Plans to extend electronic 鈥渟nooping鈥� powers in the UK have been put on hold indefinitely, the government announced on Tuesday.
In a dramatic climb-down, the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, said he would shelve controversial new proposals to allow a wide range of public bodies to snoop on people鈥檚 email, internet surfing activity and phone calls without the need of a court order.
鈥淚 recognise there is widespread concern about the current proposals to regulate how public bodies can access phone and internet records,鈥� he said, adding that much wider public debate was needed in order to proceed.
Advertisement
The announcement came as a surprise, as Blunkett was expected to outline today new 鈥渟afeguards鈥� to prevent public bodies from abusing these new powers.
Further consultation
Mounting opposition from members of parliament and civil libertarians, and warnings that the new proposals were unlikely to make it through the House of Lords, were behind Blunkett鈥檚 change of heart, analysts say.
Blunkett says parliamentary debate on the proposals will now follow further consultations over the summer.
鈥淗opefully that means they are completely abandoning it,鈥� says Ian Brown, director of the think-tank Foundation for Information Policy Research.
The powers in question were originally drafted as part of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000. They and were intended to help security forces fight 鈥渟erious鈥� crime.
RIPA was seen by the Home Office as a much needed modernisation of the wiretapping laws. It made it much easier for security forces to get access to an individual鈥檚 personal details, without any judicial review.
The new proposals would have extended these powers to a range of public bodies, including the Child Support Agency and benefits officers.
鈥淎bsolutely delighted鈥�
RIPA does not allow officials to access the content of a person鈥檚 emails or phone calls without a judicial warrant. But privacy advocates were nevertheless concerned that even 鈥渢raffic鈥� data, revealing, for example, where a person was at a given time, who they had telephoned, or what websites they had visited, could reveal a great deal 鈥� and could constitute a gross infringement of their privacy.
Richard Clayton, a computer scientist at Cambridge University, says he is 鈥渁bsolutely delighted鈥� by the government鈥檚 climb-down. 鈥淭here is an argument that some of these limited powers should be given to a limited number of people,鈥� he says. But scrutiny is needed to ensure the system is not open to abuse, he adds.
鈥淭he time has come for a much broader public debate about how we effectively regulate modern communications and strike the balance between the privacy of the individual and the need to ensure our laws and society are upheld,鈥� Blunkett said.