An amalgamation of what would have been a number of seperate posts that I then decided to unite under the banner of the Surveillance Society. Every day there seems to be further incursions into the public’s privacy.
Firstly we’ll llok at the recent news that media companies wish to use legislation that was proposed to combat terrorism, by allowing the police access to communications data, in order to tackle illegal file-sharing.
Fight for your right to privacy
BBC News: Media companies want to take advantage of laws designed to counter terrorism. Bill Thompson thinks they have to be stopped.
The Guardian: Music industry seeks access to private data to fight piracy
The music and film industries are demanding that the European parliament extends the scope of proposed anti-terror laws to help them prosecute illegal downloaders. In an open letter to MEPs, companies including Sony BMG, Disney and EMI have asked to be given access to communications data – records of phone calls, emails and internet surfing – in order to take legal action against pirates and filesharers. Current proposals restrict use of such information to cases of terrorism and organised crime.
“The scope of the proposal should be extended to all criminal offences,” says a letter to European representatives from the Creative and Media Business Alliance, an informal lobby group representing media companies. “The possibility for law enforcement authorities to use data in other cases … is essential.” The attempt to pressure MEPs comes as they prepare to vote on an extension to the period for which data must be held by telephone networks and internet service providers. The plans, championed by the British government, would harmonise and extend the broad range of policies across the continent.
The Home Office says such moves are necessary in order to assist proper investigation of suspected terrorist activity. But if successful, it would mean communications companies would be obliged to keep information on phone calls, emails and internet use for as long as three years.
“It is not for us to get involved in the wider issue of national security,” said a spokesman for international music industry association IFPI, parent body of the CBMA.
If the demands were met by European legislators, it would open use of such private information across any number of criminal cases. “Even the Bush administration is not proposing such a ludicrous policy, despite lobbying from Hollywood,” said Gus Hosein, a senior fellow at Privacy International.
The music industry has already pursued a large number of cases against illegal downloaders, but the letter claims that wider access to private information would be an “effective instrument in the fight against piracy” and help secure more legal actions. Critics say it is simply a case of litigious industries attempting to gain access to protected data by the back door.
The proposals, to be put to the vote on December 13, have already faced censure. More privacy-conscious nations such as Germany have voiced concerns about long-term data retention, and telecoms companies say they cannot afford to keep more information about their customers.
“The passing of the data retention directive would be a disaster not just for civil liberties and human rights in Europe,” said Suw Charman, director of digital rights campaigners, Open Rights Group.
The music industry has been waging war against illegal filesharing for some time, with film companies closely behind. An Australian court this week ordered Kazaa, one of the biggest file-swapping services, to filter out copyrighted music from its systems or face closure. Last week the British Phonographic Industry announced its latest batch of cases against illegal downloaders, taking the total number of UK actions to over 150.
Such prosecutions already rely on voluntary data supplied by internet providers, but the music industry would like it made compulsory. At the same time, the legitimate digital download industry continues to grow at a startling pace.
It seems to be that every time that there is some harmonization of EU intellectual property laws they are brought in line with the most restrictive laws that exist in a EU state. But in this case there is no harmonisation taking place as no state has such legislation currently.
Even the US isn’t seeking such powers and they’re the home of the most powerful music industry lobbying for more and more powers to tackle filesharing and to extend the term and scope of copyright.
I oppose the legislation in any case as I believe this wholesale retention of data is a violation of innocent citizens privacy and is unlikely to be more effective in combatting terrorism than a specific targetted wiretap of a suspect’s communications.
But to extend such legislation to cover cases of copyright infringement is ludicrous, government’s should wiegh the demands of industry against the rights of the people they represent. The average filesharer is indeed infringing copyright but they do not pose a major threat to the businesses of the music and movie industries. It is the criminals that are making millions by selling pirated copies of CDs and DVDs that are the real threat and it these criminals that the proposal will not catch.
Unfortunately I don’t have faith in the British government to weigh the arguments and consider the rights of the people.
There was a debacle several months back concerning the proposed UK National ID card. The main stumbling block for the government is that the majority of the British public is opposed to the ID card on the basis of the high cost.
(I wish the public would be opposing it due to civil liberties infringements and the complete uselessness of the proposal to tackle any of the major issues it is supposed to solve but that’s another story)
Anyway there was a leak that the Government was intending to offset the probable cost of the ID card scheme and thus make it more palatable to the British public by the selling of the data in the National Identity Register to private companies. Which caused an uproar and the Government soon announced that in fact they had never considered doing any such thing.
Governments really should not be trusted with our personal data in my opinion. It’s very easy for our privacy to be given away but far harder for us to reclaim it. The obvious counter-argument being that they must hold certain data or else how can such things as passports and driving licences be administered. In fact it is possible to create systems based upon crytographic principles that would allow officials to check whether an individual was authorised to drive a car or leave the country without knowing who they are or where they live or any other personal information about that individual.
I wrote earlier that
Even the US isn’t seeking such powers and they’re the home of the most powerful music industry lobbying for more and more powers to tackle filesharing and to extend the term and scope of copyright.
but that was merely in regard to media companies having access to all communications data.
Of course as you would expect the U.S. government wants to peer into phone service networks
The federal government wants to peer into your computer communications, forcing companies that provide high-speed access or Internet-based telephone service to design — or redesign — their networks to accommodate surveillance…
“This is like saying, `Everybody has to keep their doors unlocked because the FBI might need to get in,”‘ said Mark Rasch, a former attorney who handled computer crime cases for the Justice Department and is now senior vice president and chief security counsel of Solutionary Inc., an Omaha, Neb., computer security consulting company. “The harm of everybody keeping their doors unlocked all the time is much greater than the benefit.”
As I argued above as they already have legislation in place to allow targetted wiretaps such a proposal is unnecessary and overreaching.
On a far more local level my car number plate is being read every time I drive into Bath to work and checked against a database to see whether I’m a wanted criminal. The Bath Chronicle: Cameras scan for criminals
Now I don’t know if the data is retained or if the number plates are only in the system as long as it takes to make the check against the database. But I am worried that this data is indeed being retained and thus my and every other communter or Bath resident movements are being in effect tracked.
I have therefore pledged to create a standing order of 5 pounds per month to support an organisation that will campaign for digital rights in the UK.
The pledge is currently only a small number away from reaching it’s target.
Also I intend to use the Write to Them service to contact my MP and MEP in order to express my opposition to the EU data retention legislation.
Tags: computer security, copyright, security, surveillance, terrorism
