House of Lords Constitution Committee inquiry into the Impact of Surveillance & Data Collection
Are some of our Parliamentarians starting to get the message, that the current slide towards a society which is indistinguishable in practice from a totalitarian police state, might not be the best way forward ?
Not only is the the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs now in the process of conducting an Inquiry into "A Surveillance Society ?", but the House of Lords Constitution Committee is also conducting an overlapping Inquiry.
Call For Evidence (Microsoft Word .doc):
the Committee has decided to conduct an inquiry on the constitutional implications of the collection and use of surveillance and other personal data by the State and (insofar as they can be used by the State) private companies, particularly with regard to the impact on the relationship between citizen and state.The Committee invites interested organisations and individuals to submit written evidence as part of its inquiry, reflecting the guidance given below. Written evidence should reach the Committee as soon as possible and no later than Friday 8 June.
Scope of the Committee's inquiryIn particular, the Committee invites evidence on the following themes:
1. How has the range and quantity of surveillance and data collection by public and private organisations changed the balance between citizen and state in recent years, whether due to policy developments or technological developments? Which specific forms of surveillance and data collection have the greatest potential impact on this balance?
2. What forms of surveillance and data collection might be considered constitutionally proper or improper? Can the claimed administrative, security or service benefits of such activities outweigh concerns about constitutional propriety? If so, under what circumstances? Is there a line that should not be crossed? If so, how might that line be identified?
3. What effect do public or private sector surveillance and data collection have on a citizen’s liberty and privacy? Are there any constitutional rights or principles affected?
4. What impact do surveillance and data collection have on the character of citizenship in the 21st century, in terms of relations with the State?
5. To what extent are the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 sufficient in safeguarding constitutional rights in relation to the collection and use of surveillance or personal data?
6. Is there a need for any additional constitutional protection of citizens in relation to the collection and use of surveillance material and personal data? If so, what form might such protection take?
Submissions by e-mail are preferred (as attachments in Word) and should be emailed to constitution@parliament.uk. A single hard copy (single-sided, unbound) should also be sent to The Clerk to the Constitution Committee, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW.[...]
Concise submissions of 1500 words or fewer are preferred.
Unlike the Labour Government dominated Home Affairs Committee (chaired by the decent and respected ex-Home Office Minister John Denham), this House of Lords Constitution Committee is chaired by a Liberal Democrat and only has a minority of Labour members, and includes the Crossbench peer, Lord Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice, who has been critical of the Home Office / Justice Ministry re-organisation plans recently.
Should readers of Spy Blog bother to submit evidence or opinions to this Inquiry, as it is almost certain that the current NuLabour control freaks, Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor / Prime Minister in Waiting Gordon Brown and Home Secretary John Reid etc. will ignore this inquiry report ?
The answer is probably a guarded yes, and we will probably send in a short submission.
As usual, if anyone is feeling too paranoid to identify themselves to the Committee, feel free to email us your submission anonymously, and we will send it in along with ours.
Comments
It was the House of Lords vote on the use of phone tap evidence that was the key to unlocking the longest deliberations by a jury in English legal history. This ruling by the Lords (on 25th April 2007) soon allowed the 'Operation Crevice' Trial to conclude.
Coincidentally, the amendment, put forward in the house by Lord Lloyd, was submitted on Friday 16th March 2007 - the first day that the Crevice trial jury retired for their record breaking deliberation period.
This trial was therefore the first ever time in an English courtroom that phonetap evidence has been used, just 5 days after the law amendment was passed.
Worth bearing in mind that the statement by Imran Khan on behalf of the 5 convicted, contained the following:
"This was a prosecution driven by the security services, able to hide behind a cloak of secrecy, and eager to obtain ever greater resources and power to encroach on individual rights.
There was no limit to the money, resources and underhand strategies that were used to secure convictions in this case.
Coached witnesses were brought forward. Forced confessions were gained through illegal detention, and torture abroad. Threats and intimidation was used to hamper the truth. All with the trial judge seemingly intent to assist the prosecution almost every step of the way.
These were just some of the means used in the desperate effort to convict. Anyone looking impartially at the evidence would realise that there was no conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK, and that we did not pose any threat to the security of this country."
source
Posted by: Sinclair | May 1, 2007 2:51 PM
@ Sinclair - No ! - this Amendment to the Serious Crime Bill is still not yet law.
This Bill was introduced in the Lords, and it has not yet completed its 3rd Reading in the Lords yet, and it still has all its stages in the Commons to go through at least once.
As the article you link to says
Phone tap evidence has been used in English courts for several years, but only foreign phone intercepts, usually involving illegal drugs smuggling cases, and also in immigration cases.
Electronic intercept evidence is still currently not allowed to be used in an English court, either by the Prosecution or the Defence, under The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Section 17 Exclusion of matters from legal proceedings, which has to be read together with Section 18 Exceptions to section 17
Posted by: wtwu | May 1, 2007 4:38 PM
wtwu,
Thanks for your response & for the information you linked to.
If "Electronic intercept evidence is still currently not allowed to be used in an English court, either by the Prosecution or the Defence", then why was phone-tap evidence allowed to be used in the Crevice case? Not all of the >3,000 hours of audio recordings would have had a foreign connection that would have permitted its use?
Posted by: Sinclair | May 7, 2007 2:33 PM
@ Sinclair - none of those transcripts or recordings released to the media are from intercepted phone conversations.
Phone intercepts may well exist also, and there are references to other computer electronic intercepts between the UK and Pakistan and Canada, but these are only used for intelligence purposes, not as evidence in court..
If intrusive surveillance has been authorised by, in the case of the Police, a Chief Constable or Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner etc., or the in the case of the intelligence services, a warrant signed by the Secretary of State (Home Secretary for MI5, Foreign Secretary for MI6 and GCHQ, etc.) and the proportionality test has been met (i.e. investigation of serious crime e.g. terrorism ) then electronic audio and or video bugging devices (often referred to as "probes" in the the court evidence) and / or tracking devices can be installed in premises and vehicles.
The paperwork for these permissions and warrants to bug intrusively are meant to be audited overseen by the Surveillance Commissioners, (former High Court Judges) under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 section 32 and section 33
Posted by: wtwu | May 7, 2007 8:08 PM