There has long been speculation about the Government’s plans
regarding data retention. Critics from the CBI, the Foundation for
Information Policy Research and the London School of Economics have
warned that the potential invasion of privacy will harm consumer
and business confidence in e-commerce. They also point out that
ISPs will suffer if made to bear the costs of compliance. Doubts
have also been expressed about how effective data retention will be
in the detection or investigation of terrorism.
The Government’s proposal does not cover content data, but will
provide details of senders and recipients of e-mails or web sites
visited by individuals. However, it was not immediately clear from
yesterday’s speech whether traffic retention will be compulsory,
conditional or optional. Mr Blunkett said:
"We will introduce measures to enable
communication service providers to retain data generated in the
course of their business, by which I mean the recording of calls
made and other data, not the content. We will work with the
industry on a code of practice."
Paul Marsden, the Labour MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, sought
clarification from his colleague:
"…in our headlong rush to protect our
democracy there is a real danger that we will forgo basic civil
liberties. What, specifically, does [Mr Blunkett] mean by retaining
data? I am sure that many businesses are very concerned about what
that will involve. Personally, I am concerned about whether it
means nosing through private e-mails or steaming open letters."
Mr Blunkett replied:
"It explicitly does not mean ferreting
through people's private e-mails or steaming open their post. The
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is the greatest
safeguard that exists in any democracy in the world in its updating
of earlier provisions for protecting our rights. Having had this
job for four months, I am well aware that that is the case. Great
care is taken in these matters.
"Being able to find out from service
providers - just as we can from telecommunications agencies -
whether a phone call was made at a certain time, when we are
investigating terrorism, makes sense. Holding that information for
a longer period than would otherwise be commercially desirable - it
is not information that does not already exist - and reaching
agreement with the industry on achieving that, through a code,
threatens no one except those who are up to no good."
This leaves open questions over the circumstances of when and
for how long data will be retained, and specifically, whether it
will be a blanket requirement. The answers should be contained in
the text of the new Bill which is due to come before Parliament in
November.
Among many other measures in the Bill are powers for “account
monitoring and swift asset freezing” and an extension of incitement
laws to cover religious, as well as racial hatred, with an
increased maximum penalty for incitement offences from two years to
seven years.
