November 29, 2010 | Jim Killock

Home Office concedes to meeting

The Home Office, after several weeks of requests from ORG and others, has agreed to a meeting of civil society representatives next week concerning their review of enforcement of RIPA’s interception laws.

This is a small but important victory for ORG: it is vital that civil society is not “locked out” of discussions like this, allowing industrial voices to determine the agenda alone. We fought for several years alongside groups like No2DPI to get these laws changed, during the “Phorm” case, including sending many complaints to the EU Commission. It would be entirely wrong that we should now be shut out of the process.

If you have views on the review of UK Interception law and would like us to raise any points with the Home Office officials, please let us know. If you represent a group that is concerned with privacy laws and would like to attend the meeting, please get in touch.

Comments (5)

  1. Miranda:
    Nov 29, 2010 at 05:45 PM

    The coalition govt had said that they would give us back our freedoms, yet things are getting worse with regards to any privacy we did have left. Peaceful protest has continued to be not allowed, and it continues...

    Thank goodness for organisations like Open Rights Group, NO2ID & Wikileaks

  2. dida:
    Nov 29, 2010 at 08:50 PM

    Article 1 of the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC,) states that:

    "1. This Directive aims to harmonise Member States’ provisions concerning the obligations of the providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks with respect to the retention of certain data which are generated or processed by them, in order to ensure that the data are available for the purpose of the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime, as defined by each Member State in its national law."

    But the UK has never defined "serious crime" in UK law. This means that law enforcement authorities and public bodies can abuse data retention law for all sorts of crime, as well as civil offences. Including copyright infringement.

  3. David:
    Nov 30, 2010 at 02:55 PM

    I find Miranda's reference above to Wikileaks "protection of our privacy" astonishing. The way Wikileaks has appropriated, processed and published data is certainly an unprecedented invasion of privacy (even if justified in some instances) and would not be compatible with the way in which most European countries have implemented and understand the meaning of the EU's Data Protection Directive.

  4. Mark -
    Dec 01, 2010 at 08:29 AM

    You should raise the issue of TalkTalk's new "security" system. All customers are effected, regardless of whether they take-up the system or not. The ISP believes that intercepting and making a record of all URLs does not breach RIPA because it is being done anonymously and doesn't identify the individual.

    However they seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that URL addresses themselves can also contain personal details and don't even give customers an option to opt-out of the data gathering process itself. Their excuse is that Google does this too, but not even Google can track private dynamic URL processes from individual customers (the ones most likely to hold personal data), yet TalkTalk can.

  5. Pingus:
    Dec 01, 2010 at 12:54 PM

    They may have conceded to a meeting but they haven't conceded the argument. Beware the Home Office bearing gifts.

    On wikileaks. Probably not David, but don't you just love it when "If you have nothing to hide,you have nothing to fear", bites them in the arse?. They want their privacy,but they don't mind trampling all over yours.

This thread has been closed from taking new comments.