The Committee examined surveillance in public and private life,
from CCTV and plans for a national ID card to credit card records
and search engine logs. Warning of the risks of excessive
surveillance, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee called
for a new approach.
"In the design of its policies and systems for collecting data,
the Government should adopt a principle of data minimisation: it
should collect only what is essential, to be stored only for as
long as is necessary," said the report, released yesterday.
It warned that the Government "should resist a tendency to
collect more personal information and establish larger
databases."
The report sets ground rules for the Government and its agencies
to build and preserve trust.
"Unless trust in the Government’s intentions in relation to data
collection, retention and sharing is carefully preserved, there is
a danger that our society could become a surveillance society," it
said. Information Commissioner Richard Thomas first warned that the
UK was a risk of "sleepwalking into a surveillance society" in
2004.
The Committee has recommended that Government should:
- Give an explicit undertaking to adhere to a principle of data
minimisation and should resist a tendency to collect more personal
information and establish larger databases;
- Only create a major new database, share information or
implement proposals for increased surveillance in circumstances
when there is a proven need;
- Take responsibility for safeguarding the personal information
it collects and should exercise this responsibility before
collection takes place;
- Hold information only as long as is necessary to fulfil the
purpose for which it was collected. If information is to be
retained for secondary purposes it should normally be anonymised;
and
- Design every system with a focus on security and privacy.
In addition, the report sets ground rules for the Home Office.
The Home Office should:
- Not routinely use the administrative information collected and
stored in connection with the National Identity Register (the
database associated with the ID Card), to monitor the activities of
individuals;
- Take every opportunity to raise awareness of how and why the
surveillance techniques provided for by the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) might be used, and keep under
review the effectiveness of the statutory oversight of RIPA powers;
and
- Ensure that any extension of the use of camera surveillance is
justified by evidence of its effectiveness for its intended
purpose, and that its function and operation are understood by the
public.
The Committee also recommended that the Information Commissioner
should lay before Parliament an annual report on surveillance. The
Government should make a formal response to this report, it said,
also to be laid before Parliament.
Committee Chairman Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP told OUT-LAW: “What we
are concerned with is the tendency to collect more and more data
just because the technology allows it and for data to be used
beyond the purposes it was initially collected for."
"For example, we would completely object to any attempt to use
data on children for the purposes of predictive criminal profiling
rather than child protection and we want an assurance from
Government that this kind of thing will not happen,” he said. “The
key issue is trust – the public don’t have much choice over the
data held on them by public bodies, so they must be confident about
how it is being collected, stored and used – otherwise we are in
danger of becoming a surveillance society."
Dr Chris Pounder, a data protection expert with Pinsent Masons,
the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, gave oral and written evidence to
the Committee. He welcomed the report's emphasis on trust.
"The thrust of my oral evidence was that the public had to trust
that the surveillance and data sharing was limited in accordance
within the rules, it had to trust that staff involved in data
sharing were properly trained and that procedures for authorising
the data were properly maintained, and the public had to trust that
Parliament did not enact legislation that provided for function
creep," he said.
Footnote: Dr Chris Pounder was a consultant with Pinsent Masons until September 2008. He now runs a new training business, Amberhawk.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
