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.