header-logo header-logo

Giant government data log criticised

05 June 2008
Issue: 7324 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Data protection
printer mail-detail

Legal news

Plans to develop one governmentrun database to keep a log of phone calls, e-mail and internet use in the UK have been attacked by lawyers and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The gover nment recently proposed legislation which will make it compulsory to record UK internet usage and keep the information for up to a year. This would implement the remaining requirements of the Data Retention Directive which must be done by 2009. The original plan was to have internet service providers (ISPs) to hold the data but Home Office officials are now reportedly planning to ensure the data is stored by the government in a purpose-built database.

Lawdit Solicitors partner Michael Coyle says that in view of the recent loss of sensitive data by, among others, the Home Office, “eyebrows were raised” when the government announced these latest data retention measures.

“The question is one of proportionality: is there any justification for the state to retain every UK citizen’s phone and internet records?” he says.

The ICO says it is unjustified, risky and yet another step towards a surveillance society. Jonathan Bamford, assistant information commissioner, says: “If the intention is to bring all mobile and internet records together under one system, this would give us serious concerns and may well be a step too far. We are not aware of any justification for the state to hold every UK citizen’s phone and internet records. We have real doubts that such a measure can be justified, or is proportionate or desirable.“ He says such a measure would require wider public discussion and that proper safeguards would be needed to ensure the data is only used for the proper purpose of detecting crime. “Holding large collections of data is always risky; the more data that is collected and stored, the bigger the problem when the data is lost, traded or stolen. Defeating crime and terrorism is of the utmost importance, but we are not aware of any pressing need to justify the government itself holding this sort of data,” he adds.

Issue: 7324 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Data protection
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll