Addressing the Civil Liberties Committee six days after the
London bombings that killed at least 48 people, Mr Clarke gave
support to moves to speed up draft EU legislation. It would oblige
the retention of communications data from phone calls and emails to
help fight terrorism, a plan rejected by MEPs in June when they
sent the proposal back to the parliamentary committee for further
debate.
On finding the right balance between security and freedom, Mr
Clarke said: "The point I want to make is that the human right to
travel on the underground in London on a Thursday morning without
being blown up is also an important right."
He added that the challenge of a more secure Europe requires "a
proportionate response," adding: "None of our proposals are new,
they were not new even after the Madrid attacks, but they are
things we still need to do."
The proposal to store data from phone calls, text messages and
emails for a maximum of three years was put forward by the UK,
Ireland, France and Sweden. The stored information would only
include details on the date, time and location of the communication
but not on the content of the conversation.
But Parliament's rapporteur on data protection, Alexander
Alvaro, who asked MEPs in June to reject the proposal to store data
from phone calls and emails, told Mr Clarke: "You have our support
but you will not get blind obedience. I find very annoying the
rhetorical way people use to explain how to fight terrorism."
He continued: "You argue that intelligence units are the best
weapons but they failed in New York, Madrid and London."
Many MEPs insisted that Member States must justify the data
retention measures. Holland's Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg
(Greens/European Free Alliance), said: "Privacy is not something
holy but it is up to us to prove a measure is necessary."
An insider told OUT-LAW that Mr Clarke was given a very hostile
reception from the Committee. The Home Secretary admitted that no
evidence of his plan's possible effectiveness had been provided to
the Parliament. He then began to promise a text showing that it was
proportionate and reasonable – before correcting himself and saying
that he would provide "examples" of how it might have been useful.
The source, who asked not to be named, commented: "You can provide
examples of where it would be useful to have every citizen
electronically tagged – but this doesn't mean that it's an
appropriate policy."
Mr Clarke did receive support from European Commission Vice
President Franco Frattini. In a press conference yesterday about
the Commission's role in the fight against terror, Mr Frattini said
it will adopt a proposal for a Directive on the retention of data
in September. "It is our aim to provide constructive input to
ensure that progress achieved so far in the field of data retention
will result in a proportionate instrument, based on solid legal
grounds."
But the Commission proposal is likely to differ from Mr
Clarke's.
Mr Clarke wants a minimum retention period of one year and a
maximum period of three years. Recent Commission proposals
suggested a maximum period of one year.
Mr Frattini also acknowledged that data retention has a cost for
industry. Speaking at a press conference in Brussels on Tuesday,
Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, dismissed suggestions that
these costs will be excessive. "There may be some costs but it is
surely a cost we should pay for the preservation of human life," he
said. According to the IDG News Service, he added that the costs
will be less than the companies say and that, in any case, mobile
operators and ISPs "are not the poorest companies in the
world."
Labour MEP Claude Moraes told the BBC that "even medium size
internet providers or phone operators would find this quite
crushing."
Compliance management vendor AXS-One points out that there is
also a logistical point to consider: the resulting database would
be huge, and retrieval of the data is a bigger issue than how
to store it. "Has the Government even considered whether companies
have this technical capability," it asks?
A view on storage and retrieval
AXS-One's Managing Director Mark Donkersley said: "Keeping
records of traffic on millions of private emails, text messages and
mobile phone calls isn't new. The technology to store volumes of
electronic data has existed for years and is expanding to encompass
an ever-wider variety of data."
He points out that certain industry sectors and organisations
already retain emails and other forms of data – and have been doing
so cost effectively, to the benefit of the business and in
accordance with the law for years.
He continued:
"Most, if not all, of the information
Charles Clarke refers to is already available in electronic format.
By capturing the existing information and storing it in a
centralised, electronic repository, it reduces the physical storage
impact and provides intelligent search and retrieval capabilities
within seconds. This element is crucial – the ability to search and
retrieve archived data instantly and efficiently – as there’s no
value in storing masses of data if it cannot be searched and
retrieved on demand."
He suggests that such a system would also allow pro-active
monitoring and, with the additional capability to 'audit the
auditors,' he concludes, "this would hopefully allay any concerns
that human rights organisations may have about who can access and
search the archive, why they access it and what they then do with
that information."
