
Email Subscription
Subscribe via RSS or Twitter
The Blogging Team
The Home Team
Claire Walker
Ross McKean
Blanca Escribano
Anna Soilleux
Carsten Kociok
Michael Spooner
Elle Todd
Matthias Vierstraete
Mel Shefford
Jill PollockThe International Team & Guest Bloggers
Erica Wiking Häger (Mannheimer Swartling)
Jeanne Kelly (Mason Hayes + Curran)
Krzysztof Wojdylo (Wardynski & Partners)
Sylwia Paszek (Wardynski & Partners)
Laura Liguori (Portolano Colella Cavallo)
Robert Nešpůrek (Havel & Holásek)
Roland Marko (Wolf Theiss)
Roxana Negutu (Voicu & Filipescu)
Saija-Leena Asikainen (Hannes Snellman Attorneys Ltd)General Resources
EU Legislation
- European Convention on Human Rights
- European Directive 95/46/EC (Data Protection and Free Movement of Data Directive)
- Directive 2002/58/EC (Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive)
- Directive 2006/24/EC (Data Retention Directive)
- Directive 2009/136/EC (Amendment Directive)
- Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data
EU Policy and Guidance
- European Commission
- Article 29 Working Party
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC
- The European Court of Justice
- Council of Europe
- Commission Model Clauses for controller to controller transfers [2001]
- Alternative Model Clauses for controller to controller transfers [2004]
- Model Contract Clauses for controller to processor transfers [2010]
UK Legislation
UK Policy and Guidance
Other Data Protection Sites
Cookie Resources
Cookie Legislation
Cookie Guidance
- ICC UK Cookie Guide - April 2012
- ICO cookies guidance
- UK Guidance - May 2012
- UK enforcement policy
- EASA best practice recommndation on OBA
- Article 29 WP 2010 Opinion on OBA
- Article 29 WP 2011 Opinion on "consent"
Key points from 2011 cookies event
Technical FAQs on cookies
Our Statistics
Visits today: 99
Total visits: 25242
Currently: 0 visitors online
Blog Archive
- May 2013 (1)
- April 2013 (1)
- March 2013 (2)
- February 2013 (5)
- January 2013 (4)
- November 2012 (2)
- October 2012 (1)
- September 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (1)
- June 2012 (1)
- May 2012 (1)
- April 2012 (1)
- March 2012 (2)
- February 2012 (1)
- January 2012 (3)
- December 2011 (4)
- November 2011 (3)
- October 2011 (1)
- July 2011 (3)
- June 2011 (2)
- May 2011 (2)
- April 2011 (3)
- March 2011 (5)
- February 2011 (5)
- January 2011 (7)
- December 2010 (1)
- November 2010 (8)
- October 2010 (10)
- September 2010 (5)
- August 2010 (1)
- July 2010 (6)
- June 2010 (1)
- May 2010 (4)
- April 2010 (14)
- March 2010 (13)
- February 2010 (9)
- January 2010 (11)
- December 2009 (10)
- November 2009 (17)
- October 2009 (15)
- September 2009 (9)
- August 2009 (18)
- July 2009 (20)
- June 2009 (18)
- May 2009 (16)
- April 2009 (16)
- March 2009 (20)
- February 2009 (16)
- January 2009 (25)
- December 2008 (14)
- November 2008 (11)
- October 2008 (17)
- September 2008 (10)
Comms data proposals – not as bad as we feared, but read the small print…
What’s new?
After almost a year of press speculation about the possible introduction of a centralised database to capture all phone and Internet traffic data for investigatory purposes, headline writers appeared to let out a collective sigh of relief this week: “Smith drops plans for state web database” (Financial Times 28/4) and “Home Secretary rules out state-run super database” (The Guardian 28/4). Human rights champion Liberty was so delighted that it issued a press release of its own, hailing a “Home Office U-turn on the super Big Brother database”. The source of these glad tidings? The Home Office consultation document “Protecting the public in a changing communications environment”, published on Monday, which sets out proposals to future-proof the UK’s newly implemented communications data regime.
But hang on – didn’t the data retention regime change only 3 weeks ago?
Yes – on 6 April, with the coming into force of the Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009 the UK completed its transposition of the EU Data Retention Directive making the transition from a voluntary to a mandatory regime for the retention of certain specified types of data related to fixed and mobile calls, emails and Internet usage (but not the content of those communications).
The Government’s rationale is that the scope of the data retention regime established by the Directive is already limited in its effectiveness and will continue to be eroded by new advances in technology, with the result that less and less communications data is actually available to investigators. In particular the following loopholes are cited:
New legislation will therefore be required.
Comms data aficionados will remember that a Communications Data Bill was outlined in the Government’s draft legislative programme in May 2008. That bill (which never materialised) seemed to be intended as a marriage of convenience, combining measures to transpose the Directive, along with the more far-reaching reforms needed to “future proof” the communications data regime. It is those more fundamental changes which are now, after much delay, outlined in the new consultation paper.
What is the Government proposing now?
Not much of the 34 page document is new: it recites the rationale for the retention of communications data and provides in support a range of illustrations from serious criminal and terrorist investigations; it also sets out the various safeguards which already exist to restrict the disclosure and use of such information, which is strictly governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (and which, under separate proposals published earlier this month, the Government is planning to restrict even further).
The new proposals are deliberately sketchy at this stage; because of the privacy implications, the Government has been at pains to ensure the extended regime is subject to robust consultation and impact assessment.
So, what is new? The Government has rejected the rumoured option of a centralised, government-maintained database of all communications data, which has fuelled a great many headlines over the past year (To be fair, the Government has for some time made it clear that there would be no retention of the content of communications). Instead it proposes to build on the current decentralised system whereby service providers retain comms data for a 12 month period and disclose only specific data on a case by case basis to the authorities on request, subject to the existing safeguards.
Even so, the proposed new regime would go far beyond the existing Directive. Service providers would need to retain all data that the authorities might need – this would include data relating to third party services crossing their network as well as data relating to their own services, and data which would not otherwise be retained for the service provider’s operational needs.
To address the problem of fragmentation of data relating to a single communication, it is proposed that service providers should not only collect and store the data but also organise it and match it with any third party data relating to the same communication. In addition, the current 12 month retention period would be extendable in certain circumstances (an option which the Government climbed down from in its recent transposition of the Directive).
Read the small print!
Indeed, Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, quoted in Alan Travis’s Guardian article of 28/4, sounds a note of caution: “If this statement from the home secretary marks a genuine change of direction on privacy policy, we will welcome it. However, it might be wise to read the small print first.”
The proposals and questions in the consultation document are very high level ones (see pages 26 to 29 of the consultation for the actual content of the proposals), and the devil of any ensuing legislation will be in the (considerable) detail. The Government is keen to mitigate the practical and cost impact on the industry. Its initial cost estimate is of up to £2 billion (about 2.2 billion Euros) over ten years. Press reports so far suggest that certain ISPs have given the proposals a cautious welcome, provided that (like the current regime) they are “cost neutral” to the industry.
Hmmm … maybe the rumours of a centralised database were a clever ploy by the Government all along, to make these eventual proposals seem positively liberal by comparison?
The consultation period runs until 20 July and the Government is actively seeking industry’s views. Datonomy would love to hear readers’ views on the new proposals too!