History of mass surveillance in the United Kingdom

Last updated

The modern capabilities and legal framework for mass surveillance in the United Kingdom developed under successive governments of the United Kingdom since the late 20th century.

Contents

Background

Historically, state surveillance in the United Kingdom began in Victorian Britain. David Vincent observes that the statistical measurement of communication behaviour began with the introduction of the Penny Post in 1840. An early public scandal occurred in the postal espionage crisis of 1844. [1]

Security Service Act 1989

The Security Service Act 1989 established the legal basis of the UK Security Service for the first time under the Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher.

Intelligence Services Act 1994

GCHQ and the Secret Intelligence Service were placed on a statutory footing for the first time by the Intelligence Services Act 1994 under the Conservative government led by John Major.

Identity Cards Act 2006 and 2010

Identity cards were introduced under the Labour government under Tony Blair in 2006. The Identity Documents Act 2010 repealed the Identity Cards Act of 2006, [2] [3] scrapping the mandatory ID card scheme and associated National Identity Register that had been in use on a limited or voluntary basis since November 2008, but which was never fully implemented. [4] [5] The National Identity Register was destroyed on 10 February 2011.

Foreign nationals from outside the European Union continue to require an ID card for use as a biometric residence permit under the provisions of the UK Borders Act 2007 and the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. [4] [6] Although the 2010 Act ended the validity of ID cards as travel documents, no action was taken to withdraw the National Identity Cards already issued. [4]

European Union Data Retention Directive (2007–14)

As a member of the European Union, the United Kingdom is subject to EU policies and directives on surveillance and participates in its programmes. Since October 2007 telecommunication companies have been required to keep records of phone calls and text messages for twelve months under the European Union's Data Retention Directive. [7] Though all telecoms firms already keep data for a period, the regulations are designed to ensure a uniform approach across the industry. [8] This has enabled the Government and other selected authorities within the UK such as Police and Councils amongst others to monitor all phone calls made from a UK landline or Mobile upon request.

In April 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled that the European Union's Data Retention Directive was invalid. The European Court of Justice found it violates two basic rights, respect for private life and protection of personal data. [9]

Communications Data Bill (2008–10)

In 2008 plans were being made to collect data on all phone calls, e-mails, chat room discussions and web-browsing habits as part of the Labour government's Interception Modernisation Programme under Prime Minister Gordon Brown. It was thought likely to require the insertion of thousands of black box probes into the country's computer and telephone networks. [10] The proposals were expected to be included in the Communications Data Bill 2008. The "giant database" was to include telephone numbers dialled, the websites visited, and addresses to which e-mails are sent, but not the content of e-mails or telephone conversations. [11] Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat Home affairs spokesman, said, "The government's Orwellian plans for a vast database of our private communications are deeply worrying." [12] In November 2009, ministers confirmed that the estimated £2 billion project would proceed as planned. A consultation found that 40% of people were against the plans which would also include monitoring communications in online games. [13]

Draft Data Communications Bill (2010–15)

The Interception Modernisation Programme was renamed the Communications Capabilities Development Programme by the Conservative-led government under David Cameron in 2010, [14] and development of a new Draft Communications Data Bill began under Home Secretary Theresa May.

The Draft Communications Data Bill was discussed between 2010 and 2013 but not formally introduced to Parliament as a Bill. It addressed the retention of communications data (not the content of messages) and proposed broadening the types of data retained by internet providers for example to include web browsing history. It was nicknamed the 'Snooper's Charter' and was abandoned by the government in 2013 after opposition from the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and his party of Liberal Democrats. [15]

Internet, fixed and mobile telephone communications (2013)

In 2013, issues regarding the possible discovery of "storage chips" in commercial keyboard, touchpad and LCD controller semiconductors on devices such as laptops and desktops have been raised by the destruction of these components at The Guardian newspaper after the revelations of leaked documents. [16]

The police have used mobile phones to track suspects. [17] Some shopping centres have also tracked customers through mobile phone signals. A system can tell when people enter the centre, how long they stay in a particular shop, and what route each customer takes. The system works by monitoring the signals produced by mobile handsets and then locating the phone by triangulation. [18]

Online Safety Bill

In 2023, the Online Safety Bill was passed, which allowed the government to force online platforms to search through all users' photos, files, and messages, whenever the government ordered. [19]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, regulating the powers of public bodies to carry out surveillance and investigation, and covering the interception of communications. It was introduced by the Tony Blair Labour government ostensibly to take account of technological change such as the growth of the Internet and strong encryption.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Surveillance</span> Monitoring something for the purposes of influencing, protecting, or suppressing it

Surveillance is the monitoring of behavior, many activities, or information for the purpose of information gathering, influencing, managing, or directing. This can include observation from a distance by means of electronic equipment, such as closed-circuit television (CCTV), or interception of electronically transmitted information like Internet traffic. It can also include simple technical methods, such as human intelligence gathering and postal interception.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass surveillance</span> Intricate surveillance of an entire or a substantial fraction of a population

Mass surveillance is the intricate surveillance of an entire or a substantial fraction of a population in order to monitor that group of citizens. The surveillance is often carried out by local and federal governments or governmental organizations, but it may also be carried out by corporations. Depending on each nation's laws and judicial systems, the legality of and the permission required to engage in mass surveillance varies. It is the single most indicative distinguishing trait of totalitarian regimes. It is often distinguished from targeted surveillance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ofcom</span> British government agency

The Office of Communications, commonly known as Ofcom, is the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting, telecommunications and postal industries of the United Kingdom.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Identity Cards Act 2006</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Identity Cards Act 2006 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that was repealed in 2011. It created National Identity Cards, a personal identification document and European Economic Area travel document, which were voluntarily issued to British citizens. It also created a resident registry database known as the National Identity Register (NIR), which has since been destroyed. In all around 15,000 National Identity Cards were issued until the act was repealed in 2011. The Identity Card for Foreign nationals was continued in the form of Biometric Residence Permits after 2011 under the provisions of the UK Borders Act 2007 and the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Privacy International</span>

Privacy International (PI) is a UK-based registered charity that defends and promotes the right to privacy across the world. First formed in 1990, registered as a non-profit company in 2002 and as a charity in 2012, PI is based in London. Its current executive director, since 2012, is Dr Gus Hosein.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NO2ID</span> British campaign group

NO2ID is a non-partisan public campaign group in the United Kingdom, formed in 2004 to campaign against the UK government's plans to introduce British national identity cards linked to a centralised computer database, the National Identity Register (NIR). NO2ID claims the growth of government data-sharing initiatives has brought the UK to the "verge of a surveillance state in which every action of the citizen is potentially subject to monitoring". The NIR and ID cards have since been abolished by the Identity Documents Act 2010, leading NO2ID to focus on other campaigns surrounding government infringement on civil liberties and data privacy.

Data retention defines the policies of persistent data and records management for meeting legal and business data archival requirements. Although sometimes interchangeable, it is not to be confused with the Data Protection Act 1998.

A government database collects information for various reasons, including climate monitoring, securities law compliance, geological surveys, patent applications and grants, surveillance, national security, border control, law enforcement, public health, voter registration, vehicle registration, social security, and statistics.

The Communications Data Bill was intended to create powers to collect data concerning people's phone, e-mail and web-browsing habits for mass surveillance in the United Kingdom. The government database would have included telephone numbers dialed, the websites visited and addresses to which e-mails are sent but not the text of e-mails or recorded telephone conversations.

The Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP) was a UK government initiative to extend the government's capabilities for lawful interception and storage of communications data. It was widely reported that the IMP's eventual goal was to store details of all UK communications data in a central database.

Privacy law in Denmark is supervised and enforced by the independent agency Datatilsynet based mainly upon the Act on Processing of Personal Data.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Identity Documents Act 2010</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Identity Documents Act 2010 is an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom which reversed the introduction of identity cards, and required the destruction of the information held on the National Identity Register.

The Communications Capabilities Development Programme (CCDP) is a UK government initiative to extend the government's capabilities for lawful interception and storage of communications data. It would involve the logging of every telephone call, email and text message between every inhabitant of the UK, and is intended to extend beyond the realms of conventional telecommunications media to log communications within social networking platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.

The Draft Communications Data Bill was draft legislation proposed by then Home Secretary Theresa May in the United Kingdom which would require Internet service providers and mobile phone companies to maintain records of each user's internet browsing activity, email correspondence, voice calls, internet gaming, and mobile phone messaging services and store the records for 12 months. Retention of email and telephone contact data for this time is already required by the Data Retention Regulations 2014. The anticipated cost was £1.8 billion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass surveillance in the United States</span>

The practice of mass surveillance in the United States dates back to wartime monitoring and censorship of international communications from, to, or which passed through the United States. After the First and Second World Wars, mass surveillance continued throughout the Cold War period, via programs such as the Black Chamber and Project SHAMROCK. The formation and growth of federal law-enforcement and intelligence agencies such as the FBI, CIA, and NSA institutionalized surveillance used to also silence political dissent, as evidenced by COINTELPRO projects which targeted various organizations and individuals. During the Civil Rights Movement era, many individuals put under surveillance orders were first labelled as integrationists, then deemed subversive, and sometimes suspected to be supportive of the communist model of the United States' rival at the time, the Soviet Union. Other targeted individuals and groups included Native American activists, African American and Chicano liberation movement activists, and anti-war protesters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass surveillance in the United Kingdom</span>

The use of electronic surveillance by the United Kingdom grew from the development of signal intelligence and pioneering code breaking during World War II. In the post-war period, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was formed and participated in programmes such as the Five Eyes collaboration of English-speaking nations. This focused on intercepting electronic communications, with substantial increases in surveillance capabilities over time. A series of media reports in 2013 revealed bulk collection and surveillance capabilities, including collection and sharing collaborations between GCHQ and the United States' National Security Agency. These were commonly described by the media and civil liberties groups as mass surveillance. Similar capabilities exist in other countries, including western European countries.

<i>Klayman v. Obama</i> American federal court case

Klayman v. Obama, 957 F.Supp.2d 1, was a decision by the United States District Court for District of Columbia finding that the National Security Agency's (NSA) bulk phone metadata collection program was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The ruling was later overturned on jurisdictional grounds, leaving the constitutional implications of NSA surveillance unaddressed.

Mass surveillance in Australia takes place in several network media, including telephone, internet, and other communications networks, financial systems, vehicle and transit networks, international travel, utilities, and government schemes and services including those asking citizens to report on themselves or other citizens.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, repealed in 2016. It received Royal Assent on 17 July 2014, after being introduced on 14 July 2014. The purpose of the legislation was to allow security services to continue to have access to phone and internet records of individuals following a previous repeal of these rights by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The act was criticised by some Members of Parliament for the speed at which the act was passed through parliament, by some groups as being an infringement of privacy.

References

  1. ↑ Vincent, David (1 October 2013). "Surveillance, privacy and history". History & Policy. History & Policy. Retrieved 27 July 2016.
  2. ↑ "Bill stages — Identity Documents Act 2010", UK Parliament, 21 December 2010. Retrieved 28 September 2013.
  3. ↑ "Identity Cards Bill", House of Lords, 30 January 2006. Retrieved 28 September 2013.
  4. 1 2 3 "Quick answer: Identity cards", UK Government, 30 May 2013. Retrieved 28 September 2013.
  5. ↑ Espiner, Tom (11 February 2011), Government destroys final ID cards data Archived 2011-02-13 at the Wayback Machine , ZDNet UK, 10 February 2011. Retrieved 13 June 2011.
  6. ↑ "Comment: ID cards by the backdoor?" Archived 2010-06-11 at the Wayback Machine , Ian Dunt, Politics.co.uk, 6 June 2010. Retrieved 7 June 2010.
  7. ↑ Out-Law.com (Pinsent Masons) (16 May 2008). "Government orders data retention by ISPs". The Register. Retrieved 17 October 2008.
  8. ↑ Out-Law.com (Pinsent Masons) (27 July 2007). "UK phone records to be kept for a year". The Register. Retrieved 4 October 2007.
  9. ↑ "Top EU court rejects EU-wide data retention law". BBC. 8 April 2014. Retrieved 7 September 2014.
  10. ↑ Leppard, David (5 October 2008). "There's no hiding place as spy HQ plans to see all". The Sunday Times. London. Archived from the original on October 5, 2013. Retrieved 8 February 2009.
  11. ↑ "Giant database plan 'Orwellian'". BBC News. 15 October 2008. Retrieved 15 October 2008. The government's own reviewer of anti-terror laws, Lord Carlile, said: 'The raw idea of simply handing over all this information to any government, however benign, and sticking it in an electronic warehouse is an awful idea if there are not very strict controls about it.'
  12. ↑ "Giant database plan 'Orwellian'". BBC News. 15 October 2008. Retrieved 17 October 2008. Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: 'The government's Orwellian plans for a vast database of our private communications are deeply worrying.' 'I hope that this consultation is not just a sham exercise to soft-soap an unsuspecting public.'
  13. ↑ Casciani, Dominic (9 November 2009). "UK surveillance plan to go ahead". BBC News. Retrieved 5 April 2010.
  14. ↑ Stewart Mitchell (20 February 2012). "Anger over mass web surveillance plans". PC Pro. Dennis Publishing Limited. Archived from the original on 18 December 2014. Retrieved 17 September 2013.
  15. ↑ "Nick Clegg: No 'web snooping' bill while Liberal Democrats are in government". BBC. 25 April 2013. Retrieved 11 September 2014.
  16. ↑ "Privacy International".
  17. ↑ Odell, Mark (1 August 2005). "Use of mobile helped police keep tabs on suspect". Financial Times. Retrieved 14 March 2009.
  18. ↑ Richards, Jonathan; Francisco, San (16 May 2008). "Shops secretly track customers via mobile phone". The Times. London. Archived from the original on October 15, 2009. Retrieved 5 April 2010. Alternate link Archived 2014-09-05 at the Wayback Machine .
  19. ↑ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/uk-government-knows-how-extreme-online-safety-bill
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.