By silicon.com, 27 April 2009 16:30
NEWS
The government wants communications service providers to record, retain and process details of all communications that take place over their networks, the Home Secretary said on Monday.
Speaking at the launch of a consultation entitled Protecting the Public in a Changing Communications Environment, Jacqui Smith said it is essential for such information to be easily accessible by public authorities, including the police, the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca), HM Revenue & Customs, and the intelligence agencies.
The information that the government wants communications service providers (CSPs) to store and process covers the circumstances of communications - who was contacting whom, and when and how that communication was made - rather than the content of those communications.
Legislation has already come into force that requires service providers to retain details of user internet access, email and internet telephony for a year. The rules being proposed in the Home Office's new consultation, however, also take in communications made using third-party providers, such as webmail providers and social networks such as Facebook. Facebook's chief privacy officer, Chris Kelly, told silicon.com sister site ZDNet UK in March that such plans were "overkill".
Smith said on Monday that, if public authorities are to access and correlate many kinds of communications data within a reasonable timeframe, they need such data to be held in a form where it can be easily and quickly accessed. Soca director general Bill Hughes, speaking at the same event, also said communications data were "essential tools" for fighting crime.
"They are critical in tackling the threat posed by serious and organised crime," Hughes said. "Without the retention of communications data we would need more informants and more surveillance, which is more expensive and less effective."
The government is talking to CSPs about minimising the costs associated with processing the data on the provider side, Smith said. She noted that the new rules would put a "burden" on the CSPs, and said the government would recompense them for their troubles - although the level of that compensation still needs to be established.
The Home Secretary also told ZDNet UK that the consultation period would take in other details, such as the level of deep packet inspection that would be required.
"Deep packet inspection is already used by the industry," Smith said. "The extent to which it will be used [in the future] is one of the aims of the consultation."
Smith acknowledged public concerns about the state holding data and about that data being concentrated in one place, and said the government was "explicitly ruling out" a centralised communications database, due to a "need to make a balance between public protection and concerns over intrusions into privacy".
In a statement released on Monday afternoon, the ISP Association (Ispa) welcomed the Home Office's explicit rejection of a centralised database and said it expected the government to "commit to reimbursing service providers for any extra costs of storing and retrieving data".
Ispa secretary general Nicholas Lansman said in the statement: "Ispa advocates a proportionate approach to data retention. To ensure that any updated law enforcement requirements do not place extra financial burdens on internet service providers, Ispa stresses the importance of cost recovery. We will continue discussions with the Home Office and other stakeholders on this matter and look forward to a constructive dialogue."
Comments
There are 6 comments. Join the discussion
1. karen challinor
my apologies if this is a double posting, my network connection died just as I hit submit
how exactly do any of these measures make us safer ?
answer - they don't
they are aimed fairly and squarely at the consumer with an IP address that can be tracked to their address and a well used email account and do nothing to monitor the bad guys who avoid such things
so we now have an intrusive overhead on our internet connections and worse we have to pay for the extra equipment and staff needed to handle it
and all in the name of snooping on the electorate ... sorry I meant security of the electorate
2. Chris Stevens
My thanks go to the Banking Community and their toxic debt. Without that Wacqui Jacqui would have gone ahead with the Uber-Database.
Consultation! - Phooey
3. Chris Tolmie
Well, another move to Orwell's 1984 by this British government. Remember Id cards; 2003 licensing act; DNA database, CCTV cameras . . . . My family have decided to use coded language on email now. I see no reason for the government to know what I am doing. When planning Sunday lunch we will change out key words such as "restaurant" for "wardrobe". No doubt criminals will be more sophisticated than this!
4. Chris Parsons
'Smith acknowledged public concerns about the state holding data and about that data being concentrated in one place, and said the government was "explicitly ruling out" a centralised communications database, due to a "need to make a balance between public protection and concerns over intrusions into privacy".'
Phew...well, that's all right then, we can trust them after all.
Karen, you do a splendid job hounding these ne'er do wells...keep it up and thank you.
5. drew stephenson
winning the battles and losing the war anyone? If the measures to protect us against terrorism end up with a more restricted state than the terrorism would have inflicted i would suggest that the old aphorism is true.
6. Joe Whitehead
Haha, lag much? All this costs CPU time, you know. A little bit, but when multiplied by an exponentially growing number of interconnections, it gets big fast!
It shows something when a politician is paranoid that people might be doing something that they don't know about - but heaven forbid that you know about their private life. Apply that kind of thinking to everything from self defense to privacy to property rights. It's highly nonpartison.