Not really.

I’d be very surprised, not to mention impressed, if anyone wants to read my texts at all, even the people to whom they are addressed.

Yet the lead item on the BBC News today has been this: that the government, with the full collaboration of the Opposition, are planning to rush through legislation to countermand the ruling from the European Court in April that data communications companies no longer need to retain call data for two years.

If you didn’t hear the news, you can read all about it at the link above. There is plenty of discussion on the topic, not to mention detailed analysis by the BBC’s political correspondent, the incisive Nick Robinson, and the BBC’s security correspondent, and a complete ‘key questions answered’, just in case you were feeling a bit worried about it.

First I heard about it (I’ve had a busy day) was when Eddie Mair gave Norman Baker MP a furious verbal battering on PM. Was never particularly a fan of Norman Baker’s when I lived in Seaford and he was my MP, but I felt like giving him a big hug by the end of it. I thought he did a really good job of trying to get Eddie Mair to wind his bloody neck in and calm down.

And Shami Chakrabarti, director of campaign group Liberty, and someone I normally have the utmost respect for (and a weeny little girlcrush on), is quoted as saying: “We are told this is a paedophile and jihadi ’emergency’, but the court judgment they seek to ignore was handed down over three months ago and this isn’t snooping on suspects but on everyone.”

Everyone? EVERYONE? Seriously?

I tend to avoid political commentary because I like to write about things I know, but this actually IS something I know about.

In my former job, I was one of the people who analysed communications data, so I feel I have something to say about it. Reading through the comments on the BBC news page is making me feel a bit punchy so forgive me if I come across as a bit grrrr.

1) do you honestly think the government (or anyone else for that matter) is busy looking through all your emails, texts and web views? Do you seriously think they have the time or technology to look at YOUR DATA? When you’re looking at recipes for paella or pictures of men with beards?

If they have the technology to search through the communications data, what do you think they are looking for? Key words and phrases, key websites, a series of clicks or links to indicate interest in a particular subject that is in some way illegal or of concern to public security. Last time I checked, this wasn’t paella recipes or men with beards.

I can understand the concern that maybe the government (or whoever) are not quite to be trusted, that things can be set in place against people who are entirely innocent and this legislation might, at some point in the future, be used against loyal and honest citizens of the United Kingdom. But if there is a ‘beginning of the end’ or ‘the death of democracy’ then let me just make the point that this really isn’t it.

2) the point is, nothing has changed. The government wants nothing to change from the way it is now, or rather the way it was before the European Court decided to start mucking about with it. This isn’t ‘new’ legislation at all. So why get all knicker-twisty about it now?

3) the way things work at the moment, without going into all the laws because I can’t be bothered – but basically it’s RIPA – is that if a police investigation wants to look at some communications data, a police officer (who could be out arresting someone) has to fill out a massively complicated form justifying why they want it. This then has to be authorised by a senior officer (the seniority level depends on the type of data you want, how old it is and what you want it for), and then the application is sent to the service provider. This isn’t free. The police service spends some of your taxpayers’ money, the same money that’s paying for police wages – and as we know there isn’t a lot of that going spare – in order to do this. Therefore – think about it folks – they don’t really do it unless they have a jolly good reason. But it doesn’t end there. Once the service provider has supplied the data, your friendly intelligence analyst gets hold of it and does this magic alchemy thing (that has involved a lot of expensive training, I won’t bore you with the details, but basically it involves Excel. Many, many  beautiful spreadsheets and coffee, really.).

What do you think we analysts were looking for? Well, here’s the thing. Evidence of criminal activity was pretty much it. There are lots of things your communications data can tell the analyst, but generally they don’t fart about looking at stuff that isn’t relevant. Otherwise they’d never achieve anything, and they’d probably be out of a job fairly sharpish.

But let’s just go with it, shall we, and say, for the sake of argument, that your analyst found out something juicy by looking at this communications data that didn’t have anything to do with the criminal investigation. That you like paella and beards, for example. And your analyst then told someone else about it. Because that’s what you’re worried about, right? Someone knowing what you’re really, secretly into?

Well, the analyst is then liable for criminal prosecution, because this constitutes breach of the Data Protection Act and lots of other things besides. But more importantly, the criminal investigation that was being undertaken, for which the data in question was legitimately obtained, will be compromised. Whatever prosecution was being sought against some horrible individual who’s probably done something truly awful will collapse and they will walk free to commit further offences.

4) I heard Theresa May on the radio earlier, I can’t for the life of me find it now, but basically she was saying that some massive percentage (90%?) of prosecutions approved by the CPS have some form of communications data presented as evidence. So, to stress the point again, this is already how it works. If, as the European Courts would have it, service providers don’t need to retain data for two years, then many of these prosecutions would not be possible.

Think about the time scales for a moment. An abused child finally finds the courage to speak up, but the evidence they were groomed by someone six months ago isn’t available because it was deleted? Or how a terror attack was co-ordinated and planned cannot be proven because the investigation has been too long and complicated? Not to mention the potential identification of those who masterminded a terrorist attack?

Or, maybe, to make things a bit more relevant to my readers, let’s consider the new Stalking Bill which is supposed to make prosecuting this type of offence easier. One year on, Paladin, the National Stalking Advocacy Service, reports that successful prosecutions for these types of offences are not increasing, and that victims are not being dealt with appropriately. This being the case, imagine YOU were the victim of ongoing stalking and harrassment; that you had received 150 plus unwanted calls a day for years, which continued every time you changed your phone number. When, eventually, your case is dealt with properly and an investigation gets underway, it would be just a bit gutting if the key evidence of the crimes against you has been deleted by the service provider, wouldn’t it?

5) I’ve read some comments on the BBC website that mention Andy Coulson and the hacking trial that has only just come to an end, suggesting that this is somehow linked, that the government now want to legitimise what Coulson has just been prosecuted for.

Erm, no… What Coulson and his colleagues did was ILLEGAL. They didn’t have any justification for using that particular communications data. They didn’t fill out forms or get authorisation. They didn’t comply with any of the existing data legislation that is there to protect us and our basic rights. They weren’t trying to investigate anything or protect or help anyone, they were doing it to sell newspapers.

It’s all about perspective. We are not talking about millions of lives saved – or maybe we are, who knows – but in the context of it I agree with David Cameron (never EVER thought I’d say or write those words, but hey) who said today that he didn’t want to be the person to have to explain why an investigation failed because the European Court told the service providers to delete that crucial data evidence.

If having access to communications data for a legitimate, proportionate, justified purpose means that an abuser will be brought to justice, or a terrorist attack will be prevented, then surely we should leave things as they are?

If all of this means that my communications data might just, possibly, be looked at by someone I’m never going to meet, in an office somewhere, then bloody fill your boots. Hope it gives you cause to smile and I’m sorry about all the beards*.

 

If you’re interested, here are some more links:

BBC News: UK intelligence work defends freedom, say spy chiefs (November 2013)

When the EU data legislation was proposed (October 2013)

Oh, and I love this one: especially the quote from Sir Anthony May, that the number of applications for communications data in 2013 “has the feel of being too many”. Dead specific. Looking into that at, no doubt, vast expense isn’t going to be any sort of waste of time and money, then?

Police ‘may be over-using data gathering powers’ (because heaven knows they have nothing better to do, right?)

 

 

* Actually I’m not at all sorry about the beards.