we shake them off, that we take back our countries and our freedoms whatever it takes.

There is a better solution than robbing us of freedoms, a better solution than implementing such evil, leave them alone. Let them live according to their beliefs, unmolested within their own lands, stop supporting the rogue state and let freedom reign. We won’t, we’ll still disparage them, still send troops to sovereign nations, men, women and children will still die and they will ratchet up the hate, the silly among nationalists will contest the wrong for and the people of this country will still permit the loss of their freedoms and nothing will change form the plan.

Good god must it be this way, must we permit this, this evil, must we let evil flourish as good men stand by, what then are we worth, what if we stand idle, have we not seen what the left can do, what elites evoke, what evil endeavours. Are you so content with football and food, gadgets and gossip that you forget what hews nations, what it takes to create them, what it takes also to preserve them.

What a clever game they play, so intricate and fine, not even a fleeting glimpse of true reality amongst such smoke and mirrors, is this then your freedom, your desired state, watched, observed and recorded, is this the land you deserve because I condemn it, every facet. Does it not bother you, are you not moved, do you not fear for those to come and does your heart not clench with dread, do you not mourn what was and what should be and what if we fight now could be or will you sit on your hands and let them take you.

In many ways the last hope of a people are the military, the last line of defence in all circumstance, yet do we have that now or have we lost even that, surely the police work now for other interests, lost to those they once served, now the people who made Britain great, the nation stock, is dying can no-one hear us scream. Must we die unlamented, unfairly for no crime or will any listen, will they close their ears to untruths and rush to our aid, we scream tormented and not a hand reaches out, not a one, for all we gave and all we sired.

We gave the world the concept of freedom and now it is here, in that home, that it vanishes from the world, we an experiment in tyranny, in control and social engineering. We were a fine kind, a fine band, respected once I feel but no more, they ripped apart our empire, until finally coming for the people, America is next, then we are gone, the rise and fall of two empires in a heartbeat. I hope we fight back, I hope I live to be there, to wrest control from evil and give it back to the people, yet who really knows, the young still carefree unknowing, concerned with intimate matters, image and the pursuit of happiness.

Who to tell them, to who will they listen, who to galvanise and crush this tyranny, oh but you need crushing, demolishing, ending, it is either you or we ,better you be gone for the world than we. You need not spy upon me I will tell you, I will be open I shall not hide, you ruin all, destroy everything and think me dim, as if I were nothing, a thing, a white European male in the beginning of the twenty first century, such a despised being, a loathed entity but I am here and I know you. I know what you wish to implement, what already you have done and I know you must be dealt with, I know also that, it is only the people that can do it but they must do it quick, whilst there is time.

We must resist, resist in every way, we cannot let them continue, cannot let them realize their evil, we must of course contest immigration, be it Islamic or any other but lets not rush to evils banner, lets not give them their culture clash, their sought for war of disparate peoples, have we not lost enough on their chosen battles, drenched fields with blood for cause unknown. Dam them, if we must fight we must choose time and place and indeed enemy, we must I am afraid realise that it has gone too far we must gear up to wrestle back our lands, our freedoms and save ourselves in doing so.

I post below the Data Retention Directive, known as Directive 2006/24/EC, these being the newly written laws to spy upon a nation’s people, please remember that these laws apply to many countries, all within mainland Europe, relevant to the UK follows:

Statutory Instruments
2009 No. 859

Electronic Communications

The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009

Made 2nd April 2009

Coming into force 6th April 2009

The Secretary of State, being a Minister designated(1) for the purposes of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972(2) in respect of matters relating to electronic communications, in exercise of the powers conferred by that section, makes the following Regulations (a draft of which has been approved by each House of Parliament):

Interpretation

2. In these Regulations—

(a)
“cell ID” means the identity or location of the cell from which a mobile telephony call started or in which it finished;



(b)
“communications data” means traffic data and location data and the related data necessary to identify the subscriber or user;



(c)
“the Data Retention Directive” means Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC;



(d)
“location data” means data processed in an electronic communications network indicating the geographical position of the terminal equipment of a user of a public electronic communications service, including data relating to—



(i)
the latitude, longitude or altitude of the terminal equipment,



(ii)
the direction of travel of the user, or



(iii)
the time the location information was recorded;



(e)
“public communications provider” means—



(i)
a provider of a public electronic communications network, or



(ii)
a provider of a public electronic communications service;



and “public electronic communications network” and “public electronic communications service” have the meaning given in section 151 of the Communications Act 2003(3);

(f)
“telephone service” means calls (including voice, voicemail and conference and data calls), supplementary services (including call forwarding and call transfer) and messaging and multi-media services (including short message services, enhanced media services and multi-media services);



(g)
“traffic data” means data processed for the purpose of the conveyance of a communication on an electronic communications network or for the billing in respect of that communication and includes data relating to the routing, duration or time of a communication;



(h)
“user ID” means a unique identifier allocated to persons when they subscribe to or register with an internet access service or internet communications service.


Communications data to which these Regulations apply

3. These Regulations apply to communications data if, or to the extent that, the data are generated or processed in the United Kingdom by public communications providers in the process of supplying the communications services concerned.
Obligation to retain communications data

4.—(1) It is the duty of a public communications provider to retain the communications data specified in the following provisions of the Schedule to these Regulations—

(a)
Part 1 (fixed network telephony);



(b)
Part 2 (mobile telephony);



(c)
Part 3 (internet access, internet e-mail or internet telephony).



(2) The obligation extends to data relating to unsuccessful call attempts that—

(a)
in the case of telephony data, are stored in the United Kingdom, or



(b)
in the case of internet data, are logged in the United Kingdom.



(3) An “unsuccessful call attempt” means a communication where a telephone call has been successfully connected but not answered or there has been a network management intervention.

(4) The obligation does not extend to unconnected calls.

(5) No data revealing the content of a communication is to be retained in pursuance of these Regulations.
The retention period

5. The data specified in the Schedule to these Regulations must be retained by the public communications provider for a period of 12 months from the date of the communication in question.
Data protection and data security

6.—(1) Public communications providers must observe the following principles with respect to data retained in accordance with these Regulations—

(a)
the retained data must be of the same quality and subject to the same security and protection as those data on the public electronic communications network;



(b)
the data must be subject to appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect the data against accidental or unlawful destruction, accidental loss or alteration, or unauthorised or unlawful storage, processing, access or disclosure;



(c)
the data must be subject to appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure that they can be accessed by specially authorised personnel only;



(d)
except in the case of data lawfully accessed and preserved, the data retained solely in accordance with these Regulations must be destroyed at the end of the retention period.



(2) It is the duty of the Information Commissioner, as the Supervisory Authority designated for the purposes of Article 9 of the Data Retention Directive, to monitor the application of the provisions of these Regulations with respect to the security of stored data.

(3) As regards the destruction of data at the end of the retention period—

(a)
the duty of a public communications provider is to delete the data in such a way as to make access to the data impossible; and



(b)
it is sufficient for a public communications provider to make arrangements for the operation of so deleting data to take place at such monthly or shorter intervals as appear to the provider to be convenient.


Access to retained data

7. Access to data retained in accordance with these Regulations may be obtained only—

(a)
in specific cases, and



(b)
in circumstances in which disclosure of the data is permitted or required by law.


Storage requirements for retained data

8. The data retained in pursuance of these Regulations must be retained in such a way that it can be transmitted without undue delay in response to requests.
Statistics

9.—(1) A public communications provider must provide the Secretary of State, as soon as practicable after 31st March in any year, with the following information in respect of the period of twelve months ending with that date.

(2) The information required is—

(a)
the number of occasions when data retained in accordance with these Regulations have been disclosed in response to a request;



(b)
the time elapsed between the date on which the data were retained and the date on which transmission of the data was requested;



(c)
the number of occasions when a request for lawfully disclosable data retained in accordance with these Regulations could not be met.



(3) The Secretary of State may, by notice given in writing to a public communications provider, vary the date specified in paragraph (1).

(4) The notice may contain such transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary in consequence of the variation.
Data retained by another communications provider

10.—(1) These Regulations do not apply to a public communications provider unless the provider is given a notice in writing by the Secretary of State in accordance with this regulation.

(2) The Secretary of State must give a written notice to a public communications provider under paragraph (1) unless the communications data concerned are retained in the United Kingdom in accordance with these Regulations by another public communications provider.

(3) Any such notice must specify—

(a)
the public communications provider, or category of public communications providers, to whom it is given, and



(b)
the extent to which, and the date from which, the provisions of these Regulations are to apply.



(4) The notice must be given or published in a manner the Secretary of State considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of the public communications provider, or the category of providers, to whom it given.

(5) It is the duty of a public communications provider to whom a notice is given under this regulation to comply with it.

(6) That duty is enforceable by civil proceedings by the Secretary of State for an injunction, or for specific performance of a statutory duty under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988(4), or for any other appropriate relief.
Reimbursement of expenses of compliance

11.—(1) The Secretary of State may reimburse any expenses incurred by a public communications provider in complying with the provisions of these Regulations.

(2) Reimbursement may be conditional on the expenses having been notified to the Secretary of State and agreed in advance.

(3) The Secretary of State may require a public communications provider to comply with any audit that may be reasonably required to monitor a claim for reimbursement.
Revocation

12.—(1) The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2007(5), which are superseded by these Regulations, are revoked.

(2) Anything done under or for the purposes of those Regulations that could have been done under or for the purposes of the corresponding provision of these Regulations (if it had been in force at the time) shall be treated on and after these Regulations come into force as if it had been done under or for the purposes of that corresponding provision.

Vernon Coaker

Minister of State

Home Office

2nd April 2009


SCHEDULE
COMMUNICATIONS DATA TO BE RETAINED
PART 1
FIXED NETWORK TELEPHONY
Data necessary to trace and identify the source of a communication

1.—(1) The calling telephone number.

(2) The name and address of the subscriber or registered user of any such telephone.
Data necessary to identify the destination of a communication

2.—(1) The telephone number dialled and, in cases involving supplementary services such as call forwarding or call transfer, any telephone number to which the call is forwarded or transferred.

(2) The name and address of the subscriber or registered user of any such telephone.
Data necessary to identify the date, time and duration of a communication

3. The date and time of the start and end of the call.
Data necessary to identify the type of communication

4. The telephone service used.
PART 2
MOBILE TELEPHONY
Data necessary to trace and identify the source of a communication

5.—(1) The calling telephone number.

(2) The name and address of the subscriber or registered user of any such telephone.
Data necessary to identify the destination of a communication

6.—(1) The telephone number dialled and, in cases involving supplementary services such as call forwarding or call transfer, any telephone number to which the call is forwarded or transferred.

(2) The name and address of the subscriber or registered user of any such telephone.
Data necessary to identify the date, time and duration of a communication

7. The date and time of the start and end of the call.
Data necessary to identify the type of communication

8. The telephone service used.
Data necessary to identify users’ communication equipment (or what purports to be their equipment)

9.—(1) The International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) and the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) of the telephone from which a telephone call is made.

(2) The IMSI and the IMEI of the telephone dialled.

(3) In the case of pre-paid anonymous services, the date and time of the initial activation of the service and the cell ID from which the service was activated.
Data necessary to identify the location of mobile communication equipment

10.—(1) The cell ID at the start of the communication.

(2) Data identifying the geographic location of cells by reference to their cell ID.
PART 3
INTERNET ACCESS, INTERNET E-MAIL OR INTERNET TELEPHONY
Data necessary to trace and identify the source of a communication

11.—(1) The user ID allocated.

(2) The user ID and telephone number allocated to the communication entering the public telephone network.

(3) The name and address of the subscriber or registered user to whom an Internet Protocol (IP) address, user ID or telephone number was allocated at the time of the communication.
Data necessary to identify the destination of a communication

12.—(1) In the case of internet telephony, the user ID or telephone number of the intended recipient of the call.

(2) In the case of internet e-mail or internet telephony, the name and address of the subscriber or registered user and the user ID of the intended recipient of the communication.
Data necessary to identify the date, time and duration of a communication

13.—(1) In the case of internet access—

(a)
The date and time of the log-in to and log-off from the internet access service, based on a specified time zone,



(b)
The IP address, whether dynamic or static, allocated by the internet access service provider to the communication, and



(c)
The user ID of the subscriber or registered user of the internet access service.



(2) In the case of internet e-mail or internet telephony, the date and time of the log-in to and log-off from the internet e-mail or internet telephony service, based on a specified time zone.
Data necessary to identify the type of communication

14. In the case of internet e-mail or internet telephony, the internet service used.
Data necessary to identify users’ communication equipment (or what purports to be their equipment)

15.—(1) In the case of dial-up access, the calling telephone number.

(2) In any other case, the digital subscriber line (DSL) or other end point of the originator of the communication.
EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Regulations)

These Regulations implement Directive 2006/24/EC (“the Data Retention Directive”) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC.

The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2007 implemented the Data Retention Directive with respect to fixed network and mobile telephony. The United Kingdom made a declaration pursuant to Article 15.3 of the Data Retention Directive that it would postpone application of that Directive to the retention of communications data relating to internet access, internet telephony and internet e-mail. These Regulations implement the Data Retention Directive with respect to those forms of data, and revoke the Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2007 which are superseded by these Regulations.

The Regulations impose a requirement on public communications providers (“providers”), as defined in regulation 2, to retain the categories of communications data specified in the Schedule to the Regulations. The Regulations apply to all providers to whom a written notice has been given by the Secretary of State in accordance with regulation 10. Regulation 4 makes provision regarding the obligation to retain the data specified in the Schedule.

Such data must be retained, in accordance with regulation 5, for a period of 12 months from the date of the communication in question. The data must be stored in accordance with the requirements in regulation 8, and may only be accessed in accordance with regulation 7.

Data protection and data security are provided for in regulation 6. Regulation 6(2) provides that the Information Commissioner, as the designated Supervisory Authority for the purposes of Article 9 of the Data Retention Directive, is responsible for monitoring the application of these Regulations with respect to the security of stored data.

There is a requirement on providers to provide statistics to the Secretary of State in regulation 9.

Regulation 11 provides that the Secretary of State may make arrangements for reimbursing any expenses incurred by providers in complying with the Regulations.

So there you have it, freedom in ruins although it has been for a while hasn’t it, perhaps our bravest died upon the field so long ago and we are unworthy for their shoes. I like to think not, I like to think that we still have it within us to resist tyranny to shake loose its grip and again live in peace upon this planet. I believe that all Europeans and those of full descent, must band together now, must circle the wagons and prepare for a white Alamo.

They've got your number

Every call made, email sent and website visited is now being logged under new regulations. What does that mean for investigative journalists - and their need to protect sources? Charles Arthur reports

Want to be an investigative journalist of the future? You'll need a pen and paper, pay-as-you-go phone, and a motorbike. We'll explain the motorbike later. But you may be an endangered species. New regulations that came into force last week - requiring telephone and internet companies to keep logs of what numbers are called, and which websites and email services and internet telephony contacts are made - have left some wondering if investigative journalism, with its need to protect sources (and its sources' need, often, for protection), has been dealt a killer blow.

Worries focus on the fact that every government department, local council and even quango can access this telephone and internet data, given a judge's clearance. What will they use it for? To investigate everything from treason to flytipping. Might it also be used to find out who has been tipping off a journalist on a local paper about the misdeeds of local councillors? That's the concern.

"I would say that investigative reporting is desperately threatened by what this government is doing. I've been thinking a long time about how to stay one step ahead of the game," says the Brighton-based investigative journalist Duncan Campbell (not the reporter of the same name on this paper). "The good news is that the surveillance methods that would close down what we do are still one step away. This isn't the one that does the real harm."

That will come, Campbell thinks, when the police put all sorts of information - vehicle licence plates' movements, emails, phone calls - into a real-time system that anyone can access. But that's not to say the new regulations will not have an impact.

In 1986, Campbell uncovered and revealed the UK's secret Zircon spy satellite, and in 1988 the Echelon worldwide eavesdropping system; more recently he has written for this paper about police errors in Operation Ore prosecutions, meant to target viewers of child pornography but which accused people who had had their credit card details stolen.

A story that spread about Zircon was that Campbell spotted its existence because of the difference between two press releases - one from a satellite manufacturer and one from the Ministry of Defence. In fact he also had inside help. "I had confidential sources," he says. "There was always 5% in the stories that came from a whistleblower."

Sources are essential to Campbell's work. Investigative journalists may write many dull stories and meet lots of dull people, but some of those they meet or influence through those stories matter enormously. Bob Woodward - who, with Carl Bernstein, uncovered the Watergate scandal while at the Washington Post - met Mark Felt, who became his contact, Deep Throat, by chance at the White House in 1970. Woodward was in the navy, working as a courier; Felt was in the FBI. Both were waiting outside the Situation Room one day. They chatted and kept in touch: two years later Woodward had a top-level source. His identity remained secret until Felt admitted it in 2005; he died last December.

But what of such sources now? The concern is that if someone gets in touch with a journalist, who then writes a story based on that information, the new regulations mean that the police - or intelligence services or local council - can work back from the database of all the contacts made to the journalist and figure out who the whistleblower is. It blows a huge hole in the journalist's legal defence under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act of 1981 that sources can stay secret unless "the court is satisfied disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime". Join the communications dots, and a suspect is fingered.

How do you counter that risk? "Step down a couple of technological rungs," says David Leigh, the Guardian's investigations editor. "Just send a letter - you know, snail mail." He adds: "When I've dealt with secret sources they take very great care not to communicate on any electronic medium."

The next step, says Campbell, is to do what drug dealers and terrorists do: use pay-as-you-go phones and unregistered sim cards, bought with cash. Such closed rings are almost unbreakable - once you've met to swap numbers.

But must journalists and sources really use the same tactics as terrorists and drug dealers? If that's the price of free, civil society, then yes, Campbell says. "The abuse of free communications by a minority is part of the price of liberty. [But] this government appears to think that it is civil society [itself] and so needs no checks or balances on its intrusions into private lives."

Then again, don't many scandals involve private companies, which won't have access to the communications data? Neil Hamilton, Jonathan Aitken, British Aerospace (BAE) - none of those would be affected by this change, surely?

Leigh isn't so sure. He and Campbell both say that any database will eventually spill out to those who pay enough or know the right people. Where big companies are involved, big money is at stake. "I have sources in the US who refuse to communicate via electronic means because they say it's insecure," Leigh says. "I know there are sources who already felt this before the new regulations. The bottom line about this is that anybody who imagines that electronic communications are secure is crazy."

There can't be investigative journalism without people willing to talk. And more and more important stories are emerging not from journalistic prying, but from those involved: the pictures from Abu Ghraib, taken by the US guards themselves; the details of Home Office failings, leaked from within it to the Tory MP Damian Green; the video provided to the Guardian last week showing a police officer assaulting Ian Tomlinson, who died during the G20 protests in London.

Technology is, however, also making life easier for investigative journalists. "I have more information at my fingertips than ever before," says Leigh. The government and its agencies may be able to track journalists, but equally journalists can spread information over the web, from where it can't be removed. The Freedom of Information Act also provides some leverage against government, if not a counterbalance to the new surveillance methods.

Leigh calls it a game of "attack and defence" - the internet works both ways, but slightly more in the journalist's favour. He has just returned from Berkeley, California, and the presentation of a new film based on this newspaper's investigation into BAE's slush funds. How was the mood of journalists over there? "They were all miserable, but it wasn't about this. It was because they were being thrown out of their jobs because the newspapers are going bust." Oh, yes - a method even the government couldn't dream up. Campbell observes wryly: "I don't think, despite the claims of the blogocracy, that they [bloggers] have stepped into legally hard investigative journalism."

He thinks that if unchecked, the government's monitoring proposals "within a decade will threaten to bring [investigative journalism] to an end. It's not that whistleblowers will be rounded up, but that the chilling effect of the surveillance society means no whistleblower will feel a journalist can protect them."

What really troubles him is the automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR) system implemented by the police across the country to track vehicle tax evaders and criminals, but also potentially to record where you've been. Currently it can only be accessed by the police and intelligence services, and you can't yet do it in real time - when that moment comes, it will be truly dangerous, says Campbell.

The system does pose a threat to sources' anonymity, agrees Leigh: if you assume that CCTV is watching any public journey, the only way left to meet is through a private journey in your car. "ANPR is a greater threat [than internet and phone-logging] because it's tracking the physical movement of vehicles that are closely correlated to people," Campbell says. "Unlike sim cards." continues here

CCTV cars snap distracted drivers

New CCTV cars to catch drivers using their mobile phones or being otherwise distracted at the wheel are being piloted by Greater Manchester Police.

The small Smart cars, which have a 12ft (3.6m) mast with a camera attached, are parked at junctions to monitor traffic.

Mike Downes of the Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership said the scheme was successfully "driving the number of accidents down".

But the AA's Paul Watters said drivers "might regard it as Big Brother".

Proportionate and fair

Two cars are currently being piloted in Greater Manchester, the first of their kind in the UK.

Anyone seen driving while distracted - eating at the wheel, playing with the radio or applying make-up for instance - is filmed by the cameras.

Later, a letter is sent to the owner of the car, in many cases along with a fine.

Anyone caught using their mobile will be asked to pay £60 and have three points added to their licence. Fines could also be handed out to anyone who is thought to be driving without due care and attention, or similar offences.

According to the Partnership - also known as Drivesafe - there have been 406 collisions in Greater Manchester in the past two years which can be attributed to distracted drivers.

Of those, 51 were said to involve the use of a mobile phone as a significant factor.

Mr Downes said the cars would only trace people who are committing an offence.

"The camera is only trained on the vehicle to secure the evidence," he said.

"I would say the actions we are taking are reasonable, proportionate and fair in light of the fact that we are trying to save lives."

'Lacks connection'

The scheme is only a few weeks into the pilot, so figures on the numbers of people who have been caught using this technology are unavailable.

But the CCTV cars have already attracted criticism from people who argue they are an infringement of people's privacy.

Paul Watters from the Automobile Association (AA), said he had reservations about the cars, and would watch the pilot scheme with interest.

"CCTV enforcement lacks connection with the driver until after the event and some drivers might regards it as Big Brother.

"We think that most drivers would prefer police in cars to dish out tickets on the spot and instil better driving behaviour," he said.

If the scheme is seen to be a success in reducing the number of accidents, those behind it hope it could be rolled out across the UK. continues here

Post a comment on AAWR

The black box that tracks every mile you drive and will make speed cameras obsolete

Drivers face having their every move tracked by a 'spy in the car' black box. 

The system will constantly check a vehicle's speed - making cameras redundant - and allow for pay-as-you-go tolls. 

The £36million EU project is partly funded by the UK Government and backed by car makers and the telecoms industry. 

It will be unveiled later this year with a view to its integration into future cars. Manufacturers suggest this could be as early as 2013. 

there is the potential for an almost infallible surveillance system…

Vehicles fitted with the system will emit a constant 'heartbeat' pulse revealing their location, speed and direction of travel. 

EU officials believe the technology will significantly reduce road accidents, congestion and carbon emissions. 

But civil liberties campaigners say it will have profound implications for privacy by creating a Europe-wide system of Big Brother surveillance. 

The European Commission has already 
asked governments to reserve a radio frequency for the system to operate on. 

Engineers say the system will be able to track cars to within a yard, making it significantly more accurate than existing satellite navigation technology. 

Experts say the system will link up easily with the pay-as-you-drive road tolls being backed by the Government. 

The system allows cars to 'talk' to one another and to roads wired up to the system. A communication device behind the dashboard transmits the car's location every half a second. 

The messages are transmitted through mobile and wireless networks, as well as on short-range microwave or infrared routes. Vehicles will be able to warn each other if they are on collision course. 

The location data will also be picked up by roadside detectors and mobile phone towers. That will allow traffic lights to turn green when vehicles approach. 



Data on cars will also be sent to traffic control centres to allow police or civilian controllers to monitor and even direct vehicles.

General Motors - the troubled owner of Vauxhall - is among those trialling the technology.

The Department for Transport said there were no plans to make the system mandatory in new cars. Its introduction will be on a voluntary basis, according to Paul Kompfner, manager of the Cooperative-Vehicle-Infrastructure Systems project.

He added: 'A traffic controller will know where all vehicles are and even where they are headed.

'That would result in a significant reduction in congestion and replace the need for cameras.'

He said the scheme needed wide uptake to work.

Critics point out that roads in the UK are already subject to the tightest surveillance in the world.

Police control a database that receives information from automatic number plate recognition cameras and can track the journeys of up to ten million drivers a day.

Although the details can be stored for up to five years, ministers have been told that recognition and speed camera technology is 'inherently limited'.

Simon Davies, of Privacy International, a watchdog, said: 'If you correlate car tracking data with mobile phone data, which can also track people, there is the potential for an almost infallible surveillance system.' continues here

Now we need ID cards for a trip to the Isle of Wight

Passengers on ferries to the Isle of Wight and Scottish islands such as Mull and Skye will soon have to carry identity papers to comply with new police anti-terror powers.

And travellers flying between British cities or to Northern Ireland face having their personal data logged when booking tickets and checking in.

Until now ferry passengers on most routes in Britain have not been required to produce ID and internal flight passengers only face random police checks.

But under new Government security rules that will come into force next year, personal data, including name, date of birth and home address, will be typed into a computer record for the police by the booking clerk or travel agent.

Passengers will also face further ID checks when boarding their flight or ferry.

Under the new powers, police will be able to track the movements of around 60million domestic passengers a year.

The controversial measures were due to be introduced two years ago, but were dropped after protests from Ulster politicians, who said the plan would construct ‘internal borders’ in the UK.

But last week the Government used the release of its anti-terrorism strategy to quietly reintroduce them. Buried on Page 113 of the 174-page ‘CONTEST’ document was the announcement of ‘new police powers to collect advanced passenger data on some domestic air and sea journeys’.

Last night a Home Office spokesman confirmed the measures would ‘require passengers to show photo ID, such as a driving licence or the (proposed) Government ID cards, when booking tickets for domestic air and sea journeys’.

He added that ‘ferry journeys to the Isle of Wight or the Isle of Skye’ and ‘private jet passengers’ would be included in the new measures, due to be formally announced later this year.

The powers will be introduced using a so-called ‘statutory instrument’ signed off by the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, without the need for a full debate in the House of Commons.

A 2006 Home Office report said: ‘This data will provide the police with invaluable intelligence, enabling them to track the movements of suspected criminal and terrorist passengers.’

However it acknowledged that the new rules would ‘impact upon carrier check-in transaction times’. continues here

Social network data monitoring plan

The Home Office has defended proposals to require social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace to retain details of their users' movements on the internet.

They could be required to hold data about every person users correspond with via the sites, The Independent reported.

”The proposal follows plans to store information about every telephone call, email and internet visit made by anyone in the UK on a central database”

The proposal follows plans to store information about every telephone call, email and internet visit made by anyone in the UK on a central database.

Details were disclosed by Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker earlier this month at a little noticed Commons committee to examine draft EU directives.

He said the Government was considering acting on social networking sites because they were not covered by the latest proposals from Brussels.

"Social networking sites, such as MySpace or Bebo, are not covered by the directive," he said. "That is one reason why the Government are looking at what we should do about the intercept modernisation programme because there are certain aspects of communications which are not covered by the directive."

He added that the Government's intercept modernisation programme proposals may be extended to include "the retention of data on Facebook, Bebo, MySpace and all other similar sites".

Mr Coaker acknowledged that the plan would raise fresh concerns about the right to privacy.

"I accept that this is an extremely difficult area. The interface between retaining data, private security and all such issues of privacy is extremely important," he said. "It is absolutely right to point out the difficulty of ensuring that we maintain a capability and a capacity to deal with crime and issues of national security, and where that butts up against issues of privacy."

A Home Office spokesman said: "To ensure that we keep up with technological advances we intend to consult widely on proposals shortly.   continues here

Stasi HQ UK... where details of all your journeys are secretly logged and kept for a decade

This anonymous office building on a business park near Heathrow Airport is where the Government has begun monitoring millions of British holidaymakers using its controversial new 'terrorist detector' database.

The top-secret computer system - tied into the airlines' ticketing network - makes judgments about travel habits and passengers' friends and family to decide if they are a security risk.

Like something from a science-fiction film, the Home Office has designed it to spot a 'criminal' or terrorist before they have done anything wrong.



The building's address is, some might say sinisterly, called Status Park 4.

But the intrusiveness of the system at the heart of Government's so-called 'e-Borders' scheme has provoked such fury among civil liberties campaigners that some consider it akin to a modern-day Stasi headquarters.

All the information passengers give to travel agents, including home addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, passport details and the names of family members, is shared with an unknown number of Government agencies for 'analysis' and stored for up to ten years.

But even as the 'profiling' system goes live, its reliability is being called into question.

An internal Home Office document obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveals that during testing one 'potential suspect' turned out to be an airline passenger with a spinal injury flying into Britain with his nurse.

'Suspect' requests likely to cause innocent holidaymakers to get 'red flags' as potential terrorists include ordering a vegetarian meal, asking for an over-wing seat and travelling with a foreign-born husband or wife.

The system will also 'red flag' passengers buying a one-way ticket and making a last-minute reservation and those with a history of booking tickets and not showing up for the flights.

A previous history of travel to the Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iran will also trigger an alarm, as will those with a record of sponsoring an immigrant from any of these countries.

Starting during the Easter holiday rush, millions of people will be checked by the new National Border Targeting Centre (NBTC).

By the end of the year the NBTC, which is recruiting 250 staff, will have been relocated to another office near Manchester Airport and will be analysing the movements of 120million UK travellers.

Initially it will target airlines but will be expanded to check passengers on ferries and trains, including some journeys within the UK.

At the heart of the system is a highly classified computer algorithm designed to pick out people to be searched, questioned by security staff or barred from flying.

An internal Home Office Border and Immigration Agency document explains how Britain's new system will work.

Written by Tim Rymer, head of the Joint Border Operations Centre, the forerunner to the new NBTC, it explains how it will use 'Passenger Name Record' (PNR) information given when travellers buy a ticket.

The document, written in March last year after a trial examining 30million passengers, reveals: 'PNR is checked against profiles of behavioural patterns which indicate risk activity.

'Profiles are run to identify behaviour, not to identify individuals, and are based on evidence and intelligence.'

Mr Rymer revealed that the information secured from the airlines for e-Borders would then also be available to other unnamed Government departments and held for up to ten years.

He wrote: 'E-Borders acts as a single window for carriers to provide data to Government.'

The system is bound to cause concerns about the handling of confidential personal data.

But Mr Rymer reported that he was 'confident our use of PNR data is proportionate and complies with robust data-protection safeguards'.

Intending to show how his team double-checked the computerised suspect reports, Mr Rymer admitted: 'Profiling identified a potential suspect; however further examination of his booking details revealed that the passenger was suffering from a spinal injury and was being escorted by a nurse.

'In this way the PNR information enabled the passenger to be eliminated from the profile match.'

Others flagged up then eliminated as suspects included travellers with comments on their bookings including: 'Please treat passenger with sensitivity - death in the family' or 'Wheelchair requested - broken leg'.

The system was originally designed to identify suspect freight shipments.

Until now international no-fly lists have been based on painstaking intelligence and people's criminal records.

But the Border and Immigration Agency's new 'rule-based targeting' system works by building up a complete picture of passengers' travel history and the detailed information they give to airlines and travel agencies when booking a flight.

It compares these answers and requests to other government databases and also shares the information with other countries around the world. The computer then makes value judgments about whether peculiar decisions and requests fit its secret terrorist or criminal profiles.

In the United States, where the Department of Homeland Security has been running a similar system for several years, people with a poor driving record have been subjected to further checks.

The American system has also been criticised for awarding so-called 'terrorism points' to passengers depending on their level of 'suspicious' travel activity.

The Home Office argues the e-Borders system will 'transform our border control to ensure greater security, effectiveness and efficiency'.

'To do so,' the department says, 'we will make full use of the latest technology to provide a way of collecting and analysing information on everyone who travels to or from the United Kingdom.'

But the UK system, and others across Europe that all share their passenger data, are facing increasing criticism.

The EU's Home Affairs Committee is currently carrying out an inquiry examining whether the use of profiling, particularly when it focuses on particular ethnic groups, is illegal.

In searching for terrorists, and flagging people who have travelled to the Middle East or Pakistan, the system is likely to pick out a high proportion of Muslims.

In its initial report the EU committee says using this data is against EU regulations and the practice is leading to a lack of trust in law enforcement and the fear of discrimination.

It adds that it is 'concerned [the] system providing for the collection of personal data of passengers travelling to the EU could provide a basis for profiling...on the basis of race or ethnicity'. continues here

Big Brother to spy on your holidays as security database is set up to log all trips abroad

• Travellers must give details of ALL journeys out of UK

• 250million trips to be tracked annually

• £5,000 fine if you don't hand over travel plans, address and credit card details

All trips out of Britain are to be recorded on a massive new security database - along with personal details of every business traveller and holidaymaker.

Civil liberties groups voiced alarm at the scale of the new system - called 'e-borders' - which is aimed at tightening Britain's perimeters and countering terrorism.

Anyone who does not comply will face the risk of criminal prosecution and fines of up to £5,000.


The rules will apply to all journeys that involve leaving the UK, whether by air, sea or Channel Tunnel, regardless of how brief the trip.

Would-be travellers will have to log details online and the database will eventually track 250million trips every year, according to a report today in The Daily Telegraph.

Airlines, train companies and ship operators will also face fines if they fail to provide details of their crew and passengers.

'Travellers will need to ensure that their passports are up to date and that details are input accurately if they don't want to end up in a dark room being grilled by border officials.' 

Massive delays are anticipated at airports and seaports at Easter as the UK Border Agency introduces some of the new regulations.

The UK Border Agency said today that 82million passengers had already been recorded entering Britain - a process which had yielded 'more than 2,900 arrests for crimes including murder, drug dealing and sex offences'.

By the end of this year, 60 per cent of all journeys out of Britain will be affected. By the end of next year, the rules will apply to nearly all - 95 per cent.

Day trippers will be affected, including shoppers on 'booze cruises' to buy cigarettes and alcohol in supermarkets across the Channel.

Even cross-Channel swimmers and their support teams will have to comply.

By the time the e-borders system is fully in force in 2014, it will also apply to passengers and crew of light aircraft; as well as all trawlermen, yachtsmen and leisure boaters who plan to make landfall overseas.

Details will have to be logged at least 24 hours in advance and will be stored on the government database for roughly a decade.

It will represent a massive shift from the relaxed situation prior to 9/11, by which time John Major's government and then New Labour's Jack Straw had scrapped all exit controls.

Shipping groups and transport companies warned today that the new strictures will mean new delays for travellers.

The Chamber of Shipping predicted 'unwelcome queues' and 'unnecessary complications'.

Chunnel train company Eurostar said check-in times would be longer, adding expense for operators.

Privacy campaigners and travel groups also expressed alarm as the extent of the scheme was revealed.

AA president Edmund King called it 'a sad reflection of the times' and warned: 'Travellers will need to ensure that their passports are up to date and that details are input accurately if they don't want to end up in a dark room being grilled by border officials.' 

Phil Booth of privacy group NO2ID told the Telegraph: 'Especially given the Government's appalling record on looking after our data, it just doesn't seem sensible for it to pass details like this and sensitive financial information around.'
Tory Home Affairs spokesman Chris Grayling stopped short of condemning the e-borders scheme outright, saying authorities must record who exits and enters the UK.

However, he warned that the system as planned could prove 'unwieldy, impossible to manage and expensive to operate'.  continues here

Google ad service raises privacy fears

Is Google's new targeted advertising service a boon to users, or is it Big Brother in disguise?

Google knows more about you than any organisation in human history. It can give you a bird’s eye view of your house, allow friends and family to track your every move through their mobile phones, and through its search engine - knows your likes, dislikes and even your vices. 

Google’s influence over our lives is set to grow further after it anounced today that it will track millions of people as they move through the internet in order work out what their interests are. Using that information, it will then provide targeted advertising to suit users' individual tastes. 

The move was met with fierce criticism. MPs described the new system as the introduction of “big brother” advertising, and leading privacy campaigners said the development was “dangerous”, calling on the government to launch an investigation into the activities of the company to see whether it was becoming too powerful. 

Google’s new system, which launched today, can track users who visit hundreds of thousands of sites that show Google advertising. By following users through these sites, Google is able to display advertising that is relevant to each individual user.

The company said in a statement: “If you love to travel and frequently visit travel-related websites, you’re more likely to see interest-based ads about vacations and travel deals as you surf the web.” 

“If you visit a website that sells pet supplies, you might see an ad from that particular pet supply website the next time you browse other sites showing interest-based ads from Google.” 

Other companies in the online industry have already embraced behavioural advertising of this sort, but privacy campaigners have consistently fought against tracking for advertising purposes. Google calls the system “interest-based advertising”. 

The way the system works is that Google will use a “cookie” - a small piece of data inside a web browser - to track people as they visit one of the sites that display Google advertising. Google will then assign those users to categories based on the content of the pages they visit. For example, someone may be pigeon-holed as a football fan, a car owner or soon-to-be parent, based on the information gathered by Google. 

Google said it would not categorise certain “sensitive” interests which including race, religion, sexual orientation and personal medical information. However, privacy campaigners lambasted the system. “Google might well hype their targeting system as a boon to pet owners, but the reality is that the service will track just about everything you do and everything you’re interested in, no matter how personal or sensitive,” said Simon Davies, the director of Privacy International. 

He added: “The privacy threat from Google is growing by the day. It is now time for parliament to launch a full investigation of the company.” 

In response, a Google spokesperson said: "This is completely untrue. We will not serve ads against sensitive categories full stop, and users can easily opt out of receiving any interest-based adverts entirely." 

The information commissioner’s office said they had been consulted on Google’s plans and were pleased that Google had given users a high level of control over how their information is used. 

But some were less convinced by the security of the system. “‘Big brother’ advertising will soon be hitting our computer screens thanks to Google,” said Tom Brake MP, the Liberal Democrats’ Home Affairs Spokesman. 

“There must also be clear rules about how long the data is kept for, who it can be accessed by and whom it can be sold on to.” 

Behavioural advertising has already been the source of fierce controversy. 

Phorm, a UK-based company that aims to show advertisements based on users’ internet history, has been investigated by the police and the government over privacy concerns. Phorm has attracted interest from UK Internet Service Providers including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, although no company has yet introduced the system.  continues here

DNA of one-year-old baby held on national database

Jacqui Smith was embroiled in another row over the Big Brother state last night after admitting that a baby had its DNA recorded on the national database. 

The Home Secretary said the child was aged under one at the time its profile was taken by police and stored. 

Liberal Democrat spokesman Chris Huhne said: 'It is illegal, immoral and ineffective to keep the DNA of a baby on a national police database as if they had committed some felony.' 

The controversial database contains 4.5million samples, including more than 600,000 taken from innocent people. Normally, DNA is taken using a swab inside the mouth. 

Changes to the law forced through by Labour have allowed the police to take samples as soon as a person is arrested, then keep it permanently even if they are later cleared of wrongdoing. 

But, with the age of criminal responsibility set at ten in England and Wales, there are no circumstances in which this can have happened to a baby. 

The most likely explanation is that Jacqui Smith was embroiled in another row over the Big Brother state last night after admitting that a baby had its DNA recorded on the national database.

The Home Secretary said the child was aged under one at the time its profile was taken by police and stored.

Liberal Democrat spokesman Chris Huhne said: 'It is illegal, immoral and ineffective to keep the DNA of a baby on a national police database as if they had committed some felony.'

The controversial database contains 4.5million samples, including more than 600,000 taken from innocent people. Normally, DNA is taken using a swab inside the mouth.

Changes to the law forced through by Labour have allowed the police to take samples as soon as a person is arrested, then keep it permanently even if they are later cleared of wrongdoing.

But, with the age of criminal responsibility set at ten in England and Wales, there are no circumstances in which this can have happened to a baby.

The most likely explanation is thatthe sample was taken from the baby at a crime scene at which they were present, such as the family home, in order to avoid any confusion. Mr Huhne said it should have been immediately destroyed.


Miss Smith, revealing that the sample had been stored, said: 'As at November 26, 2008, the youngest person with a profile on the NDNAD was aged under one and the oldest was over 90.'

In December last year, the European Court of Human Rights condemned the system as excessive and disproportionate, claiming it 'could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society'.

Following the judgment, Miss Smith announced major changes to the way the database operates. She said the Government would take 'immediate steps' to remove the profiles of children under ten.

Mr Huhne said: 'The sooner she implements the European Court's ruling that our DNA database contravenes the right to privacy, the better.

'It is ludicrous to be randomly adding DNA samples from individuals who can represent no conceivable criminal threat. Since the DNA database began, nearly 1.1million children have had their DNA stored without their permission. Children have become the soft target of a random DNA policy.'

Miss Smith said it was her intention to treat innocent people with 'greater flexibility and fairness' while bringing more serious offenders within the scope of the system. continues here

Councils to be given power to snoop on calls and emails

Councils and public bodies are to be able to access all email, telephone and internet records, sparking new fears over the surveillance state.

Towns halls, along with police, security services and other public bodies will be able to view "communications" details of any one suspected of crime.

But critics fear the move will simply pave the way for authorities to spy on millions of citizens and taxpayers.

The power is contained in a new statutory order quietly laid before parliament yesterday.

If approved, it will come into effect from next month and cost the public more than £46 million to set up and run over the next eight years.

Bodies will not be allowed to see the content of communications but will have access to data such as who was called or texted and when or which websites were visited.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance, accused the Government or transforming "understandable policies" in to "erroneous invasions" of people's lives.

"The multi-million pound cost of implementing this directive is bad enough, but what's worse is the fact that local authority busy-bodies will be able to monitor our comings and goings. The Government should stop using terrorism as an excuse to snoop on law-abiding families."

Since 2007, phone companies have had to retain data about calls for 12 months and hand it over to more than 650 public bodies.

Parliament approved the powers, described as a vital tool against terrorism, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

But under the latest order that is to be extended to all communications, including the internet.

It is implementing the controversial EU Directive 2006/24/EC, on the retention of communications data, said records would only be available "to assist in the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime''.

Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker said: "It is the Government's priority to protect public safety and national security. That is why we are completing the implementation of this directive, which will bring the UK in line with our European counter parts. 

"Communications data is the what, where and when of the communication and plays a vital part in a wide range of criminal investigations, and prevention of terrorists attacks as well as contributing to public safety more generally. Without communications data resolving crimes such as the Rhys Jones murder would be very difficult if not impossible.  continues here

New target for the anti-terror spies: Village paperboys - for not having the correct paperwork

They creep around in the dark spreading misery, rumour and secrets from inside Westminster. 

Even so, paperboys and girls are hardly likely to pose a threat to national security. 

One local council, however, thought it necessary to use swingeing anti-terror laws against them.

Cambridgeshire County Council used the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to spy on eight paperboys thought to be working without permits. 

It sent undercover council officers to lurk outside a Spar in the village of Melbourn and take notes on the movements of the boys. 

The evidence was used in a criminal prosecution of the shop's owners for employing five of the boys without the correct documentation. 

Cambridgeshire's approach is just the latest example of local authorities using the RIPA for minor misdemeanours. 

Such activities have been likened to those of the Stasi, the East German secret police. 

A Cambridgeshire bylaw states that all paperboys must have a work permit issued by the council and signed by the child's employer, headteacher and parents. 


Working children must also be over 13 and cannot start work until after 7am. 

This week Cambridge Magistrates' Court was told that Dips Solanki, 42, and his wife Rashmi, 38, had failed to get the correct work permits for five paperboys.


Prosecutor Simon Reeve told the court that the couple ignored letters and visits from a child employment officer. He said that although eight applications for work permits had been sent to the children's school, only three were signed.



He produced the surveillance to prove the boys had been working.

The Solankis were found guilty of failing to comply with the bylaw and now have a criminal record. They were given a six-month conditional discharge.

All the boys concerned were between 13 and 16. Other than not having the correct paperwork, they were working legally.


Yesterday, the couple insisted that there had simply been a paperwork mix-up. They denied that they had been warned by council officials - and said the authority was using a 'hammer to crack a nut'.

Mrs Solanki said: 'They should only do such things for a serious crime. We're innocent people trying to make an honest living. It's ridiculous and was a complete waste of everyone's time.'

Andrew Lansley, Tory MP for South Cambridgeshire, agreed, saying: 'These powers should only be used for the scope they were intended, which is to tackle serious crime and terrorism.' But a Cambridgeshire Council spokesman said: 'Delivering heavy bags early in the morning is potentially very hazardous.

'We do not want to wait until someone has an accident before we start to uphold the law properly.'

The Act was introduced in 2000. As well as allowing spying in the interests of national security, it also allows state agencies such as councils, NHS trusts and the fire service to act secretly in the interests of 'protecting public health'. continues here

Clipboard brigade to probe our private lives as Government plans sexual preference quiz

In an unprecedented intrusion into private life, Government bureaucrats are to demand to know the sexual preference of millions. 

Anyone questioned in a major national survey about their job, the food they buy or their fuel bills, will soon also be asked whether they are heterosexual, gay, bisexual or 'other'. 

This means that a question about sexual identity is now almost certain to be included in the next census, which will be held in 2011.

The demand that individuals supply intimate personal details to officials comes at a time of deepening concern about the State's thirst for ever-greater amounts of private information, and worries over how that information is stored and used. 

Last night MPs described the move as a gross invasion of privacy. Former Tory minister Ann Widdecombe said: 'I would ask them to mind their own business. This is going completely over the top and is state intrusion of the very worst kind. 

'It just goes to show the level of obsession there is out there with this subject.' 

Fellow Conservative MP David Davies said: 'There's a real element of Big Brother about this. 

'Taxpayers want their cash spent on doctors, nurses, teachers and policemen, not any army of clipboard-wielding bureaucrats quizzing us about what goes on between the sheets.' 

But Karen Dunnell, the National Statistician, insisted that most people would be willing to answer questions about their sexuality in confidence. 

She confirmed that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) will collect data on sexual identity on all its major continuous surveys from January 2009. 

Officials will show respondents a card which asks: 'Which of the options on this card best describes how you think of yourself? Please just read out the number next to the description. Heterosexual/straight, gay/lesbian, bisexual, other.' 

Mrs Dunnell explained that the term 'other' has been included as some people say the categories do not describe themselves and they would prefer to use another term. 

She added that the question was being asked on a card to prevent anyone overhearing the answer. 

Mrs Dunnell said: 'Better measurement of equality is essential if we are properly to analyse, understand and address inequalities in society.  continues here