JAMES SLACK: Targeting terror... and fly-tipping

Late in 2005, when the London bombings of July 7 were still fresh in our minds, the Government demanded a new power in the fight against terrorism.

Charles Clarke, then home secretary, said it was vital that police and security services could access the phone, email and internet records of those who might be plotting similar attacks.

Without these measures Europe would be fighting Islamic extremists 'with both hands tied behind our backs', he said.

With the memory of the 2004 Madrid bombings also still raw, the EU agreed, passing Directive 2006/24/EC, which ordered all member states to change their domestic laws.

It said all communication records should be kept for a minimum of 12 months. And if someone was suspected of involvement in a terror attack or 'serious' crime, these should be handed over to the authorities.

If our government had stuck to these guiding principles, it is unlikely many eyebrows would have been raised.

But, seeking to implement the directive almost three years on, ministers yesterday revealed that they want to go much further.

All public bodies, not just the police, should have access to the records, they said. And not just to catch those responsible for 'serious crimes'. Suspicion of any offence will provide justification to snoop through a year's email, phone and internet records.

To make matters worse, the public will be expected to pay.

Communication firms log about a billion different pieces of information a day. The grounds for protest are twofold. Civil liberties campaigners believe such intrusion of privacy is hard to justify if a citizen is simply suspected of a minor rubbish infringement.

To allow security services to snoop on a terror suspect is one thing. To grant the same rights to 474 councils determined to trap so-called envirocriminals, is quite another.

Equally, the public may be alarmed by the Government's apparent determination to create a surveillance society by 'stealth'.

Laws passed under the proviso of anti-terror measures or targeted at hardcore criminals, are now routinely used for other purposes.

Take, for example, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. It was intended to govern the activities of MI5 and police, but is now used by town halls for covert surveillance of families suspected of cheating school catchment-area rules.

The DNA database was intended to carry details of convicted criminals only, but after subtle changes to the law, it holds information on a million innocents.

CCTV cameras are routinely turned on bus lanes to catch motorists, not youths smashing bus shelters.

The manipulation of Mr Clarke's apparently well-intention EU directive, is yet another example.