FIPR slams central communications database

Suggested and rejected years ago


A proposal for a central database covering all electronic communications has been heavily criticised by members of the Foundation for Internet Policy Research.

At an event to mark foundation's 10th anniversary, a former director of the think tank described such a data warehouse as a deeply flawed plan, which had been previously suggested and rejected years ago.

The government is reportedly considering it as part of the Communications Bill in the next session of Parliament. It has already attracted criticism from people including from Jonathan Bamford, the assistant information commissioner. Bamford said the proposal "may well be a step too far" and expressed doubts about whether it could be justified.

"It's interesting that data retention had been wanted as early as 2000," Caspar Bowden told the meeting, held in London on 27 May 2008. As the foundation's first director, Bowden campaigned to reform the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) as it went through Parliament.

Bowden, now Microsoft's chief privacy officer in Europe but speaking in a personal capacity, said the concept of data mining the entire population's web traffic – which would become possible with a central database – was "Orwellian". He said that in 2000, the rejected request for such a system had come from the UK's security services.

Under Ripa, public bodies including security services, police forces and local authorities have the ability to retrieve "traffic data" – lists of websites visited, email headers, telephone billing data, but not the content of communications. Internet and telecoms service providers currently store "traffic data" for set periods.

The Earl of Erroll, a member of the House of Lords, said a central database of "traffic data" would weaken oversight, as the state would no longer have to apply to communications providers for access. "You've just lost a line of defence," he said, adding that other problems include how the data would be analysed and the fact that it was a single centralised system.

Andrew Knight, a senior Home Office civil servant, said that "Ministers have not made their minds up on the way forward" on whether to build a central database.

He defended the need for such monitoring across a broad range of enforcement work. "We do need public authorities to spell out how they are using Ripa," he said - Ripa also regulates physical surveillance. "Talk about snooping isn't used when talking about the benefits fraudster, even though that fraudster will have been caught out using Ripa."

Knight said that state surveillance is not just about tackling serious crime and terrorism, but for other crimes and for public protection. For example, he added: "It's for vulnerable missing people cases, where we need to find people quickly."

But Ian Brown, who followed Bowden as the foundation's director and now works for the Oxford Internet Institute, said that during its parliamentary process, Ripa had been sold as "very much about terrorism". However, it has recently been used to target far less serious offences, such as by the Borough of Poole Council for surveillance of families to see if they live in the catchment area for a school.

This article was originally published at Kablenet.

Kablenet's GC weekly is a free email newsletter covering the latest news and analysis of public sector technology. To register click here.


Other stories you might like

  • Graviton 3: AWS attempts to gain silicon advantage with latest custom hardware

    Key to faster, more predictable cloud

    RE:INVENT AWS had a conviction that "modern processors were not well optimized for modern workloads," the cloud corp's senior veep of Infrastructure, Peter DeSantis, claimed at its latest annual Re:invent gathering in Las Vegas.

    DeSantis was speaking last week about AWS's Graviton 3 Arm-based processor, providing a bit more meat around the bones, so to speak – and in his comment the word "modern" is doing a lot of work.

    The computing landscape looks different from the perspective of a hyperscale cloud provider; what counts is not flexibility but intensive optimization and predictable performance.

    Continue reading
  • The Omicron dilemma: Google goes first on delaying office work

    Hurrah, employees can continue to work from home and take calls in pyjamas

    Googlers can continue working from home and will no longer be required to return to campuses on 10 January 2022 as previously expected.

    The decision marks another delay in getting more employees back to their desks. For Big Tech companies, setting a firm return date during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a nightmare. All attempts were pushed back so far due to rising numbers of cases or new variants of the respiratory disease spreading around the world, such as the new Omicron strain.

    Google's VP of global security, Chris Rackow, broke the news to staff in a company-wide email, first reported by CNBC. He said Google would wait until the New Year to figure out when campuses in the US can safely reopen for a mandatory return.

    Continue reading
  • This House believes: A unified, agnostic software environment can be achieved

    How long will we keep reinventing software wheels?

    Register Debate Welcome to the latest Register Debate in which writers discuss technology topics, and you the reader choose the winning argument. The format is simple: we propose a motion, the arguments for the motion will run this Monday and Wednesday, and the arguments against on Tuesday and Thursday. During the week you can cast your vote on which side you support using the poll embedded below, choosing whether you're in favour or against the motion. The final score will be announced on Friday, revealing whether the for or against argument was most popular.

    This week's motion is: A unified, agnostic software environment can be achieved. We debate the question: can the industry ever have a truly open, unified, agnostic software environment in HPC and AI that can span multiple kinds of compute engines?

    Our first contributor arguing FOR the motion is Nicole Hemsoth, co-editor of The Next Platform.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021