Promoting racial justice, civil liberties and human rights Unit 4, Carlisle Business Centre, Manningham, BD8 8BD

Telephone: 01274 542222 Registered Charity No. 1121074 Company No. 6221033

23rd August 2012 Written Submissions on draft Communications Data Bill

We do not believe that the UK government has put forward a convincing or cogent case for the need for the new powers proposed in the draft Bill and we believe that the proposed measures erode civil liberties. We endorse the findings of the recently published Report by Big Brother Watch (a civil liberties group) entitled A legacy of surveillance which highlights very serious concerns with the use of surveillance by public authorities and the lack of transparency that currently exists. This position is also endorsed by the Community Secretary Eric Pickles. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/22/bbc-ofsted-secrecy-surveillance) We concur with Nick Pickles, director or the campaign group Big Brother Watch, condemnation of the proposals: "This is an unprecedented attack on privacy online and it is far from clear this will actually improve public safety, while adding significant costs to internet business. No amount of scare-mongering can hide the fact that this policy is being condemned by MPs in all political parties." Clearly there is a very real risk of the new proposed powers being abused or misused by public sector organisations. The plans would give unrestricted and carte blanche power to institutions without the proper checks and balances being in place. The extensive use of the RIPA legislation by local councils and public services clearly highlight the potential for abuse of any legislation which seeks to strip away the individuals rights to privacy. We consider the argument that these powers will help to reduce crime to be fatuous. Positive outcomes in criminal investigations are best achieved not through increased surveillance but the appropriate deployment of police officers to tackle crime. Furthermore the press and media have consistently highlighted cases of police corruption and fraud the very groups that is most likely to use this legislation. JUST also believes

that the lack of positive relationships between BME communities (viz, Muslims, AfricanCaribbean groups) and the police as a consequence of the police targeting potential terrorists and extremists and gun and knife crime could lead to these groups being unfairly targeted under the proposed measures. There is a real risk of sensitive, private and personal information being abused. Although the proposed measure highlights one of its key benefits as the ability to track pedophiles, the recent example of a former police officer with West Yorkshire Police who was convicted of making indecent images of children, highlights that in the wrong hands, these powers carry a grave risk to the individual. http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/local/more-wakefield-news/former-westyorkshire-police-detective-s-child-porn-shame-1-4712857 The Office of the Information Commissioner has expressed grave doubts about the mass surveillance project too. He believes the case has not been made to justify the sweeping expansion in the power of the police and other public bodies to trawl through private communications, including visits to Facebook and eBay. The government has claimed this proposal is needed to fight terrorism and serious crimes; However computer databases and systems such as NICHE, PNC, ANPR, VENOM, HOLMES, OIS, WYSE already exist and provide the police and other agencies with an extraordinary amount of data and intelligence on individuals, properties and businesses. Likewise automatic classification, risk-based profiling, systematic tracking and recording of travel and use of public services, automated use of CCTV, analysis of buying habits and financial transactions, and the workplace monitoring of telephone calls, e-mail and internet use are already used extensively. Presently, ISPs keep details of which websites users visit, and who they send and receive emails and internet phone calls from, for 12 months. This information can be accessed retrospectively by investigators, subject to complying with the relevant legal requirements during the investigation or detection of a crime. (not sure what this means) Under the new proposals, ISPs would install hardware from GCHQ - the Government's electronic snooping agency - allowing investigators to tap into a real-time feed of data, and examine when communications were sent, and who to, in order to build up intelligence on criminal activity. It is our clear position that sufficient powers already exist, which serve law enforcement and public agencies adequately. Only very recently a Supreme Court ruling has confirmed that the retention of innocent peoples DNA by the Police after they have been investigated and cleared of an offence is unlawful and that it was incompatible with a 2008 European Court of Human Rights decision. Clearly therefore in the same logic around the lawful retention of data in relation to innocent people should apply.

Our concerns about the lack of safeguards around the confidentiality of the information is substantiated following the recent admission by the Ministry of Justice that their systems had been subject to an on-line cyber attack. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-office-andministry-of-justice-targeted-by-anonymous-hackers-in-assange-protest-8069811.html

Furthermore according to Googles Transparency Report, from January-June 2011 last year, they received 1,279 user data requests from UK authorities and refused to comply with 37%. Clearly there were concerns around the release of personal data that did not meet the disclosure tests under the Data Protection Act. Under this proposal, that number of refusals would drop to zero signaling no validity or threshold tests for the requests. The proposal is a massive encroachment on privacy, and has many associated security risks and potential for further abuse. To store details of internet use for a year to allow police and intelligence services to access it is wholly disproportionate and unnecessary. There is clear disquiet among MPs too with the most recent concern being articulated by Senior Tory David Davis MP who labeled the proposal "incredibly intrusive" The huge cost of the spying project at a time when the Government is making cuts elsewhere is not justifiable. In an era of austerity, the money would be better spent on funding key public services such as hospitals, schools and community projects and address the widening deficit. JUST West Yorkshire fears that the very people that snooping plans are intended to uncover - serious organised criminal gangs, major fraudsters, paedophiles - are the very ones who are already using technology to avoid being snooped upon. Therefore the proposed law is not only a disproportionate response but wholly inadequate to deal with the proposed problem.

Kash Ahmed and Ratna Lachman (@RatnaLachman) JUST West Yorkshire Promoting racial justice, civil liberties and human rights Unit 4, Carlisle Business Centre, Manningham, BD8 8BD Telephone: 01274 542222 Email: rjn@justwestyorkshire.co.uk