Some emergency: Why Whitehall won't give up control over your personal data
10 July 2014 9:20pm
ACCORDING to the Home Office, the Prime Minister, and other senior politicians, it is important that police and officials of all kinds should be able to look at your telephone and internet records. In fact, it is so important that Parliament must act today to pre-empt the application of an April ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which struck down the EU directive requiring phone and internet firms to retain communication data for 12 months. The April ruling would have allowed old records to be deleted.
The government wants to replace the Data Retention Regulations 2009 with emergency legislation (which, at the time of writing, I have not seen – almost nobody has – but which may be half way to law before you read this article).
This is a double irony of timing. It comes just days after a civil service document emerged, revealed by Rachel Sylvester of The Times, showing how Whitehall departments manage to pursue their own policies regardless of ministerial mandate. It also comes just days before the ninth anniversary of a Home Office coup: those same EU regulations, struck down by the ECJ, were initiated by British ministers in mid July 2005 using the sense of emergency occasioned by the 7/7 London bombings.
This story is less well-known than it should be. Perhaps there is absurdity enough in one set of ministers reading off their cue cards in 2009 that Britain’s data retention regulations were EU obligations, and another now proclaiming it an “emergency” that the ECJ has decided the same regulations are unlawful. But we only have these regulations because the EU’s arm was twisted by the UK.
The regulations have been in effect for a little over five years. We managed without them before 2009. The Danish Ministry of Justice announced last year that its rigorous data retention had proved useless and unwieldy. In Germany, counterintuitively, North Rhine-Westphalia police solved internet crime more efficiently after they stopped data retention – which they did in 2010. Some emergency.
Only Whitehall actively wants this. The pretext is adapted according to circumstance; the policy ambition is unwavering. The only emergency now is the possibility, always avoided, of questioning that ambition.
It goes back further, but plans for data retention as now came from the Home Office in 2003, when they were roundly rejected by Parliament’s All-Party Internet Group. It said at the time:
“The government had underestimated the costs of the scheme, that billing databases would migrate abroad to escape regulation, and that there were few incentives for industry to help the government track technical change… The scheme appeared to be in breach of Human Rights legislation and, despite a year of effort by the Home Office, no solution was in sight. [The All-Party Internet Group] recommends that the Home Office scrap their plans altogether and start negotiations on a lower impact scheme of targeted “data preservation” instead.”
Targeted data preservation – get a warrant to keep a suspect’s information for the purpose of a specific investigation – is something few civil libertarians object to. Curiously, the Home Office does.
So when, in July 2005, dozens of people were murdered in London – by terrorists it later turned out were already known to the authorities – the Home Office had a plan. It was exactly the same plan rejected by the All-Party Internet Group in 2003. But this time, the Home Office would avoid Parliament.
Home secretary Charles Clarke went to an emergency meeting of EU home affairs ministers on 12-13 July 2005, demanding EU laws to require fingerprint-bearing ID cards (something else MPs were being awkward about) and retention of telecoms and internet records. The latter, after table-banging, was put forward to the European Commission for a proposal, and in due course emerged as the Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC. As a directive, it would become law in Britain as regulations, nominally approved by Parliament, but without debate.
2006/24/EC is not undebated in other EU countries. Ireland and Slovakia challenged its legality directly in 2008 as not within the EU’s remit. It was held unconstitutional in Romania in 2009, disapplied in Germany in 2010 and this year struck down by the ECJ. None of those places wanted it in the first place. Their democratic processes were overridden to suit the Home Office too.
The coalition agreement said that “we will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason”. Now David Cameron says that there is no time for debate, but these new/old plans will have a sunset clause. By 2016, the government will have reviewed them properly – promise. But the Home Office has never changed its mind, and has never got round to anything like evidence for its policies. Whoever does rule Britain in 2017, my bet is that they will still be able to know when you call your mother.
In other news
Former Thomas Cook boss Harriet Green has said she'll donate a third of her forthcoming share award to a charity [Read more]
Update: Firefighters have put out a blaze at a Berkeley Homes building site on Arsenal Way, Woolwich this afternoon. [Read more]
Greece's creditors have poured cold water on the cash-strapped country's claim that the parties were nearing a [Read more]
The EU and Switzerland have signed a deal to stop EU residents holding undeclared income in Swiss bank accounts. [Read more]
A random combination of words and characters are automatically shutting down iPhone users' devices. [Read more]
London will play host to a record number of cyclists in August as the Prudential Ride London Freecycle event expands [Read more]
Commuters using London's Fenchurch Street could face a travel headache going home tonight, with operators confirming [Read more]
Eight candidates are vying for the role of deputy Labour leader in a crowded race alongside the high-profile leadership [Read more]
Between 1997 and 2013, people living in just four regions in the UK saw their disposable income increase when [Read more]
Prime Minister David Cameron has had work done. Five years in Coalition has taken its toll on the youthful fresh-face [Read more]
Swiss police are questioning 10 Fifa officials over the controversial award of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to [Read more]
Dutch banking giant ING last night cut its stake in NN, an insurance and investment management company.
Update: Nearly 150 flights have been cancelled and 32 diverted to other European cities after a power outage shut [Read more]
A fresh investigation into migrant worker conditions in Qatar landed BBC reporters in prison recently. It is another [Read more]
The Bank of England will not back down on tough regulation, top official and ex-Barclays boss Martin Taylor said [Read more]
Perhaps the most enjoyable outcome of the General Election is the abuse now being heaped on the metropolitan liberal [Read more]
Private company SpaceX has received certified approval from the US to send military and spy satellites into space. [Read more]
Essex commuters will be the first to benefit from London’s Crossrail train service, with fare cuts of up to [Read more]
Boohoo’s finance chief Neil Catto was yesterday granted 1.6m share options worth £400,000 after his previous [Read more]
The FCA is considering whether to introduce new rules around PPI complaints following last year's ruling on the [Read more]