MPs: snooper's charter is "overkill"
By Stewart Mitchell
Posted on 11 Dec 2012 at 07:00
The Communications Data Bill - the so-called "snooper's charter" - needs to be significantly revised, according to a committee comprised of MPs and Lords.
The Communications Data Bill would expand the ability of the police and security services to access information about surfing and email activities, requiring ISPs to store email header information - but not content - and other communications data.
The "snooper's charter" has been criticised by rights campaigners, but the Lords committee report is a significant blow to the Home Office's plans to expand surveillance powers on the internet.
Although the committee accepted the need for better access to online data records, the report said the plans had been poorly researched, posed a threat to privacy, and could end up costing far more than the £1.8bn budgeted for the scheme.
"There needs to be some substantial re-writing of the Bill before it is brought before Parliament as we feel that there is a case for legislation, but only if it strikes a better balance between the needs of law enforcement and other agencies and the right to privacy," said Lord Blencathra, chair of the Joint Committee.
The figure for estimated benefits is even less reliable than that for costs, and the estimated net benefit figure is fanciful and misleading
"The breadth of the draft bill as it stands appears to be overkill and is much wider than the specific needs identified by the law enforcement agencies."
One of the key criticisms of the Bill is that it is too vague, particularly Clause 1, which lays out the scope of what could and should be covered. The government claimed it is necessarily "wide" to enable it to encompass changes in technology that might develop in the future.
The committee disagreed. "We urge the government to reconsider its zeal to future-proof legislation and concentrate on getting the immediate necessities right."
The report said too many government agencies would have access to any data collected by service providers, and called for clarification on the approval procedure for data requests, as well as stronger penalties for anyone found to be abusing access to such information.
The committee was especially critical of the way the programme's costs had been calculated, with neither ISPs nor the Information Commissioner properly consulted. It said the costs were likely they'd be much higher than the predicted £1.8bn.
"We are concerned that the Home Office’s cost estimates are not robust. They were prepared without consultation with the telecommunications industry on which they largely depend, and they project forward ten years to a time where the communications landscape may be very different," the committee found.
"Given successive governments’ poor records of bringing IT projects in on budget, and the general lack of detail, there is a reasonable fear that this legislation will cost considerably more than the current estimates," it added.
The committee was also sceptical about government claims the system could lead to benefits of as much as $6.2bn.
"The figure for estimated benefits is even less reliable than that for costs, and the estimated net benefit figure is fanciful and misleading," the report said. "It ought not to be used to influence Parliament in deciding on the relative advantages and disadvantages of this legislation."
According to the Home Office, the new law would increase the breadth of data coverage it can access from 75% to 85%, which would still leave room for criminals to operate. The committee said much of the improvement could be achieved by better use of existing laws.
The report said there were only three types of information that would be improved access-wise under the plans: data matching IP addresses to specific users, data showing which internet services a user has accessed and data from overseas communications providers providing services in the UK.
Despite the Home Office's assertions, the report said it currently had access to more data than when RIPA, the system it looks to supersede, was put into force.
"The much quoted figure of a 25% communications data gap purports to relate to data which might in theory be available, but currently is not. The 25% figure is, no doubt unintentionally, both misleading and unhelpful," the report added.
Is your business a social business? For helpful info and tips visit our hub.
CCTV in every home
Who pays for the storage? Not Theresa May certainly! Knowing the large volumes of data storage needed to log GPS tracking for a handful of vehicles, how much would be needed to store EVERYTHING for EVERYONE in the UK?
Even if this wasn't a fascist, big-brother-esque intrusion on the privacy of millions of people, the idea is lunacy from a technical standpoint.
How, in a so-called democratic country, can a global unlimited phone and mail tap on every person be legal or moral?
Time for May to go.
By cheysuli on 11 Dec 2012
Why haven't they asked their bosses
Why have they not asked their bosses (Us the paying tax payers) whether they want the Gov to snoop on every person in this country?
I expect its because everyone would say no.
By curiousclive on 11 Dec 2012
If it were only so easy
@Curiousclive - the problem is a large part of the population won't care. It has something to do with computers and they certainly have no idea what the ramifications of it are or could be in the future.
The government will use the magic words. Terrorism, "organised crime", "for the children" & "if you have nothing to hide...." at which point a large part of the populous will start chanting "All glory to the hypnotoad" and that will be that.
By Chambler on 11 Dec 2012
This stick has two ends. People en masse don't care about 'the computers stuff' but start saying that it'll cost billions and will result in costs of the Internet going up and maybe even taxes and we'll see if the public won't react :>
By Josefov on 11 Dec 2012
Indeed it does, however, the problem is that we are talking billions. These are number so large that people cannot get their head around how much money this actually is.
They know that 1.8bn is less than 2.0bn and more than 1.5bn but they have no concept of how much it actually is in real terms.
The difference between 1.8bn and 2.0bn is around 11,000 brand new larger family cars.
The problem is that once your excuse for not doing something is because of the money, you've already lost. Technology becomes cheaper every year so in 4 years time you'd be able to do something similar for the bargain basement price of 1.0bn.
So unless people actually understand why this is a bad idea, it will happen eventually.
By Chambler on 11 Dec 2012
Because "they" can
As always its the "Right" who actually try to follow-through with intrusive and draconian systems of monitoring and (ultimately) control.
At the risk of stating the obvious George Orwell spotted this over 60 years ago with "1984".
Today's dissembling apparatchiks evoke "Newspeak" with their evasive and obfuscatory responses to even the simplest query.
The constant series of 'wars' cold and hot with 'Communism','terrorism', 'drugs' etc. and those we have promoted in order to secure resources are also redolent of Orwell's vision.
This bill merely uses technology to achieve what the Stazi could not: the ability to keep tabs on us all, all the time.
Tie it in to the increasing insistence of Insurers that we drive with "spies" in our cars; with the location data provided by our gadgets; the trails we leave via our Credit & Debit cards; and the vast network of surveillance, speed and ANPR cameras, and we're covered about 70% of the time.....
By wittgenfrog on 11 Dec 2012
- Apple iPhone 6 and 6 Plus release date, price in UK and new features
- Why Microsoft was forced to buy Minecraft
- How to remove the U2 album from an iPhone: iTunes antivirus tool launched
- New Windows 9 videos show off multi-desktops and notification centre
- BT and mobile networks warn of rising cost of Scotland split
- How to check your identity hasn’t been sold to the hackers
- Tim Cook: this is how much TV has changed since the 70s
- Westminster wins the .London battle
- 20 years of PC Pro: from deep pan pizza to virtualisation
- Five reasons why the Apple Watch leaves me cold
- Apple Watch, iPhone 6 and 6 Plus: Tim Cook's Apple back with a bang?
- BT Home Hub 5: how to get maximum speed
- 20 years of PC Pro: one-star reviews (including "the worst tablet we've ever seen")
- 20 years of PC Pro: our best covers
- Why we've closed the PC Pro forums
- How to sell more ebooks on Amazon
- 10 ways to make your business more secure
- Top five VoIP mistakes
- How to add in-app purchasing to an iPhone, Android or Windows app
- Remote-control ransomware: TeamViewer and software hardball
- Why laptops with serial ports matter to the Internet of Things
- Make your mobile battery last longer
- Small steps into handling Big Data
- Nexus 5: does it really run stock Android?
- How to get broadband to a garden office