May faces difficult questions on the Communications Data Bill
Theresa May faced tough questions when she appeared before the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill on Wednesday.
The Home Secretary spoke to the Committee during the final evidence session before the committee prepares its report, which is expected by the end of November.
Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Strasburger described the data to be collected under the Bill a “honeypot for casual hackers, blackmailers, criminals large and small all over the world, and foreign states”.
If this Bill were enacted, there would be a massive increase in the data being held about every citizen that uses the Internet. …Given the woeful record of public and private sector organisations in protecting the data they hold from loss or theft, why should the public have any confidence that their private and financially valuable data will remain secure?
May attempted to dispel fears over data security, stating that “CSPs are holding significant amounts of data about people’s communications as we speak. This is not a new concept”. However, her response failed to address wider concerns not only about the type and quantity of data collected, but about new systems for accessing that data, for example, the proposed “filtering arrangements”.
In our analysis the “filtering arrangements” …are best understood as a “profiling engine” which creates detailed profiles on all users of electronic communications systems and makes those profiles available for sophisticated data mining. …The “profiling engine” would be an incredibly valuable target for attack by sophisticated criminals, terrorists, and State actors engaged in espionage. …If the security of the “profiling engine” were ever compromised we believe it would constitute a significant threat to national security. — LINX written submission to the Communications Data Bill Joint Committee
Government costings also came under scrutiny, with the projected £6bn in government savings being characterised as “fanciful” by Committee Chair, Lord Blencathra.
The estimated savings were up to £6bn, and up to 3bn of that could have been on lives saved. …I can understand why the cost is paid by the taxpayer, the chancellor and the government, but I don’t understand how the government gets the benefit of …£1.7 million savings on average if I’m not killed.
However, upon further questioning from Julian Huppert MP, May was unable to point to clear evidence of “how many lives have been saved over the past 10 years thanks to communications data, and how much money has been brought to the government as a result?”.
Throughout the evidence session, May was insistent in her defence of “flexibility” and “future-proofing” in the draft Bill, despite comments from Committee members that “we don’t really believe in the concept of future proofing”.
The committee also raised questions concerning a wide range of issues, including criminal sanctions for police misuse, the distinction between communications data and content, and a recent YouGov poll which found that only 6% of the public thought that the government had made a clear and compelling case for the new Bill.
For more information, see:
