About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Surveillance laws 'not fit for purpose', MPs say

From The BBC

6 December 2014

Surveillance laws that allow police officers to access people's phone records are not fit for purpose, the Home Affairs Select Committee has said. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) has been used to access journalists' records in some cases. The committee said journalists' sources should be "fully protected" and access to data under Ripa was "secretive". The Home Office said there were measures in place to ensure police powers were not abused. Police officers have also failed to routinely record the professions of individuals who have had their communications data accessed, MPs said.

Earlier this year, it emerged police had used their powers under Ripa to obtain information about phone calls involving newspaper reporters. The Metropolitan Police used the Act to try to obtain the telephone records of the Sun's newsdesk to try to identify who had leaked the "Plebgate" story involving former Conservative chief whip Andrew Mitchell. Kent constabulary also used their powers under Ripa to obtain phone records of a journalist investigating the Chris Huhne speeding points scandal, as well as those of one of his sources - despite a judge agreeing the source could remain confidential.

Committee chairman Keith Vaz said: "Ripa is not fit for purpose. We were astonished that law enforcement agencies failed to routinely record the professions of individuals who have had their communications data accessed under the legislation. Using Ripa to access telephone records of journalists is wrong and this practice must cease. The inevitable consequence is that this deters whistleblowers from coming forward." He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that journalists' records should be kept privileged, "otherwise we get into a situation where legislation introduced for completely different purposes is being used in a mission creep to be able to control sections that were never intended to be controlled".

Half a million pieces of information are accessed every year under the legislation, added Mr Vaz. He told the programme it had been used for "trawling", saying: "We have felt for some time that public officials are using this piece of legislation for what was not intended by it." The committee called on the Home Office to hold a consultation on an amended Ripa code of practice, which would give special provisions to those dealing with privileged information. Security minister James Brokenshire said communications data was "an absolutely critical tool" used "to investigate crime, safeguard national security and protect the public".

He insisted there are already safeguards against abuse of police powers to access data. The Home Office specified new rules will ensure "extra consideration" is given in cases where police want to see the phone records of those in sensitive professions, such as journalists. The revised code will be published before Christmas, according to the government. Privacy lobby group Big Brother Watch said the current situation was "intolerable". Emma Carr, who is the director of the group, said: "When a senior parliamentary committee says that the current legislation is not fit for purpose, then this simply cannot be ignored. It is now abundantly clear that the law is out of date, the oversight is weak and the recording of how the powers are used is patchy at best. The public is right to expect better. This is intolerable."


[Colour me cynical but I don’t think that we should be at all surprised that security or surveillance legislation is subject to ‘mission creep’ and is regularly abused, misused, mishandled and where necessary covered up. Governments of every shade will do whatever they can to protect themselves, to restrict access to information they don’t believe that the people should know about and to spy on the very people whose job – in a healthy functioning democracy – is to ferret out corruption and incompetence within the very organisations that we set up to run things in our name. Whenever we hear the word security we should immediately become suspicious – most especially when we are told that ‘procedures are already in place and there is nothing to worry our befuddled heads about. Just return to your game shows and your celebrity scandals. Leave the real world to us. Everything is safe in our hands…..’]

No comments: