Petition for Rehearing of Maynard GPS Case Denied

The petition for rehearing the GPS issues from the DC Maynard case was denied this past November.

It was a close decision with 4 of the 9 judges dissenting. Two dissenting opinions were issued. The first, drafted by Chief Judge Sentelle and also signed by Judges Henderson, Brown, and Kavanaugh, argued that Maynard was not distinguishable from the Knotts case, and therefore there was no reason to have decided Maynard differently than Knotts. The opinion also took issue with the theory that aggregation of information could amount to violation of the Fourth Amendment, which the original decision appeared to promote. It expressed concern that this line of reasoning would mean that other forms of surveillance—including personally conducted visual surveillance—could be held to violate the Fourth Amendment when done on a prolonged basis. Citing an opinion from the Seventh Circuit, it also suggested that GPS tracking should perhaps not even be considered a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

The second dissenting opinion, drafted by Judge Kavanaugh, pointed out that the appellant had also asserted a Fourth Amendment violation on the basis of the interference with personal property through the installation of the GPS tracking device on the appellant’s automobile. Thus, Judge Kavanaugh opined that a rehearing was additionally warranted in order to adjudicate this question.

The order, a concurring opinion, and the two dissenting opinions are available here thanks to courtlistener.com.

Control Orders to be Scrapped

From BBC News: The UK Prime Minister has announced that the controversial 'Control Order' measure needs to be replaced. The statement follows mounting speculation over an alleged 'power struggle' in the Coalition - an allegation that Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has denied this morning.

The Coalition Government has received praise for is being widely reported as a progressive move. However, the question of what precisely they are to be replaced with remains unresolved - a fact reported with suspicion by liberals and hope by conservatives. The Telegraph's Benedict Brogan, a conservative journalist so close to Cameron some have identified him as a potential replacement for Andy Coulson, has taken to complementing Clegg's hardheaded realism in government:

As with tuition fees, spending cuts and much else, Mr Clegg has discovered with control orders that the realities of government appear much starker from the inside. What I find striking is the effort Mr Cameron is making already to ease his deputy past what will be a difficult moment when it becomes clear – as I believe it will – that control orders have survived the review largely unscathed. The Prime Minister has decreed that he will not accept a compromise that makes it easier for the eight currently held, and any others in future, to do harm. He wants to make it possible for Mr Clegg to agree.

Actually, the Deputy Prime Minister does. This is what we must start giving him credit for, and is perhaps the most significant development of the whole affair: we are learning more about Mr Clegg’s successful transformation from a politician of opposition to a politician of government. Mr Clegg can say that he has gone from
the easy life of an Opposition Liberal to a Government Liberal. He has been confronted with some nasty choices that have left some of his colleagues and many of his supporters weak at the knees, and he has compromised where necessary in the interest of taking the right decision. In government he has discovered the facts, and his views have changed accordingly. It may look painful now, but his bet is that voters will reward him for it in 2015.

Such generosity may be an indication that the government is anticipating another politically difficult compromise for Nick Clegg.

US Government seeks rehearing of Maynard decision

The US Attorney’s Office has submitted to the DC Circuit Court a petition for rehearing of the GPS issue from the recent Maynard decision. I discussed that case in a previous post. In the petition, the government argues that the court’s holding on GPS surveillance is inconsistent with both existing US Supreme Court and DC Circuit jurisprudence, “raises enormous practical problems for law enforcement” and “implicitly calls into question common and important practices such as sustained visual surveillance and photographic surveillance of public places.” A copy of the petition is available here courtesy of Wired’s Threat Level blog (See also this post there on the FBI's GPS surveillance of an Arab-American for unknown reasons).

Schneier on Web Surveillance

Security specialist Bruce Schneier has published an opinion piece on CNN. The article comes in response to reports that the Obama administration is seeking to secure law enforcement access to web-based communications data through the enactment of new legislation. See also this related post on the LegaLIFT blog.

News of the World Phone Hacking Update

As police interview a former News of the World journalist who claimed Andy Coulson asked him to hack phones, the last week has seen the pressure increase on both the newspaper and David Cameron's Director of Communications. On Thursday the 9th of September House of Commons debate was the site of a series of robust attacks on press intrusion - for example see Tom Watson MP's forthright (but on the whole characteristic) contribution below:




The claim that MPs have so far refrained from coming down on press intrusion with too much vigour for fear of becoming victims themselves is replicated elsewhere, for example in a Guardian article reporting the claim of former Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price:

Price told Channel 4 News last night that four members of the committee had considered asking the serjeant at arms to issue a warrant forcing Brooks to attend. He said: "We could have used the nuclear option. We decided not to, I think to some extent because of what I was told at the time by a senior Conservative member of the committee, who I know was in direct contact with executives at News International, that if we went for her, called her back, subpoenaed her, they would go for us. [This] meant effectively that they would delve into our personal lives in order to punish them and I think that's part of the reason we didn't do it." Watson told Channel 4 News that News International had further interfered by asking Downing Street to persuade him to tone down his questioning. "A [former Labour] cabinet minister has confirmed to me this week that News International talked to my former colleagues in No 10 Downing Street to ask them whether I would withdraw my aggressive line of questioning … I felt very frightened and intimidated." Watson added that he was told that Brooks vowed to destroy him after he led the Labour coup that persuaded Tony Blair to resign. "A very senior News International journalist told me at the Labour party conference in 2006, in the early hours of the morning, that his editor would never forgive me for resigning as a minister in Tony Blair's government and that she would pursue me for the rest of my political career until I was destroyed."

News: Metropolitan Police to Look at new Evidence in News of the World Phone Tapping Case

From BBC News: The London Metropolitan Police have confirmed that they will look at new evidence which has come to light recently in relation to the News of the World phone hacking case in which stories were obtained by hacking the phones of the Royal Family, celebrities and politicians.

This announcement follows claims in the New York Times at the weekend that the practice of phone hacking at the newspaper was far more widespread than so far recognised. Furthermore the detail that the then editor Andy Coulson apparantly knew about, condoned and even requested phone hacking is likely to continue to be a focal point to the story due to his current role as a close advisor to David Cameron and Director of Communications - the News of the World continue to maintain that only one employee is ever known to have been hacking people's phones and that he did so without the knowledge of his employers. The NYT story presents a very different picture:

But interviews with more than a dozen former reporters and editors at News of the World present a different picture of the newsroom. They described a frantic, sometimes degrading atmosphere in which some reporters openly pursued hacking or other improper tactics to satisfy demanding editors. Andy Coulson, the top editor at the time, had imposed a hypercompetitive ethos, even by tabloid standards. One former reporter called it a “do whatever it takes” mentality. The reporter was one of two people who said Coulson was present during discussions about phone hacking. Coulson ultimately resigned but denied any knowledge of hacking.

News of the World was hardly alone in accessing messages to obtain salacious gossip. “It was an industrywide thing,” said Sharon Marshall, who witnessed hacking while working at News of the World and other tabloids. “Talk to any tabloid journalist in the United Kingdom, and they can tell you each phone company’s four-digit codes. Every hack on every newspaper knew this was done.”

DC Circuit Rules on Fourth Amendment and GPS

In an earlier post, I discussed the case of People v. Weaver which was argued before the New York Court of Appeals. Now, the Federal Circuit Court for the District of Columbia has decided on the issue of whether the long-term use of GPS surveillance must be supported by a warrant. Unlike in People v. Weaver, the DC Circuit decided the case on the basis of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution as opposed to an analogous guarantee under a State Constitution. The case, United States v. Maynard, No. 08-3030 (D.C. Cir. August 6, 2010), does have some similarities to People v. Weaver, but there are also some interesting and significant differences.

Maynard involved the use of a GPS device to monitor the movements of a suspect’s vehicle over the course of 28 days. Inevitably, as in Weaver, much of the discussion in Maynard centers around the Knotts case (460 U.S. 276 (1983)). Knotts was the Supreme Court case involving the “beeper” homing device and the drum of chloroform (See my earlier post for more details). In Maynard, however, the court seized upon specific language indicating a limitation on the scope of the Knotts holding. In this way, the DC court argued that the Knotts court had drawn a distinction between the limited type of surveillance at issue in that case versus “more comprehensive or sustained” surveillance as was at issue in the Maynard case (“Most important for the present case, the Court specifically reserved the question whether a warrant would be required in a case involving ‘twenty-four hour surveillance,’….” (p. 17)).

Thus, for the Maynard court, the issue in question in the case was whether prolonged GPS-tracking of a vehicle without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. As in Weaver, the DC court was particularly impressed by the amount of information that could be extracted from having the complete record of an individual’s movements over an extended period of time.

Since the case concerned the Fourth Amendment, the Court had to apply the so-called Katz test (after Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967)) to determine whether there was a violation. That involves application of the famous (or infamous) “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard. Under that standard, US Supreme Court jurisprudence has established that one cannot reasonably expect that aspects of life that are exposed to the public remain in or belong to the private sphere. Thus, the reasoning in Knotts was that the use of the homing device did not implicate the Fourth Amendment since “[a] person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another” (Knotts, at 281). Interestingly, the DC court held that the prolonged surveillance of a suspect’s vehicle with GPS does not concern movements that are “exposed to the public” in the same way as the journey of the drum of chloroform from its place of purchase to Knotts’ cabin. Here, the extent of information gathered was the distinguishing factor. Although each of the vehicle’s movements on public roads was undoubtedly in public view, the DC court maintained that the likelihood that anyone would track each of those movements week after week was “essentially nil” (p. 26). Thus, in essence, it may be unreasonable to expect that no one will observe the totality of a single trip made with one’s automobile on public roads, but it is not unreasonable to expect that no one person will observe the totality of every trip made with that automobile over the course of a month. That, at least, appears to be the court’s reasoning.

This line of thought makes this case particularly remarkable. The notion that the extent of information itself that is gathered about a criminal subject could hold significance for Fourth Amendment analysis has not been adopted by the Supreme Court; yet, many have questioned or criticized the shortcomings of the reasonable expectation of privacy standard, including the potential lack of differentiation with respect to the aggregation of “publicly exposed” information as opposed to individual bits. I’m not sure that any other federal court has introduced this notion – there at least don’t appear to be any other such cases concerning the use of GPS. In fact, the 7th and 9th Circuits tended to suggest the sort of result one would expect—i.e. that use of GPS generally wouldn’t constitute a Fourth Amendment search since it merely conveyed information that was exposed to public view (See United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007), United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010)). If the Supreme Court were to adopt Maynard’s line of reasoning, it would mean a significant change for the scope of Fourth Amendment protection, not to mention the future of law enforcement surveillance.

But how does Maynard differ from Weaver—apart from the fact that they dealt with different bodies of law? Weaver seemed to focus on the technology itself and the novel dangers it posed—as bemoaned by Judge Smith in his dissent. As a result, Weaver appears to hold that the use of GPS for surveillance will always require a warrant whatever the circumstances. The holding in Maynard is narrower. It doesn’t subject GPS in and of itself to the warrant requirement but rather only the “prolonged” use of it. Again, it’s essentially the body of information that is acquired that is the key issue. “Prolonged” use results in the collection of too much information—beyond what one would reasonably expect to be public. That means that more limited use of GPS without a warrant should be OK within DC (assuming there aren’t other bases for objecting on Fourth Amendment grounds—for instance on the basis that depositing the GPS device on the car constituted an impermissible seizure). Where exactly the line would lie between overintrusive surveillance and permissible surveillance remains to be seen. It’s significant to note that the court expressly reserved any determination as to whether prolonged visual surveillance would be subject to the warrant requirement. That fact might, in a way, leave some room for technology to have some significance after all. However, if it were ruled that no warrant was required for police officers to maintain visual surveillance of a suspect over the course of a month and record that suspect’s movements—effectively accumulating the same body of information that was at issue in Maynard—this would be a strange result.

Maynard is interesting for another reason. On pages 36 - 37, it refers to what in German is known as a right to “informational self-determination” (informationelle Selbstbestimmung). In English scholarship, this right is often referred to as “informational privacy” (See DETECTER Deliverable D17.1: van der Hilst, "Human Rights Risks of Selected Detection Technologies: Sample Uses by Governments of Selected Detection Technologies," p. 4 (citing Alan F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom (1967) and Arthur Miller, The Assault on Privacy (1971))). If a right to control information about oneself wins greater recognition in the US—beyond law pertaining to the Freedom of Information Act and (potentially) common law torts—this would also represent a significant development for privacy law in the US.

News: US Official Claims SWIFT Data Used in Arrest of 3 al Qaeda Suspects in Norwegian Investigation

The EUobserver has run a story stating that Under-Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey announced that SWIFT data were used to track down 3 suspects accused of planning a terrorist attack involving peroxide bombs. All three suspects were Norwegian residents and were arrested as part of a Norwegian investigation.

Detecter Deliverable: Border Control and Internal Security in the European Union

Deliverable D14.1 was written by Audelina Ahumada as part of Work Package 05. You can read the whole thing here.

Executive summary

1. Since the New York terrorist attacks in September 2001, border control is increasingly shaped by security considerations. This paper concentrates on the implications of this trend for the enjoyment of human rights protection by third-country nationals that seek to enter or have already gained access to European Union territory. The integration in the common border policy of threat assessments and risk analyses together with information gathering and sharing through the use of advanced technology has contributed to the perception that cross-border movements, and, in particular (potential)irregular immigration are closely related to serious criminality, including terrorism.
2. In the development of a common border policy, the EU, together with its Member States, should ensure that control and surveillance over the external frontiers are implemented in full compliance with legally binding international and European human rights standards. This should include operations aimed at diverting “illegal immigration” when conducted beyond EU external borders and when carried out in cooperation with third countries.
3. The legal mandate of the EU Border Control Agency, Frontex, should be clearly defined, in particular as regards the Agency’s competencies and corresponding responsibilities. Any coordination of or other involvement in border control operations by Frontex should be governed by clear guidelines which ensure respect for the principle of non-refoulement, including chain-refoulement, and the right to a fair and effective asylum procedure for any person claiming an international protection need.
4. The integration of internal security aspects in EU border policy also affects the processing of personal data on third-country nationals. Such data are stored in centralised EU-operated databases and were originally collected for primarily immigration-related purposes. Promotion of access to sensitive personal immigration data, including fingerprints, by law enforcement authorities for purposes including the prevention of and fight against terrorism implies that non-EU citizens form a suspect category in itself. This raises serious questions concerning the legitimacy, including necessity and proportionality of the measure under data protection principles inherent in the right to privacy. It may, in addition, have serious implications for the principle of non-discrimination.
5. Trends towards “interoperability” between EU-operated databases should be accompanied by the establishment of a comprehensive, specific and legally binding data protection framework with adequate safeguards to cover risks related to the large scale storage and use of personal data. The more authorities have access to sensitive personal information, the greater the risks of abuse, misuse, leaks and loss of data. This may have serious consequences, including with regard to the prohibition of torture and the principle of non-refoulement, if data on refugees and asylum-seekers reach authorities in their countries of origin.
6. Applying systematically EU carrier sanctions regime on international carriers may obstruct refugees and asylum-seekers in seeking protection in the EU. Trends toward the extension of the carrier sanctions regime to include the transfer of passenger data to national authorities, including for counter-terrorism purposes, raise serious questions from the perspective of data protection principles. Refugee protection is further marginalilzed, while adding to the perception that cross-border movements are closely linked with criminality.
   

DETECTER: The Moral Risks of Preventive Policing in Counter-terrorism

I'm going to start listing details of publications of the DETECTER project here on the blog. D05.1 has been written by Tom Sorell as part of Work Package 3. You can read the whole thing here.

Executive Summary

1. Preventive policing is any action carried out by police with the intention of identifying and preventing a specific crime or a type of crime. Preventive policing can include “special investigation techniques”, including secret surveillance. These carry obvious moral risks.

2. Recommendaton Rec (2005) 10 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe outlines possible restrictions on the use of special investigation techniques. It suggests that the least intrusive special investigation measures should be used, if at all, only when the prevention or prosecution of serious crime requires it, and not in a way that conflicts with the right of anyone arrested to a fair trial. The principles reflect legal privacy protections under European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8, and Convention 108.

3. Liberal theory supports the approach of Rec (2005) 10. It permits the use of special investigative techniques in preventive policing if the crime that these techniques are intended to prevent is very serious, e.g. a terrorist attack. In particular, liberal theory permits the use of secret surveillance, if the choice of targets for the surveillance is evidence-based.

4. The form of liberal theory that best reconciles the demands of privacy and counterterrorism with those of liberty is a modified Kantian theory, which is less utopian in its assumptions about human beings than a Lockean theory, but which excludes the total concentration of power, as in a Hobbesian theory.

5. Liberal theory condemns terrorist acts not just because of the injury and death they cause, but because of the contempt for impartiality that terrorist groups display. Impartiality is central to the liberal design of government institutions.

6. Privacy in Kantian theory is primarily the scope agents have for deliberating and choosing life plans free from other people’s interference. In liberal theory generally, privacy is also the scope people have for forming intimate relationships without scrutiny and adopting harmless life plans (harmless means of pursuing happiness) without being subject to outside criticism.

7. Kantian theory does not justify restrictions on thought or expression of thought about terrorism or in favour of terrorism, but it does justify restrictions on actions that contribute to terrorist acts.

8. Expression of thought about terrorism, even expression of thought sympathetic to
terrorism, should not be criminalized from the point of view of liberal theory. This counts against e.g. the “glorification” of terrorism provisions in the UK Terrorism Act (2006).

9. Kantian theory implies that preventive policing can fairly employ “profiling” techniques for identifying suspects in counter-terrorism, so long as these are evidence-based.

10. “Profiling techniques” cannot justifiably be used alongside detention and trial procedures that are revised ad hoc for counter-terrorism purposes.

News: Negotiations Reopen on US Access to SWIFT Bank Data

From the Lift: The EU and US have begun talks on a new agreement to enable transfers of European bank transfer information held on the SWIFT database to US authorities. Talks are taking place between the European Commission and United States Treasury and it is hoped an agreement can be reached by the end of June:

A Commission source told Euractiv.Com that “in the coming months little will be known about the substance of the actual negotiations”

The agreement will be concluded only after the adoption by the member states of the EU at qualified majority voting and the approval of the European Parliament. The Parliament introduced two weeks ago theconditions on the content of a future agreement, including for bulk transfers of personal data to the USA to be avoided, if necessary by processing them within the EU, and for Europe’s citizens to be guaranteed the right of appeal to the US authorities.

Comment: John Rentoul Attacks Chakrabarti's 'Shameless' Endorsement of Surveillance

Regular Independent columnist John Rentoul blogs about Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti’s appearance on last night’s Newsnight programme. He writes under the headline ‘Shameless: I Want a Surveillance Society’ - he likes to call her ‘Shameless Chakrabarti’ you see, which I presume is an attempt to imply she’s a hypocrite: ‘Oh so now you’re in favour of surveillance’ this line goes – ‘I thought you civil liberties people were against it’. This is already puzzling, as Liberty have consistently defended the principle that the security services ought to be able to use targeted surveillance against people about whom there is specific evidence to imply involvement in serious crime, though they campaign vigorously against arbitrary and unjustified use of surveillance. Rentoul’s attack focuses on her continued criticism of control orders:

What would she do instead of control orders, she was asked by Alex Carlile, the Liberal Democrat peer and independent reviewer of anti-terrorist law. After trying to hide behind trying them in court - what if there is not enough evidence for a conviction yet enough to warrant concern? - and the use of intercept evidence - not relevant in this case - she was eventually embarrassed into mumbling an answer: "Put them under surveillance."

Presumably she wants more CCTV, especially around the homes of terrorist suspects, and monitoring of their telephones and internet use.

Surveillance would either be prohibitively expensive, or intensely intrusive (thereby reinventing control orders in another form), or ineffective. Several suspects subject to control orders have already legged it to who knows where; any weakening of the controls would make it easier for them to abscond.

Given how small the numbers of people are who have been put under control orders (about 12 as of February this year) I think his argument about cost is of marginal importance, even if his assessment of the relative expense is accurate.

It also seems highly disputable that even intrusive surveillance would ‘reinvent’ control orders in another form – control orders primarily involve restrictions on people’s freedom, by imposing restrictions on who suspects can and can’t associate with, or imposing curfews and various degrees of house arrest, rather than intrusions into their privacy (though certainly the practice of 'tagging' is invasive). Now you could maybe argue that the additional invasions of privacy would always be worse than the restrictions of freedom. That would be a interesting position to take, and might even be coherent (though I suspect most would find it unpersuasive). But Rentoul’s not coming out and saying that. Instead he seems to want to have it both ways: control orders aren’t effective enough as they are, anything weaker will let the bad guys get away, but using surveillance beyond what is in place now will be just as bad. He’s painting Liberty as an organisation that is indifferent to the needs of effective policing and intelligence gathering. On the contrary their criticism of the use of control orders specifically takes aim at the claims of efficacy - take their earlier response to Lord Carlile’s previous announcement that there was no alternative to the control order regime or for that matter Shami Chakrabarti's piece in today's Times:

These orders were dreamt up by officials in 2005 and allow terror suspects to be placed under house arrest for ever without any semblance of criminal charge or trial. Apart from being profoundly unfair and un-British (the term “control order” comes from apartheid South Africa), this scheme is profoundly unsafe. A number of its targets have disappeared, and one former “controlee” had a habit of turning up, complete with plastic tag, at large public meetings attended by members of the present and past Cabinets.

And, as I said, they've consistently defended the use of targetted surveillance when the evidence supports it:

We take no issue with the use of intrusive surveillance powers per se. While intrusive surveillance will always engage Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA)1 (right to privacy) such intrusion can be justified if it falls within the legitimate purposes set out under Article 8 (e.g. if done to prevent crime and threats to national security) and if it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances.

What's shameless about that?

News: Airport Worker Disciplined for Abuse of Full Body Scanner

From the Guardian: police gave a warning for harassment against a 25 year old man for taking a photo of a female co-worker as she inadvertantly walked through a full body scanner. Tabloid newspaper the Sun reports that he 'ogled her' and made 'lewd' comments.

BAA said: "We treat any allegations of inappropriate behaviour or misuse of security equipment very seriously and these claims are being investigated thoroughly," a BAA spokesman said. "If found to be substantiated we will take appropriate action."

U.S. Mobile Phone Provider Received Some 8 Million Requests for Geo-Locational Data

Chris Soghoian has an interesting blog post from December. While attending the ISS World conference (Intelligence Support Systems for Lawful Interception, Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Gathering), Chris heard some surprising things. Counsel for the US telecom company Sprint Nextel indicated in a presentation that, within the space of a year, the company had received some 8 million requests from law enforcement for geo-locational data associated with mobile phones on the company’s network. In the comments on the post, one person conjectures that those don’t represent requests on 8 million distinct individuals, and that supposition is corroborated by another Sprint representative. This makes sense since typically police will want to know a single suspect’s location at various times throughout the course of an investigation. They may even want to check location continuously at regular intervals, say, every 1-2 minutes, in order to essentially track the suspect’s every move. Given the price lists associated with obtaining this information from telecoms (see Chris' post), a question for economists is whether that kind of electronic tracking is more cost effective than simply assigning a police officer to tail the suspect. The answer may depend on the particular level of crime incidence within the police force’s jurisdiction. Where crime incidence is higher, it may be more “economical” to assign officers to walk the beat and be available for incident response as opposed to conducting surveillance. It’s also unclear whether the +/- 8 million requests include emergency calls, where the location of the caller is revealed in the event that he or she is unable to give locational details verbally. But another interesting revelation related to the 8 million or so requests concerns how those requests were made and processed: evidently, Sprint has set up a special network interface to allow police agencies to submit geo-locational queries via computer.

News: New Security Measures for UK Airports

From the BBC: In a statement to the House of Commons earlier today, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the recommendations arising from a review of airport security and further intelligence briefings. The main measures include:

• Direct Flights from Yemen to the UK are suspended until security concerns are addressed.
• A "no fly" list is to be established to prevent suspected terrorists from travelling to the UK.
• A second list of lower risk suspects will be established entailing 'special measures' for those attempting to fly to the UK, such as more stringent screening (officials are not currently specifying anything further).
• All UK airports and ports to follow the 'e-borders' scheme, designed to collect personal data on all passengers entering or exiting the country, by the end of the year.
• Enhanced global cooperation to enable suspect individuals to be checked against watchlists 24 hours before flying to or via the UK.
• Full Body Scanners at British airports next week.
• New Intelligence teams to identify threats to British security abroad.

News: European Court of Human Rights Renders Judgement concerning UK's Terrorism Act 2000

The ECHR has held that the expanded search powers granted to police under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 violate Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Story from the Telegraph
Note on the case on the Legalift Blog

The judgement is currently available on the ECHR's HUDOC service under "List of recent judgments."

News: IMP Still Budgetted for 2016 Release

After mention was left out of the Queen's Speech, there was a lot of speculation that, in response to political pressure, plans for the Interception Modernisation Programme to monitor all electronic communications had been abandoned.

The Register reveals that the £2Bn remains in the Home Office's financial plans, scheduled for completion in 2016.

News: New Policy on UK DNA Retention

From the Guardian: Police have announced that they are to retain the DNA of those released without charge. Home Office Ministers say they want a 6 year limit (having previously sought a 12 year limit) for retaining profiles. Ministers are also advocating indefinite retention of those arrested on suspicion of terrorism or other national security provisions. Those convicted of any offence remain on the database for life. The Tories say they would implement the Scottish system whereby the profile of those unconvicted of any offence is destroyed on release from prison:

The national DNA database is already the largest in the world, with the profiles of 4.5 million people already recorded. They include 850,000 DNA profiles of people who have never been charged with or convicted of a crime. The need to find a new regime follows a landmark ruling in the S and Marper case by the European court of human rights, which ruled that the Home Office's current regime of "blanket and indefinite" retention of innocent people's DNA was illegal.

Comment: UK Gov Plans Shelved

The shelving of plans for the Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP) has been reported in a number of different ways. According to the Independent this was effectively 'a cancellation of the Big Brother database' while the BBC reported that the UK surveillance plan was 'to go ahead'. In this confusion Slashdot resorted to the headline 'In the UK, Big Brother Recedes and Advances'.

I think the Register has this one right. The post makes three points:

1) Next years general election (probably to take place in May) makes this a bad time to bring forward legislation that might provoke negative headlines. (Henry Porter has a nice point about the timing as well: with all the recent column inches covering the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down, proposing big increases in surveillance invites comparisons with the Stasi all too easily).

2) Internet Service Providers, whose cooperation is needed for the scheme, are currently resistent. Before proceeding, government has to convince them of its merits and feasibility.

3) The players who want this (GCHQ, SOCA, ACPO, the Security Service, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Agency and the Met) are not going away anytime soon:

Note that GCHQ and friends will still be around after the next election, as will their demands for IMP.

Ever the political pragmatists, the Tories know this well, and the section of shadow justice minister Dominic Grieve's recent speech on reversing the rise of the surveillance state was notably soft on IMP.

He said a Conservative government would submit the proposals to the Information Commissioner's Office to assess their impact on privacy. The ICO has already said it believes the case for mass surveillance of the internet has not been made.

Conference News: Madrid Global Privacy Conference & Declaration

I’ve just gotten back from a privacy conference in Madrid titled “Global Privacy Standards for a Global World” which was organized by The Public Voice. One highlight of the conference was the presentation of a Civil Society Declaration calling for the development of international privacy standards — and perhaps most controversially — a moratorium on “the development or implementation of new systems of mass surveillance, including facial recognition, whole body imaging, biometric identifiers, and embedded RFID tags, subject to a full and transparent evaluation by independent authorities and democratic debate." Numerous organizations and individuals have signed the statement (already dubbed “The Madrid Declaration”) and you can, too, by sending an e-mail to privacyATDatos-personalesDOTorg.

Another highlight was an emphatic speech by Stavros Lambrinidis, Vice President of the EU Parliament, declaring that the growing scope of surveillance within the western world is incompatible with democratic society and urging everyone not to simply allow the expanding creep of the level of surveillance to continue unchecked. There is a danger that the ultimate surveillance society will not emerge under a totalitarian regime, he claimed, but rather with citizens’ unreflected “consent.” You can have a look at what else was discussed by calling up the conference agenda here.

One special guest not listed on the program was a representative of Un barrio feliz – a grass-roots movement which has sprung up in opposition to plans to install a system of video surveillance cameras in Madrid’s Lavapiés district. You can view the movement’s blog in Spanish here. One major complaint was that the police have not been forthcoming concerning the plan and the underlying reasons for it. We heard that the local police have cited different grounds for installing camera systems in other neighborhoods (in one case – pick-pocketing, in another – prostitution), and that cameras were needed in Lavapiés because unsavory characters inhabited or frequented the area. The speaker from Un barrio feliz, however, reported that crime statistics indicate that criminal incidents have been decreasing in Lavapiés, making the police’s explanation all the more baffling. Lambrinidis picked up on these examples in his speech to question whether many of the methods of surveillance that have been proposed or implemented could be deemed necessary, proportional, and appropriate in a legal sense.