Snooping plan updates are not enough, campaigners say

The Government says snooping plans allowing public bodies unfettered access to citizens' confidential communications have been curbed under new proposals, but privacy campaigners say they have just been repackaged.

At present only the police, Customs and Excise, the intelligence services and the Inland Revenue can officially access private communications data. The Serious Fraud Office, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, fire authorities and NHS trusts will also be granted access under new proposals, but all other public services will have limited access.

David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, promised a fundamental rethink of the Government's approach to regulating public bodies' rights to access citizens' Internet, e-mail and telephone records under section 22 of the Regulatory Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), last June, in the face of widespread public opposition.

Bob Ainsworth, Home Office Minister, said: "We are tailoring the amount of access to the need for it to allay the concerns of members of the public worried about intrusion into their private records.

"In a democratic society there is always a difficult balance to strike between respect for privacy and ensuring crime is tackled effectively. The new proposals we are publishing defend the privacy of the citizen whilst ensuring crimes are investigated and the law of the land is upheld.

"Criminals use mobile phones and the Internet to carry out a wide variety of crimes. Our plans will ensure that all crimes can be investigated whether drug dealing, phoney trading or selling food unfit for human consumption, but with access limited to what is strictly necessary."

The latest changes in Government proposals on snooping include:

• A 'double lock' safeguard where access to certain types of information [such as itemised telephone call records] is granted only after prior approval by a judicial independent third party, such as the Interception of Communications Commissioner;
• Restrictions on the type of information public authorities are granted access to;
• Restrictions on the reasons why public bodies can be granted access to this limited information;
• Only allowing senior designated people within public bodies to authorise access;
• Providing specialist training to public authorities on how to access communications data to ensure privacy is respected and those with legitimate and necessary access to such information know the law;
• Regular checks on public bodies by the Interception of Communications Commissioner to ensure access is not abused.

But John Wadham, Director of Liberty, voiced concerns over the amendments.

He said: "The original snooper's charter proposals were appallingly excessive. Authorities accessing this data should need a warrant from a judge - that's the only truly independent safeguard that can produce public confidence.

"As we read the new paper, the Interception of Communications commissioner will only be offering an 'oversight' - i.e. occasional scrutiny after the event - while in practice data will be demanded by individuals who have been 'certified' and periodically have that certification reviewed to check they haven't been misusing it.

"This leads back into familiar territory for the Commissioner (whose annual reports routinely list the numbers of wiretaps placed on the wrong people," he added.

"The Information Commissioner should be allowed to stand apart as the public's defender of privacy - otherwise, who can people turn to if they believe a warrant has been wrongly granted?" Mr Wadham queried.

In February, the privacy pressure group, Statewatch, claimed the Home Office had spun figures released by the Interception of Communications Commissioner by no longer including changes to warrants allowing access to personal data - otherwise known as "modifications."

Tony Bunyan, Editor of Statewatch, said: "The new method of issuing warrants and changes to them is said to make life easier for officials but at the same time it hides from public view the true extent of surveillance."

The Home Office denied the figures had risen saying Statewatch's doubling up the number of individual surveillance cases by adding "modifications" - which can count as a person's mobile number or email address changing - presented an unrealistic version of actual surveillance levels.

Protests against the controversial statutory order - section 22, which allowed local authorities access to personal communications - were largely vented over the Internet.

Analysts including Liberty and STAND, a campaigning website for digital freedom in the UK, largely credited the Government's decision to amend section 22 to the 'virtual protest' mounted by privacy campaigners.

FaxYourMP, a web-based service that allows people to send direct messages to MPs, estimated it forwarded 1,600 faxes to MPs from security-conscious citizens protesting against section 22.