• Home /
• Statewatch Database /
• Civil liberties in the UK: Future of data retention and counter-terrorism powers uncertain as splits within the coalition become apparent, by Max Rowlands

Civil liberties in the UK: Future of data retention and counter-terrorism powers uncertain as splits within the coalition become apparent, by Max Rowlands

01 July 2010

In May 2010, Statewatch published an analysis of the coalition government’s commitment to civil liberties. Six months on, this article analyses what progress has been made in the fields of surveillance, data retention and counter-terrorism powers.

Within weeks of its formation in May 2010, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government announced with much fanfare their intention “to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power.” An easy victory over Labour’s contentious National Identity Scheme followed, but since then the government’s approach has been characterised by caution and pragmatism rather than an unerring commitment to liberty.

This is largely because there are splits within government on many of the key civil liberties issues that fundamentally define the relationship between citizen and state: how long and under what conditions can the government detain us, to what extent should the state surveil us, and what data on us should it hold? These internal divisions have been compounded by significant pressure from the civil service and security agencies to retain Labour policies that served to empower them.

It is likely that the coalition government will not scrap control orders, will revive Labour’s Interception Modernisation Programme in some form, and will not repeal or amend the Digital Economy Act: all things that the Liberal Democrats pledged to do in opposition. Should these defining characteristics of the Labour regime remain in place the Liberal Democrats’ reputation could be irreparably damaged. Certainly the lustre of the Freedom Bill, due to be published in 2011, is increasingly being tarnished.

Counter-Terrorism legislation

On 24 June 2010, Home Secretary Theresa May announced that the government would support a six month renewal of the 28 day pre-charge detention limit for terrorism related offences pending an examination of the UK’s anti-terrorism laws. On 13 July, a “rapid review” into six areas of “key counter-terrorism and security powers” was announced:

* the use of control orders

* stop and search powers in section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the use of terrorism legislation in relation to photography

* the detention of terrorist suspects before charge

* extending the use of deportations with assurances to remove foreign nationals from the UK who pose a threat to national security

* measures to deal with organisations that promote hatred or violence

* the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) by local authorities, and access to communications data more generally.[2]

May called for the introduction of a “counter-terrorism regime that is proportionate, focused and transparent. We must ensure that in protecting public safety, the powers which we need to deal with terrorism are in keeping with Britain’s traditions of freedom and fairness.” The appointment of a long-standing critic of Labour counter-terrorism legislation, the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Ken Macdonald QC, to provide independent oversight of the review served to engender optimism among the scheme’s detractors.

However, it has become increasingly clear how divisive this issue is within the coalition government. Writing in The Observer on 31 October, Andrew Rawnsley said that although the review’s conclusions were due in September, they have been delayed twice because “an intense internal battle...is dividing the intelligence services, splitting the cabinet and has left David Cameron and Nick Clegg in a state of alarmed semi-paralysis.”

Ms May went to Number 10 a fortnight ago for a difficult meeting with David Cameron and Nick Clegg. When she revealed that they had hit this impasse, both men were horrified. David Cameron told the meeting: “We are heading for a fucking car crash.” [3]

According to Rawnsley, heavy pressure to keep control orders is coming from Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5. He has reportedly taken the unusual step of writing to the Prime Minister directly to warn that public safety cannot be guaranteed without their continued use. By contrast, Lord Macdonald informed Theresa May that he would condemn a decision to retain control orders in any form. This led the Home Secretary to publically rebuke him on 31 October. On the same day, in a clear illustration of the lack of cohesion within the coalition, Chris Huhne, the Secretary of State for Energy, told the BBC:

We voted against control orders repeatedly, and I think that all of us in government frankly want to preserve the rule of law...I want to see people who are suspected of terrorism brought to justice properly, through the courts, in the same way we have traditionally done in this country for any other offence. [4]

The review of terrorism powers is being conducted by the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, a unit based in the Home Office and staffed by active and former members of UK security services. Its preliminary findings are reported to recommend the continuation of the control order regime. The maximum length of pre-charge detention for terrorism offences is likely to be reduced to 14 days - which would still be the longest anywhere in the western world - but with the option to then place individuals under 14 days of heavily restricted bail, tantamount to a mini control order.

This outcome would be disappointing to say the least. It would severely undermine the coalition’s pledge to restore civil liberties and, in particular, would discredit the Liberal Democrats who were unrelentingly critical of Labour’s counter-terrorism regime whilst in opposition. The need for repeal of control orders is greater now than ever. During the last six months their use has been significantly criticised by two high profile legal defeats. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that a control order imposed on a 32 year-old Ethiopian man breached his Article 8 rights to private and family life. The order had stipulated that he move 150 miles away from his family to the Midlands in order to “make it more difficult for him to see his extremist associates.”[5] In July, the government lost its appeal against the quashing of two control orders. The Labour government, in an attempt to avoid liability, had responded to the House of Lords’ June 2009 ruling that the system breached Article 6 rights to a fair trial by revoking the control orders of two men. The court of appeal upheld the high court’s decision that the orders must instead be quashed so as to allow them to claim compensation.[6]

The pressure exerted by civil servants and intelligence agencies on these issues cannot be understated. May has been roundly accused of being easily influenced by “Whitehall securicrats”, a suggestion she felt the need to refute in a BBC interview: “I can assure you I am not being overwhelmed by anybody or anything.”[7] Such is their influence however, that Henry Porter suggests that:

the more one hears about the row behind the scenes the more one suspects that the fault line exists not just between politicians of different stripe, but between the coalition and an impatient authoritarian rump of civil servants, police and the intelligence officers. An unelected establishment is fighting very hard to retain an arbitrary power that was granted by Labour with its customary lack of care for Britain's traditions of justice and rights. [8]

So deep-rooted are both sides of the argument that the government is left searching for middle ground where none exists. Any attempt to repackage control orders so as to make their continuation more palatable to liberals is surely doomed to fail. Rawnsley says that “David Cameron, scared of rupturing his coalition, yet fearful of over-ruling the securicrats, is just playing for time.”

Other areas of the government’s review have also raised concern. In its 137 page response to the review, titled From ‘War’ to Law, Liberty warned that government plans to proscribe non-violent organisations that promote hatred would be a “step too far”:

The current power to ban organisations is already far too wide, compounded by the inclusion of ‘glorification’ as a ground for proscription. Any extension to ‘hatred’ would capture an innumerable number of organisations, including, potentially, political or religious bodies. It would be a grave step indeed to ban an organisation on the basis that its message was offensive rather than violent.

The potential extension of “the use of deportations with assurances” is also extremely worrying. Under the principle of non-refoulement, the UK is prohibited from deporting anyone to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened. The thoroughly discredited system of “assurances” bypasses this obligation by using an unenforceable “memorandum of understanding” with the country to which the individual is to be returned promising that their human rights will not be violated. A 2008 Human Rights Watch report criticised the UK for contributing to the “erosion of the global ban on torture” by seeking “assurances over the years from a veritable A-list of abusive regimes: Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, and Russia, to name a few.”[9] More recently, in June 2010, Amnesty UK condemned the UK’s deal with Libya insisting that: “Libya’s international partners cannot ignore Libya’s dire human rights record at the expense of their national interests.”[10] Amnesty International has called on the UK to scrap the system entirely.[11]

In another alarming development, it emerged in June that members of Islamist groups jailed for terrorism offences are having unprecedentedly severe parole conditions imposed upon their release. Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of Napo, the union for probation staff, told The Guardian:

The conditions amount to control orders by the back door and are applied regardless of the seriousness of the original offence and any genuine attempt at rehabilitation or reform...The individual offenders are being set up to fail in order to maximise the chance of recall. [12]

Section 44 powers

On 8 July 2010, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, announced that police will no longer be able to use section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to stop and search members of the public, only vehicles. On 30 June 2010, the European Court of Human Rights had ruled that their January 2010 judgment in the case of Gillan and Quinton V the United Kingdom was final. The January judgement had found that the police’s decision to stop and search Gillan and Quinton in the Docklands in 2003 “amounted to a clear interference with the right to respect for private life.”

On 4 July 2010, a Human Rights Watch report revealed that none of the approximately 450,000 people subjected to section 44 stop and searches between April 2007 and April 2009 had been successfully prosecuted for a terrorism related offence.[13] Similarly, in October 2010, Home Office statistics revealed that none of the 101,248 people police had used section 44 powers against in 2009 were arrested for a terrorism offence. [14]

May announced the introduction of “interim measures [that] will bring section 44 stop and search powers fully into line with the European Court's judgment.”[15] Police will now have to rely on section 43 of the Act which, unlike section 44, requires them to demonstrate reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in terrorist activity before stopping and searching them. Whereas section 44 can only be used in prescribed “authorisation zones”, section 43 can be invoked anywhere in the country. Previously, police had been able to use section 44 in place of section 43, and in so doing bypass the need for reasonable suspicion, by creating “authorisation zones” that covered vast geographical areas.

The demise of section 44 is to be welcomed, but the government will likely face a stern challenge to ensure that section 43 powers do not come to be routinely misused in much the same way. While section 44 has been used on a grander scale and thus attracted more negative publicity, there is also evidence that section 43 has been dubiously employed. For example, on 6 June 2010, police determined that a photographer taking pictures of cadets near Buckingham Palace should be detained under section 43.[16] If incidents such as this become entrenched as part of common police practice the damage can be long-lasting. Over the last few years government bodies have displayed a frequent inability to rectify the police’s misuse of section 44 powers despite regularly publishing guidance on the legislation.

Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP)

Buried in the ‘Terrorism’ subsection of the government’s October 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, is a commitment to:

Introduce a programme to preserve the ability of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain communication data and to intercept communications within the appropriate legal framework. This programme is required to keep up with changing technology and to maintain capabilities that are vital to the work these agencies do to protect the public...We will legislate to put in place the necessary regulations and safeguards to ensure that our response to this technology challenge is compatible with the Government’s approach to information storage and civil liberties. [17] (emphasis added)

The government has been criticised for backtracking on its promise to “end the storage of internet and email records without good reason” - though this vague wording had left them with ample room for manoeuvre. In reality it was clear six months ago that the UK’s legal obligation to implement the EU Data Retention Directive would greatly restrict the new government’s capacity to abandon Labour’s data retention regime. That said, it is very disappointing that instead of moving the practice in line with the minimum standards required by the Directive (for example by reducing the length of time data is held to six months), the government appears to be heading in the opposite direction.

It is worth emphasising that the ability to “obtain” communication data is entirely distinct from the ability to “intercept” the contents of communications. Communication data consists of times, dates, email addresses, phone numbers and web-pages gathered from phone-calls, e-mails, mobile phone calls (including location), faxes and internet usage (the latter reveals the content), but not the content of what was said or written. CSPs automatically retain this data for their own purposes and then allow public authorities to access it through RIPA (see below). However, in recent years there has been a rapid growth in the British public’s use of third-party internet services, such as Gmail, Skype, Facebook and Twitter – what the Strategic Defence and Security Review refers to as “changing technology”. Data from these websites and computer software is not retained by Communications Service Providers (CSPs). The Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) spearheaded the £2 billion IMP under the Labour government in order to furnish the UK intelligence services with communications data from these new sources and it now appears that the coalition government has bowed to pressure and revived a scheme that both parties criticised in opposition.

Were it to be introduced, the IMP would instantly blur the boundaries between access to communication data and access to the content of communications. This is because the only way that data from third-party services can be collected is by intercepting the content of the communication using deep packet inspection technology. The desired communication data would then have to be extracted before it could be logged in a database, and the content ignored. Access to content requires a warrant from the Home Secretary would be conducted by CSPs on a routine basis. A London School of Economics briefing on the IMP questions whether this form of “blanket warranting” would comply with UK and EU law. It would also cause a sea change in the role of CSPs. Currently their contribution to intercepting communications is “passive” insofar as they do “nothing until a warrant is received.” Under the IMP they would be obliged to adopt a pre-emptive role by “actively looking at the content.” As the LSE briefing stresses, what is being considered is very much a “new form of data collection” and the wisdom of placing responsibility for its operation in the hands of private companies is highly questionable.[18] ISPs have been shown to have trawled through their subscribers’ web browsing history in order to subject them to targeted advertising (see below). How would the government be able to reliably ensure that every CSP would comply with the Data Protection Act and handle responsibly the mountain of data they would be charged with intercepting?

During Prime Minister’s Question Time, on 27 October, David Cameron was asked to “reassure the House that the Government have no plans to revive Labour's intercept modernisation programme, whether in name or in function.” His response was evasive:

I would argue that we have made good progress on rolling back state intrusion in terms of getting rid of ID cards and in terms of the right to enter a person's home. We are not considering a central Government database to store all communications information, and we shall be working with the Information Commissioner's Office on anything we do in that area.[19]

That vast quantities of communications data should not be stored in a single, massive database is a conclusion the IMP’s architects had reached 18 months ago. The government’s message is confused. In November 2010, the Home Office Business Plan 2011-2015 stated that it would “develop and publish proposals for the storage and acquisition of internet and e-mail records” as a means to “end the storage of internet and email records without good reason.”

If one were needed, a reminder of just how easily data stored under the IMP would be accessed came in July 2010 when the Interception of Communications Commissioner, Sir Paul Kennedy, published his annual report. It found that in 2009 public authorities (predominantly automated access by law enforcement agencies) used powers afforded to them by RIPA to make 525,130 requests to CSPs to access retained communications data.[20]

Worryingly, in September 2010, the European Commission referred the UK to the European Court of Justice for its improper implementation of the EU Data Protection Directive. This followed an investigation into complaints made by members of the British public over BT’s secret trialling of internet advertising software, made by the US company Phorm, without its subscribers’ permission in 2006 and 2007.[21] In November, the government responded by launching a consultation into the way lawful interceptions are made under RIPA. Intercepting communications under RIPA requires a warrant from the Secretary of State unless both the sender and intended recipient have consented to the interception or “the person carrying out the interception ‘has reasonable grounds for believing’ that consent has been given.”[22] This margin for interpretation has been abused by ISPs to infer “complied consent” where none exists.

The Digital Economy Act (DEA)

The DEA was passed in April 2010 having been debated by just 20 MPs in the House of Commons. It contains copyright provisions that have yet to come into full force but could eventually compel internet service providers to temporarily suspend the internet connection of individuals suspected of having illegally downloaded copyrighted material and block access to websites believed to be illegally hosting copyrighted content. These provisions were scheduled to come into effect in January 2011, but their introduction has been delayed by the high court’s decision, on 10 November, to grant a judicial review of the Act’s provisions.

The case was brought, in July, by BT and TalkTalk, two of the UK’s largest ISPs. They argue that the Act will infringe internet users’ “basic rights and freedoms” and that it was subjected to “insufficient scrutiny” by parliament. Their motives are also financial. Ofcom’s draft code of practice for the Act, published in May, only applies to ISPs with over 400,000 subscribers. BT and TalkTalk argue that this will put them at an unfair business disadvantage because some of their customers will be feel the need to join smaller ISPs in order to avoid being monitored. They are also fearful of “investing tens of millions of pounds in new systems and processes only to find later that the Act is unenforceable.”[23]

The High Court granted a judicial review on all four of the contested legal points, namely: that the European Commission was not given enough time to scrutinise the Act; that the Act does not comply with EU privacy laws; that the Act does not comply with EU e-commerce laws; and that the Act’s provisions are “disproportionate” because they infringe, among other things, rights to privacy and freedom of expression afforded by the UK Human Rights Act and the free movement of services provided for by the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union.[24] TalkTalk’s executive director of strategy and regulation, Andrew Heaney, said:

The provisions to try to reduce illegal file-sharing are unfair, won't work and will potentially result in millions of innocent customers who have broken no law suffering and having their privacy invaded...We look forward to the hearing to properly assess whether the Act is legal and justifiable and so ensure that all parties have certainty on the law before proceeding. [25]

The hearing of the review is expected to take place in February. If the High Court rules in favour of BT and TalkTalk, the copyright provisions contained in sections 3 to 18 of the Act could be quashed.

The regulation of CCTV

The Home Office’s July 2010 Draft Structural Reform Plan says that the Freedom Bill will “further regulate CCTV, including Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), to ensure that its use is proportionate and retains public confidence.” In the same month the Home Office confirmed that the UK’s ANPR camera system will be placed under statutory regulation. Home Office minister, James Brokenshire, said “Both CCTV and ANPR can be essential tools in combating crime, but the growth in their use has been outside of a suitable governance regime.” The Guardian said that:

The options being looked at by the Home Office for regulating the system...include establishing a lawful right for the police to collect and retain such details as well as defining who can gain access to the database and placing a legal limit on the period information can be stored for.

Regulation could not come too soon. Responding to a freedom of information request in June 2010, the National Policing Improvement Agency revealed that the National ANPR Data Centre now holds over 7.6 billion records in its database. As Big Brother Watch points out, this equates to around 200 surveilled journeys for every motorist in the UK.[26] Use of the technology continues to grow. In July, the Police Service of Northern Ireland was given £13 million to spend on an ANPR system.[27] The decision to introduce regulation comes largely in response to the public outcry surrounding the introduction of ANPR cameras in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham as part of “Project Champion”. On 30 September 2010, a review of the scheme, conducted by Thames Valley Police, found there to be “little evidence of thought being given to compliance with the legal or regulatory framework.” Further:

The consultation phase was too little too late, and the lack of transparency about the purpose of the project has resulted in significant community anger and loss of trust. As one community leader stated to the Review Team, “this has set relations [with the police] back a decade. [28]

On 18 October, Liberty threatened West Midlands Police force with judicial review if a commitment to remove all Project Champion cameras was not given within 14 days. [29] On 2 December, West Midlands Police confirmed that the £3 million scheme would be dismantled at a cost of £630,000.[30]

Unfortunately, such wastefulness of public money is not uncommon. On 30 November, Big Brother Watch published a report revealing that 336 local councils have spent over £314 million on installing and operating CCTV cameras between 2007 and 2010.[31] Accordingly, “the UK spends more per head on CCTV coverage than 38 countries do on defence.”

In July 2010, Big Brother Watch also revealed that 54 CCTV smart cars, operating in 31 local councils, caught and fined at least 188,000 motorists between April 2009 and March 2010 generating over £8 million in fines.[32] The cars are equipped with a 12 foot mast with a camera attached and are deployed under the guise of monitoring road safety. Announcing the organisation’s findings, the Campaign Director of Big Brother Watch, Dylan Sharp, said:

The CCTV Smart car represents a very dangerous escalation in Britain's surveillance society. The vehicles are sent out to catch people and make money, with road safety only an afterthought. £8 million is an eye-watering amount to take in fines in just 25 councils. It is surely only a matter of time before more councils start using these cars. The Coalition Government must act now and prevent that from happening.

Another revenue stream may soon come in the form of average speed cameras which are currently being trialled by Transport for London in four London boroughs to enforce 20mph zones. They work by recording a vehicle between two fixed points on a road and estimating the average speed at which it is travelling and are considered to be more reliable than traditional speed cameras. All recorded data would be sent to the National ANPR Data Centre.[33]

There have been several other alarming developments in the last six months that clearly illustrate the need for greater regulation of CCTV. For example, the introduction of a scheme called Sigard in Coventry city centre. This intrusive system works by attaching powerful microphones to CCTV cameras in order to monitor private conversations. It is accurate up to 100 yards and attempts to detect “suspect sounds, including trigger words spoken at normal volumes as well as angry or panicked exchanges before they become violent.”[34] Police are then called to the scene by the system’s operators.

On 4 October, the website “Internet Eyes” began streaming live CCTV feeds from businesses and shop owners to its subscribers over the internet. For an annual membership fee of £12.99 users can view up to four streams at any time and click an alert button if they see “suspicious activity.” Alerts cause an SMS message to be sent automatically to the owner of the CCTV camera (the website’s customer) along with a screenshot of the video feed. Users are awarded points on the basis of how helpful their alert was that can then be put towards cash prizes.

In July 2010, investigations into the January 2009 Gaza protests in London uncovered alarming evidence of police manipulation of CCTV footage. Two charges of violent conduct against demonstrator Jake Smith were dropped after it was revealed that footage of him attending the demonstration had been edited to suggest that another man throwing a stick at police was him. Events were shown out of sequence and images of him being assaulted by a police officer and left lying on the floor were cut entirely. His solicitor, Matt Foot, warned “We should be both curious and suspicious about how the police use CCTV footage in these cases.”[35]

And in July 2010, a study by the University of Hull warned of the damaging effect of surveillance in schools. “The children we have talked to in this paper are treated as suspects on a regular basis and we have to ask what effect that is going to have on children’s relationships with adults.”[36] In September 2010, it was revealed that half of York’s secondary schools have been filming pupils on CCTV without notifying parents.[37]

In his November 2010 report to parliament on the state of surveillance, the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, warned of increasingly intrusive surveillance. This included the use of unmanned drones, workplace monitoring of employees by GPS and the analysing of data from social networking sites. He said that since 2006 “visual, covert, database and other forms of surveillance have proceeded apace and that it has been a challenge for regulators who often have limited powers at their disposal, to keep up.” The report calls for legal reform:

Surveillance cannot be effectively constrained without a more rigorous regime of law, supervision and enforcement. The enactment of positive legislation to create or to reform the regulation of surveillance activities where it is absent or deficient must play an important part in the near future. [38]

It is to be hoped that whatever regulation the coalition government plans to introduce is up to the task.

Footnotes

1. The full analysis can be found on the Statewatch website: http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-104-coalition-government-civil-liberties.pdf

2. Home Office website, 13.7.10: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/press-releases/counter-powers

3. The Observer, 31.11.10: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/31/andrew-rawnsley-coalition-terrorism-laws

4. The Telegraph, 1.11.10: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8100429/Coalition-heading-for-car-crash-over-control-orders.html

5. The Guardian, 17.6.10: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jun/17/ap-ms-control-orders-terrorism

6. The Guardian, 28.7.10: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/28/court-ruling-sends-message-control-orders

7. The Guardian, 31.10.10: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/oct/31/theresa-may-lord-macdonald-control-orders

8. The Guardian, 7.11.10: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/07/freedom-bill-repressive-control-orders

9. Human Rights Watch World Report 2008: http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k8/diplomatic/index.htm#_Toc186336499

10. Amnesty UK website, 23.6.10: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18840

11. Amnesty International website, 14.4.08: http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/12013/

12. The Guardian, 27.6.10: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/27/civil-liberties-parole-curbs-islamists

13. Human Rights Watch website, 4.7.10: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/07/02/uk-terrorism-search-power-violates-rights

14. BBC website, 28.10.10: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11642649

15. Home Office website, 8.7.10: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/parliamentary-business/oral-statements/stop-and-search-statement/?view=Standard&pubID=821759

16. British Journal of Photography website, 6.7.10: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1721000/young-photographer-detained-section-terrorism-act

17. Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review, October 2010: http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf

18. LSE briefing on the Interception Modernisation Programme: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/informationSystems/research/policyEngagement/IMP_Briefing.pdf

19. Parliament.uk website, 27.10.10: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101027/debtext/101027-0001.htm

20. Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner for 2009: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1011/hc03/0341/0341.pdf

21. PC Pro website, 30.9.10: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/361564/bts-phorm-trial-lands-uk-government-in-court

22. Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: Proposed Amendments Affecting Lawful Interception: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/ripa-effect-lawful-intercep/ripa-amend-effect-lawful-incep?view=Binary

23. BT press release, 8.7.10: http://www.btplc.com/News/Articles/Showarticle.cfm?ArticleID=98284B3F-B538-4A54-A44F-6B496AF1F11F

24. See: http://www.btplc.com/newsadmin/attachments/statement%20of%20facts%20and%20grounds.pdf

25. The Telegraph, 10.11.10: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/8124356/TalkTalk-and-BT-win-review-of-online-piracy-law.html

26. Big Brother Watch website, 17.6.10: http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2010/06/76-billion-journeys-logged-on-the-anpr-database.html

27. Belfast Telegraph, 1.7.10: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/police-get-pound13m-number-plate-tracker-14860388.html

28. Thames Valley Police Project Champion Review, 30.9.10: http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/latest-news/docs/Champion_Review_FINAL_30_09_10.pdf

29. Liberty press release, 18.10.10: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/media/press/2010/liberty-demands-removal-of-unlawful-birmingham-surveilla.php

30. BBC website, 2.12.10: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-11901236

31. Big Brother Watch report: The Price is Wrong, 30.11.10: http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/files/big-brother-watch-report---price-is-wrong-29-11-10-final-2.pdf

32. Big Brother Watch website, 7.7.10: http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2010/07/driveby-spies-cctv-cars-issue-8-million-in-fines-in-just-12-months.html

33. This is London website, 18.8.10: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23868475-hundreds-of-speed-cameras-to-enforce-20mph-zones.do

34. The Sunday Times, 20.6.10

35. The Guardian, 19.7.10: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/19/gaza-protests-inquiry-police-cctv

36. The Telegraph, 7.7.10: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7874818/CCTV-turning-schools-into-prisons.html

37. The York Press, 13.7.10: http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8388267.Fears_over_CCTV_use_in_York_schools/

38. Information Commissioner’s report to Parliament on the State of Surveillance: http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/library/Corporate/Research_and_reports/surveillance_report_for_home_select_committee.ashx