May noted that in 2013 there were 514,608 occasions where communications data was handed over, which he said “has the feel of being too many” and appeared to be an "institutional overuse" of the powers held by police and intelligence agencies.
Of these authorisations 87.7 percent were made by police forces and law enforcement agencies. A further 11.5 percent were made by intelligence agencies and 0.3 percent by local authorities. The remaining 0.5 percent were made by other public authorities, such as the Serious Fraud Office or Environment Agency.
The vast majority of the data authorisations for data were made to 'prevent crime or disorder', at 76.9 percent. National security related to 11.4 percent of requests and ‘emergency’ situations, such as preventing death or injury, counted for 11.3 percent of requests. The final 0.4 percent was related to ‘other’ causes, such as for tax purposes.
No specific cases or examples of use of information were provided, though.
May also noted that within these requests for data 970 errors were made, when the wrong information was gathered for use in an investigation. Seven of these incidents led to "very serious consequences".
Two of these incidents led to arrests being made at the homes of innocent people. “This is extremely regrettable,” noted May. He explained that the errors were, in all but one instance, due to incorrect interpretation of internet protocol data that was gathered for cases, May explained.
“There were three specific causes for the errors: data applied for over the wrong date or time, the incorrect time zone conversion or a transposition error in the IP address," he said.
Despite the warnings from May, the figure for 2013 data requests was actually lower than in 2012, when requests hit 570,135, but up on 2011 when 494,078 requests were made.
May also examined the work of intelligence agencies, in light of the PRISM revelations Edward Snowden began making in summer 2013. He said that the organisations work within the scope of the law and that he sees no evidence of this work being used in any other way than for national security.
"None of the interception agencies which I inspect has the slightest interest in examining their [the public's] emails, their phone or postal communications or their use of the internet, and they do not do so to any extent which could reasonably be regarded as significant."
He also said there is no evidence that the UK uses the US to gather data on its own citizens: "British intelligence agencies do not circumvent domestic oversight regimes by receiving from US agencies intercept material about British citizens which could not lawfully be acquired by intercept in the UK."
Home secretary Theresa May welcomed the report and claimed it proved the UK authorities worked within clear frameworks and were accountable for their actions.
"It makes clear the intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies and other public authorities operate lawfully, conscientiously and in the national interest and, importantly, do not engage in indiscriminate and random mass surveillance," she said.
"He also demonstrates that the legislative framework for regulating and overseeing their activities is robust."
She also said the use of communications data was vital to help protect the public: "Communications data [...] is vital in helping to keep the public safe: it is used to investigate crimes, bring offenders to justice and to save lives."
However, Emma Carr, deputy director of Big Brother Watch, said it was important that the government listened to the concerns raised about how often this sort of data is used and acted swiftly.
"The government needs to urgently address the fact that the commissioner has grounds to believe some powers are institutionally overused and that the records kept by public authorities are woefully inadequate,” she said.
“The fact that this report does not include the number of British citizens affected by these powers, or any meaningful detail on what sort of offences are being investigated is not good enough.”
No comments:
Post a Comment