The 43-page "Access to Communications Data" document is one of two Home Office consultations published today. The other addresses the retention of data (you can read about it in our story at the link below).
A draft Order was laid before Parliament last year, setting out who would have access to communications data retained by ISPs and telcos. Such data includes details of phone numbers dialled, e-mail addresses used in correspondence or web sites visited. It does not include the content of the communications.
Last year's draft Order added public authorities to a list of those with rights to access communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, known as RIPA.
However, as the Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR) put it, the draft Order "apparently intended for every Whitehall or Town Hall bureaucrat to have access to this highly sensitive data." It was quickly dubbed a "Snoopers' Charter".
Under the weight of public criticism, the Home Office withdrew its draft Order from Parliament on 18th June 2002. The Home Office now admits that this Order was "not proportionate" and has set out schemes for limiting the type of data that might be accessed and the controls that might be applied.
In a foreword to today's consultation, Home Secretary David Blunkett says that the number of public authorities allowed to access the full range of communications data has been reduced "drastically". He adds that new safeguards will protect the privacy of the public.
The new proposal sets out in more detail the types of data to which each public authority should be given access and attempts to justify this need.
Among the Government's proposals are:
A 'double lock' safeguard where access to certain types of information (such as itemised telephone call records) is granted only after prior approval by a judicial independent third party, such as the Interception of Communications Commissioner, whose role is explained in the consultation document;
Restrictions on the type of information public authorities are granted access to;
Restrictions on the reasons why public bodies can be granted access to this limited information;
Only allowing senior designated people within public bodies to authorise access;
Providing specialist training to public authorities on how to access communications data to ensure privacy is respected and those with legitimate and necessary access to such information know the law; and
Regular checks on public bodies by the Interception of Communications Commissioner to ensure access is not abused.
Home Office Minister Bob Ainsworth said:
"In a democratic society there is always a difficult balance to strike between respect for privacy and ensuring crime is tackled effectively. The proposals we are publishing today defend the privacy of the citizen whilst ensuring crimes are investigated and the law of the land is upheld."
The FIPR responded:
"FIPR's view is that some government agencies may have a case for accessing details of the owner of a phone number or email address, though not perhaps as many agencies as the Home Office suggest. Do Town Hall planning departments really need such powers to check up on preservation orders?
"What is vital are genuine internal controls to prevent misuse and also oversight by a properly funded regime that is independent of each agency. The Home Office needs to work a little harder on this aspect, and they will need to come forward with proposals for criminal offences for abuse of the system."
The consultation will precede new legislation.
The Consultation document can be downloaded from:
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/part1/consult.pdf
Comments are invited by 3rd June 2003 to [email protected]