During the same period there were 2,243
warrants for the interception of communications and a single
warrant could legitimise the bugging of an entire office. These
figures are contained in the annual report of the Interceptions of
Communications Commissioner (ICC) that covers a 15-month period in
2005 and 2006
An interception of communications relates to
the content of a phone call, letter, email or internet session
being accessed by the authorities and, to be lawful, an
interception usually requires a warrant to be signed by the Home
Secretary.
A request for contact details or
communications data, by contrast, does not need a warrant
and can reveal information such as the time of a call or
email and the number or address called or emailed or in the case of
mobile phone user, it can reveal the location of the phone. A
warrant is not needed because communications data cannot include
the content of a call, email or letter.
However, according to Home Office figures, 90% of requests for
communications data seek the disclosure of subscriber information
only – such as the identity of someone who uses a particular
number.
Each interception warrant is capable of
permitting access to the communications from a premises or made by
an organisation as well as an individual. Similarly each request
for communications data, a different kind of request, can relate to
an individual or an organisation. The result is that each request
reported by the ICC has the potential to involve an organisation or
a premises and the tens or hundreds of individuals who make contact
with that organisation or premises.
The law governing interception, the Regulation
of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), clearly states that a warrant
can cover an entire premises and not just an individual. "An
interception warrant must name or describe either one person as the
interception subject or a single set of premises as the premises in
relation to which the interception to which the warrant relates is
to take place," it states.
Similarly, in relation to the less detailed
requests for disclosure of communications data, the Act says that
authorities can request information on communication by "persons".
In legislation 'person' generally refers to an individual or an
organisation.
Former Interceptions of Communications
Commissioner Sir Swinton Thomas published his final annual report
and submitted it to the Prime Minister, Parliament and the Scottish
Ministers yesterday. The report covers the period 1st January 2005
to 31st March 2006. After that date Sir Paul Kennedy took over as
Commissioner.
The report reveals the scale of communications
surveillance in the UK. The 2,243 communications interceptions are
the most serious cases, and are likely to have involved organised
crime and terrorism. These warrants are signed by Ministers, mainly
the Home Secretary, which means that on average, 10 warrants are
signed each weekday.
The Commissioner oversees the activities of
795 public bodies, including intelligence services MI5, MI6 and
GCHQ, the police, local authorities and regulators. The report
indicates that he has six staff to help him in his supervisory
role.
The Report also notes the first successful
complainant to use the Tribunal system. Since 1985, there has been
just under 1,500 complaints against the activities of the national
security agencies which have been investigated by the Tribunal.
Responding to the report, the head of civil
liberties campaign group Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, has said that
the high numbers of people under surveillance indicated that the
Government has a "creeping contempt for our personal privacy".
Editor's note, 21/02/2007: This story has been
updated since it first appeared.
