Skip to navigation

PCPro-Computing in the Real World Printed from www.pcpro.co.uk

Register to receive our regular email newsletter at http://www.pcpro.co.uk/registration.

The newsletter contains links to our latest PC news, product reviews, features and how-to guides, plus special offers and competitions.

// Home / Blogs

Posted on December 3rd, 2012 by Stewart Mitchell

Do we need the Snooper’s Charter to save lives?

Theresa May and the Sun have teamed up to deliver the Home Secretary’s message on the importance of the Communications Data Bill – AKA the Snooper’s Charter – in an interview article that borders on gratuitous with its level of scare mongering.
The Home Offices uses the article to ram home why it believes additional surveillance measures are needed with  a piece headlined “Track crime on net or we’ll see more people die” and littered with emotive reasoning.
“The people who say they’re against this bill need to look victims of serious crime, terrorism and child sex offences in the eye and tell them why they’re not prepared to give the police the powers they need to protect the public,” the piece asserts. “ “Criminals, terrorists and paedophiles will want MPs to vote against this bill. Victims of crime, police and the public will want them to vote for it. It’s a question of whose side you’re on.”
The warning comes as Whitehall waits for a parliamentary committee report into the draft DCB, with many people expecting a negative response and Nick Clegg reportedly ready to oppose the surveillance legislation.
Yet despite calls for clearer evidence on why and how the changes would make a difference, there is again very little actual fact in the claims that the bill would save lives..
In its evidence that the legislation is relevant, the article cites two cases that have been helped using technology, one in which a child pornography ring was partially brought to justice because of IP addresses being identified, and another in which police tracked down a suicide attempt and cut the would-be victim down before he died.
“Cops were provided with the IP addresses of everyone who had been accessing the site and many people were identified from the data and prosecuted,” the example suggested adding that although some were arrested ”others escaped because internet access companies had no record of who had used the IP addresses”.
The second example, has little to do with terror, organised crime or paedophiles, which is apparently the whole point, and the first could have been dealt with under existing laws.
As Big Brother Watch said in its blog on the subject “In this case, it would be proportionate to go to internet service providers and ask for the IP address of any computer accessing the website, and for data to be retained about that use. Those people could be identified and prosecuted without needing to record every website visit of every person.”
IP addresses are already routinely kept by ISPs under data retention guidelines from the European Union that are in effect in the UK. Although not all ISPs are covered by this – and the government doesn’t disclose the list of those that are – it’s understood that larger ISPs are all required to keep the data. The Home Office could quite easily extend that list to all UK ISPs.
For those that are required to keep the data it’s not “random” as the report suggests, but, according the ISP Association, is a legal requirement.
Using IP address information, therefore, really doesn’t go any way to justifying the bill, and in fact if the government really wanted to make its point surely it would be better to highlight the cases where authorities couldn’t solve a case because they didn’t have access to data.
But the confusion over using lack of IP address seems even more bizarre given that over at the Department of Culture Media and Sport, officials have enough confidence in current IP address information to base the policing of copyright protection measures in the Digital Economy Act on IP addresses, it rather begs the question of whether IP addresses are reliable or not – the government appears to want them to both at the same time.Theresa May and the Sun have teamed up to deliver the Home Secretary’s message on the importance of the Communications Data Bill – AKA the Snooper’s Charter – in an interview article that borders on gratuitous with its level of scare maysunmongering.

maysun

Theresa May and The Sun have teamed up to deliver the home secretary’s message on the importance of the Communications Data Bill – AKA the Snooper’s Charter – in a scare-mongering article.

The Home Office uses the article to ram home why it believes additional surveillance measures are needed with an emotive piece headlined: “Track crime on net or we’ll see more people die” — and illustrated with a photo of the bus torn apart in the attacks on 7 July 2005.

“The people who say they’re against this bill need to look victims of serious crime, terrorism and child sex offences in the eye and tell them why they’re not prepared to give the police the powers they need to protect the public,” the piece asserts. “Criminals, terrorists and paedophiles will want MPs to vote against this bill. Victims of crime, police and the public will want them to vote for it. It’s a question of whose side you’re on.”

Criminals, terrorists and paedophiles will want MPs to vote against this bill. Victims of crime, police and the public will want them to vote for it

The warning comes as Whitehall waits for a parliamentary committee report into the draft bill, with many expecting a negative finding — and Nick Clegg reportedly ready to oppose the surveillance legislation.

Despite calls for clearer evidence on why and how the changes would make a difference, there has been very little actual explanation as to how the bill would actually save lives, or exactly what additional information could be gleaned from data such as email headers and online messaging that isn’t already available to investigators.

What evidence?

As its evidence that the proposed legislation is relevant, The Sun article cites two cases that have been helped using technology: one in which a child pornography ring was partially brought to justice because of IP addresses being identified, and another in which police tracked down a suicide attempt and cut the would-be victim down before he died.

“Cops were provided with the IP addresses of everyone who had been accessing the site and many people were identified from the data and prosecuted,” the case study said, adding that although some were arrested “others escaped because internet access companies had no record of who had used the IP addresses”.

The second case, while an admirable example of what quick action can do, shows that existing laws allow fast access to necessary data — and doesn’t answer what the law has to do with terror, organised crime or paedophiles.

The first also could have been dealt with under existing laws. As Big Brother Watch said in its blog post on the subject: “In this case, it would be proportionate to go to internet service providers and ask for the IP address of any computer accessing the website, and for data to be retained about that use. Those people could be identified and prosecuted without needing to record every website visit of every person.”

IP addresses are already routinely kept by ISPs under data retention guidelines from the European Union that are in effect in the UK. Although not all ISPs are covered by this – and the government doesn’t disclose the list of those that are – it’s understood that larger ISPs are all required to keep the data. Surely the Home Office could quite easily extend that list to all UK ISPs?

IP addresses

For those ISPs that are required to keep the data, it’s not “random” as the report suggests, but, according the ISP Association, is a legal requirement.

Using cases that rely on IP address information, therefore, really doesn’t go any way to justifying the bill, and in fact if the government really wanted to make its point, it would be better to highlight the cases where authorities couldn’t solve a case because they didn’t have access to data.

For one law, IP addresses are reliable evidence; for another, they’re not — the government appears to be claiming both positions at the same time

But the confusion over a lack of IP address information seems even more bizarre given that over at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, officials have enough confidence in current IP address information to place it at the heart of copyright protection plans. Under the Digital Economy Act illegal, downloaders are set to be identified and potentially punished based on evidence of material accessed from their IP addresses.

For one law, IP addresses are reliable evidence that are easy enough to access; for another, they’re not — the government appears to be claiming both positions at the same time.

Tags: , ,

Posted in: Newsdesk, Random

Permalink

Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

5 Responses to “ Do we need the Snooper’s Charter to save lives? ”

  1. Craig Says:
    December 3rd, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    As it always the case the people who have something to hide will not be caught. They will be using something like gmail webmail over HTTPS and not a thing will be known about who they are talking to.

    However your grandparents or parents still using their ISP’s email account on a dated Outlook Express… Yes they need to be tracked.

     
  2. JohnAHind Says:
    December 3rd, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    No surprise that Rupert Murdoch through his mouthpiece Trevor Kavanagh is in favour of this. Once every policeman in the country has uncontrolled and unaccountable access to everyone’s internet records his ‘reporters’ will be free to bribe them for salacious stories about celebrities and crime victims!

    The government is putting up a huge smokescreen here: Most reasonable people agree law enforcement authorities should have access to communications (content as well as traffic records) UNDER LEGAL WARRANT. They never explain why they need to do this without a warrant and the accountability and restraint that brings.

    They should have no problem getting warrants for surveillance of suspected terrorists, organised criminals or pedophiles, and this should give them access to content as well as traffic. And while we are about it, they should need warrants for telephone call records as well!

     
  3. DaveF Says:
    December 6th, 2012 at 11:10 am

    As ever we seem to be setting new laws when the existing ones could be used.

     
  4. John Says:
    December 7th, 2012 at 9:50 am

    I would prefer to see a law passed which regulated the press than one which regulates the people!
    The PM vetoed the former, lets see if he does the same this time (I doubt it personally).

     
  5. Jon Says:
    December 7th, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    Now why would the murdoch owned Sun “newspaper” be saying privacy is irrelevant? I wonder Hmmm…

     

Leave a Reply

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

* required fields

* Will not be published

Authors

Categories

Archives

advertisement

SEARCH
SIGN UP

Your email:

Your password:

remember me

advertisement


Hitwise Top 10 Website 2010