<img src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/sites/twpweb/img/logos/twp_logo_300.gif">
<hr>
<div id="slug_flex_ss_bb" style="display:block">
<div id="wpni_adi_flex_ss_bb" class="ads slug flex_ss_bb print">
</div>
</div>
<div id="content">
<h1>Britain weighs proposal to allow greatly increased Internet ‘snooping’</h1>
<h3>
By <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/anthony-faiola/2011/02/25/ABOKXCJ_page.html" rel="author">Anthony Faiola</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ellen-nakashima/2011/03/02/ABdt4sM_page.html" rel="author">Ellen Nakashima</a>, <span class="timestamp updated processed">Published: April 2</span>
</h3>
<p>LONDON — Under daily observation from thousands of surveillance
cameras mounted everywhere from street corners to taxicabs to public
parks, Britons rank among the most-watched people on Earth. But a new
government plan is poised to take the gaze of this nation’s security
services dramatically deeper: letting them examine the text messages,
phone calls, e-mails and Web browsing habits of every person in the
country.</p>
<p>The “snooping” proposal set to be presented in Parliament later this year is sparking <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/britains-web-monitoring-plan-draws-comparisons-to-1984-and-kafka/2012/04/02/gIQAbNB5qS_blog.html">an uproar over privacy in Britain</a>,
fueling a debate over the lengths to which intelligence agencies should
go in monitoring citizens — a debate that has resonance on both sides
of the Atlantic.</p><p>Government officials say the new powers are
critical to countering terrorism and other threats in an era of
fast-changing social media, with criminals using even seemingly innocent
venues such as Facebook and online games as means of communication. But
furious citizen groups and some members of Parliament see the push as a
part of Britain’s evolution into a “surveillance society” in the
aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States and the
2005 London bombings. </p><p>
<strong>Broad scope</strong>
</p><p>Although the plan is yet to be fully outlined by the
Conservative-led government, observers say parts of it may go beyond
even the ability of officials in the United States to quickly access
private data. Critics say the sheer breadth and scope of the plan also
could put Britain out in front of other European countries such as
Germany, where the government acts to block some Web sites deemed
objectionable, and Sweden, where a law passed in 2008 allows the
government to intercept international communications conducted via
phones or the Internet.</p><p>“I’m afraid that if this program gets
introduced, the U.K. will be leapfrogging Iran in the business of
surveilling its citizens,” said Eric King, head of research at Privacy
International. “This program is so broad that no other country has even
yet to try it, and I am dumbfounded they are even considering it here.”</p><p>The
plan may authorize the national surveillance agency — which is known as
GCHQ and whose Web site describes its mission as keeping “our society
safe and successful in the Internet age” — to order the installation of
thousands of devices linked to the networks of Internet service
providers, giving agents broader access to everyday communications. The
examination of the contents of those exchanges — such as the text or
images contained in an e-mail — would still require special warrants. </p><p>But
for the first time, intelligence agencies might, for instance, access
information such as the times, destinations and frequencies of phone
calls, texts and e-mails without a warrant. They could also use
collected data to track worrisome Internet patterns in a bid to expose
terrorist cells, pedophilia rings and other lawbreakers, according to
sources briefed on the proposal, which came to light after a report this
weekend in London’s Sunday Times.</p><p>The measure reportedly would
compel communications companies to grant intelligence agents instant
access to real-time information in certain circumstances, such as data
that could be used to target the location of a user’s mobile phone or
computer if authorities suspected a crime was in progress. It remained
unclear whether British authorities would need judicial or other
authority before accessing such data.</p><p>“It is vital that police and
security services are able to obtain communications data in certain
circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect
the public,” Britain’s Home Office — a rough equivalent to the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security — said in a statement. </p><p>
<strong>‘A dangerous trend’</strong>
</p><p>Privacy advocates reacted swiftly Monday, saying the move would
intrude so deeply into the lives of British citizens that it would rival
or exceed measures used by totalitarian governments. They say it marks
another of many steps that have curtailed privacy rights here in the
post-Sept. 11 world, with one study by British police officials, for
instance, indicating that a person strolling around London is captured
on film by at least 68 cameras on any given day. </p><p>Still, details
of the proposal have not been disclosed, and some experts say it could
yet be weakened. But as it stands, key aspects of the proposal may go
beyond the kind of surveillance now authorized in the United States,
where privacy advocates were quick to raise concerns about the plan —
especially given the heavy traffic of transatlantic communication. </p><p>“It’s
a dangerous trend to have this level of surveillance being made a
routine matter,” said Lee Tien, senior staff attorney with the San
Francisco-based <a href="https://www.eff.org/">Electronic Frontier Foundation</a>. </p><p>Access
in the United States to “metadata” — such as the time, who e-mailed
whom and how often — depends on the kind of data and type of case. For
example, authorities have to obtain court orders before accessing
real-time data in both criminal and national security cases. </p><p>In
criminal cases, authorities need a subpoena to get stored metadata on
phone numbers dialed but a court order for e-mail information. In
contrast, federal agents seeking stored e-mail header information in
national security cases have contended that they may use a national
security letter, which is an administrative subpoena that can be issued
by an FBI field office. But some providers have refused access to such
data without a court order. </p><p>Britain generates more than 2 million
e-mails a minute, and observers say the government may face technical
challenges in capturing and storing such vast amounts of data.
Currently, firms are required to store some communications data, such as
phone calls, for one year. But the proposed law could compel them to
store far more varied forms — such as Skype calls or online video game
data — for at least twice as long. </p><p>Internet companies reacted
cautiously Monday, saying they needed to see the full proposal. “It is
important that proposals to update government capabilities to intercept
and retain communications data are proportionate, respect freedom of
expression and the privacy of users,” Britain’s Internet Service
Providers Association said in a statement. </p><p>Government officials
on Monday sought to calm the growing public backlash, which includes at
least two petitions against the measure. Nick Clegg, the deputy prime
minister, said the proposal makes a sharp distinction between monitoring
details such as the frequency and times of phone calls and e-mails and
accessing their contents.</p><p>“I am totally opposed to the idea of
governments reading people’s e-mails at will or creating a new central
government database,” Clegg said. “All we are doing is updating the
rules which currently apply to mobile telephone calls, to allow the
police and security services to go after terrorists and serious
criminals and updating that to apply to technology like Skype, which is
increasingly being used by people who want to make those calls and send
those e-mails.”</p><p>
<span>Yet observers note that the Conservative Party and the Liberal
Democrats, who make up Britain’s coalition government, strongly opposed a
similar plan briefly floated by Tony Blair’s Labor government in 2006.
David Davis, a Conservative lawmaker and outspoken critic of the new
proposal, said the shift appears to have come about because of pressure
from high-ranking members of Britain’s intelligence agencies, who see
the new powers as pivotal. </span>
</p><p>“They are talking about doing this with no real judicial
control,” Davis said. “If they seek this information after a judge’s
warrant, I would be perfectly happy. But this is unfettered access. This
kind of data mining can lead to innocent people being pursued.”</p><p>
<strong>
</strong>
</p><p>
<strong>
</strong>
</p><p>Special correspondent Karla Adam in London contributed to this report.</p></div>
<div id="slug_sponsor_links_bt" style="display:block">
<div id="wpni_adi_sponsor_links_bt" class="ads slug sponsor_links_bt print">
</div>
</div>
<p><br></p><div style="display:block;background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(51,0,51);padding:7px 10px;color:rgb(255,255,255);border:2px solid rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration:none!important;text-align:left;font:13px Arial,Helvetica;border-radius:5px 5px 5px 5px;text-transform:none;width:auto" id="ghostery-purple-bubble">
<span style="font-size:0px">Ghostery has found the following on this page:</span><span style="display:inline;color:rgb(119,119,119);text-decoration:line-through">DoubleClick</span><br style="display:block!important"><span style="display:inline;color:rgb(119,119,119);text-decoration:line-through">Omniture</span><br style="display:block!important">
<span style="display:inline;color:rgb(119,119,119);text-decoration:line-through">Quigo AdSonar</span><br style="display:block!important"><span style="display:inline;color:rgb(119,119,119);text-decoration:line-through">ScoreCard Research Beacon</span><br style="display:block!important">
</div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>