Tonight:
4°c
Email and call database axed but firms must keep records
Martin Bentham27 Apr 2009
Ministers today set out plans to record the internet and phone activity of every citizen - despite abandoning the idea of a state database to store the details.
Phone and internet providers would be required to retain records of customers' calls, emails and other electronic communications under Home Office proposals, in case the content needed to be checked later by police.
The scheme - which civil liberties campaigners strongly oppose - is intended to ensure officers investigating terrorism and other serious crimes are able to uncover criminal networks and prevent offences.
A suggestion that the information could be stored on one central government database has been dropped, with individual companies instead retaining the data on the Home Office's behalf.
The plans are likely to appease critics who expressed fears about the security and cost of a single database but are certain to meet opposition from those who argue they would be an excessive intrusion into personal privacy.
Some companies are also likely to be concerned about the potential cost and administrative burden of retaining the data.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who was to set out full details of the proposals later today, has insisted that wider powers to retain data are essential.
Officials say this is because of the evolving way in which criminals and terrorists communicate covertly with each other, such as over internet games or social networking websites such as Facebook.
They believe existing powers, which require the retention of phone and email records, are losing their effectiveness and argue that today's proposals would only allow the Government to "keep up" with criminals - rather than amounting to an extension of state snooping.
Ms Smith will also point out that the powers would only require companies to retain the details of every user's contacts rather than the content of their communications in what she argues is a crucial safeguard on personal privacy.
The police or MI5 would have to provide a warrant to read communications, as is currently the case, and ministers insist this would only be approved when there was a demonstrable need to do so.
Previous opponents of the powers, which are expected to be implemented through a new Communications Data Bill, include the former director of public prosecutions Sir Ken Macdonald and groups such as Liberty.
The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have also been hostile in the past and will be scrutinising today's proposals to see if the abandonment of the idea of a giant database and any other concessions are sufficient to address their criticisms.
Reader views (9)
It is much more important to keep records of those MPs husbands/assistants who view pornographic films and charge them to the tax payer.
- R.F., Yorks, UK, 27/04/2009 18:53
Report abuse
Fools and their privacy are soon parted.
- Trunk, US, 27/04/2009 18:45
Report abuse
New E.U. law masquerading as a provincial law passed by London -- just like 80% of all other new "U.K. laws" that are being hoisted on the British people by Brussels.
- Phil Jones, London UK, 27/04/2009 17:15
Report abuse
I always thought that the civil liberty bods were a bunch of do gooder lefties. But i would support them against this legislation. I'm all for routing out the criminal and terrosist threat in our society but this is just a step to far. It means that this email would go on their data base and they would probably see me as a subversive.
- Rosie, watford, 27/04/2009 14:27
Report abuse
This is a gross invasion of privacy. The state has no business knowing your private business. It is an extension of power over the citizen of the type only sought by dictatorships. If the policy or any other "intelligence" authority seek a warrant to ascertain who your contacts are, that is one thing as they will need to demonstrate why the warrant is necessary. No warrant and all your contact data held open to abuse by the state is not democractic and is very often counter-productive. All faith in the security services and government will vanish if this undemocractic snoopers charter is allowed.
- Trevor, London, England, 27/04/2009 14:20
Report abuse
Excuse my naivety, but doesn't this add up to the same thing except that the private sector foots the bill? Also if a warrant can be obtained to access recorded calls then this is a defacto retrospective warrant. Surely that throws up all sorts of legal issues. This Government is so paranoid that we are rushing into a Police State.
- Mark, London, 27/04/2009 13:12
Report abuse
...but of course why do you not mention that both the components of the first sentence come about as a result of EU Directives and demands - we must keep the details of phone and internet as a result of EU Directives (a Directive is an Order), but the maintenance of a giant state database was not part of the Order, and the EU is not pressing for one yet. When it does, we will dutifully be obliged to install it. Whatever party comes into power, these rules stand as the EU is our government in this area, not Westminster. It matters not a jot if the "Conservatives and LibDems have been hostile" to the proposal. They have no power to alter it.
- Damian Hockney, London, UK, 27/04/2009 13:02
Report abuse
The government is building such a monster database - the National Identity Register - to cover around 50 million people's movements and purchases that there probably won't be space left to store all of our emails and website visits.
Big Brother projects like this and the related ID cards scheme explain why our taxes are so high yet the public services we actually want are suffering.
- Brian, London, 27/04/2009 12:29
Report abuse
I promise you, this is a precursor to cumpolsory microchipping of every man, woman and child in the country. If we allow this, then we are constructing the very walls of our own prison.
- Neil, London, London UK, 27/04/2009 10:09
Report abuse
