UK Taps 439,000 Phones, Now Wants To Monitor MPs

JPMH writes "With the largest density of CCTV cameras in the world, and an increasing network of automatic number-plate recognition cameras on main roads, Britain has long been a pioneer for the surveillance society. Now new official figures reveal that UK agencies monitored 439,000 telephones and email addresses in a 15 month period between 2005 and 2006. The Interception of Communications Commissioner is seeking the right for agencies to be allowed to monitor the communications of Members of Parliament as well, something which has been forbidden since the 1960s. It must be that it is bringing their numbers down: on the law of averages they should be monitoring at least 5 of the MPs."

One wiretap for every twelve crimes?

[mrogers]

The figure seems particularly large when you consider that around 5,000,000 crimes were reported [crimestatistics.org.uk] in England and Wales during the same period. Does one in twelve crimes require a wiretap? Or is it possible that at least some of the surveillance is politically motivated [lobster-magazine.co.uk]?

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

There were 439,000 *requests*. This figure includes email addresses. I personally have 6 addresses. Does that figure mean 1 request for each address/phone number of 1 request per person? It does not state how many of those requests were granted.

Why shouldn't MP's be treated the same as ordinary citizens? They are not above the law, and can be sued/tried etc like any other citizen.

When the next London bombings occur everyone will complain that nothing was done to stop anyone, and it will all be the security services fault. You people need to decide what it is you want.

Headline is WRONG!

[sirwired]

There were NOT 439,000 requests to tap phones. There were 439,000 requests for "communications information". This includes requests for lists of e-mail addresses, lists of numbers called, etc, in addition to taps.

I'm not saying that is a good or bad thing, just that the headline is incorrect and sensationalist.

SirWired

Re:One wiretap for every twelve crimes?

[mrogers]

After a bit of digging it appears there were 1,895,002 prosecutions and 1,484,424 convictions in 2005 [homeoffice.gov.uk] (warning: large XLS file), of which roughly one fifth were for serious (indictable) offences. I'd be interested to know how many convictions involved wiretap evidence.

Re:So what?

[Zoxed]

> There were 439,000 *requests*.

Slashdot title: 439,000 phones tapped (dramatic)

Actual report:
- 439,000 requests (i.e. a bit less dramatic)
- link to TFA states telephone *and* email addresses (i.e. a bit less dramatic)
- TFA says telephone, email and postal addresses (i.e. a bit less dramatic, again)

Re:Put your money where your mouth is, Tom.

[tomstdenis]

Your post makes no sense. I never said people have no privacy, nor should they expect it. I said if you're exposing your secrets to the world, don't expect them to be private. I don't want my genitalia on the web, so I wear pants. Amazing feat of security that. Kudos on trying to embarrass me though. Your AC troll-fu is just too weak.

If you're walking about, in public, in plain view OF EVERYONE, expect no privacy in terms of your whereabouts. That's just common sense. Even the common criminal knows that.

Next time you try to come up with an argument, think it through first.

Tom

Surveillance and car tracking in the UK

[nmg196]

Of course, if you're British and you care about your every move being monitored by the government, you should sign the official petition [pm.gov.uk] against the GPS tracking of every single UK vehicle for the purposes of the new "pay as you drive" scheme.

This petition has been in the news a lot this week, but if you've not already signed it, you should consider doing so as it's due to close TODAY (20th Feb). So far, an incredible 1.7 MILLION people have signed.

This is getting mathematically scary...

[alexandre]

Take a look at the research papers linked here [freehaven.net] and this one in particular:

The Economics of Mass Surveillance and the Questionable Value of Anonymous Communications (PDF [kuleuven.be])
by George Danezis and Bettina Wittneben.

You may think that half a million phone tapped is not that much... well think again, the social network effect is probably exposing all of Britain. Ask for your rights to be respected now.

Re:One wiretap for every twelve crimes?

[mrogers]

Good point. Here are the primary sources:

Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioneer for 2005-6 [official-d...nts.gov.uk]
Report of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner for 2005-6 [surveillan...ers.gov.uk]

The 439,000 wiretap requests resulted in 2,243 warrants - I don't know whether multiple requests can be granted in a single warrant. For human surveillance, which is covered by the second report, 2,177 authorisations were granted under the Police Act, of which roughly half involved drug offences, and 418 authorisations were granted under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

But for me, the most interesting part of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner's report was his opinion about automatic number plate recognition cameras:

...it is unlikely that the deployment could be authorised under RIPA or RIP(S)A. There may well be human rights issues arising in connection with any use of private information to build up pictures of the movements of particular persons or vehicles... The unanimous view of the Commissioners is that the existing legislation is not apt to deal with the fundamental problems to which the deployment of ANPR cameras gives rise.

Re:Surveillance and car tracking in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that roads that are highly congested in city centres would be charged at a higher rate than motorways and country roads. The schemes are designed to take into account people trying to use backstreet routes to avoid the congestion by charging these higher etc. The current "pay as you drive" model doesn't take this into account at all.

Those that do 30,000 miles of motorways a year will be better off because of the lower tax on fuel, but someone doing a commute from just outside a city to a factory might be stung twice as much.

Fundamentally it is a way to get people to pay more money, and will penalise the poor more than the rich - as pretty much every tax in the UK does. While it might have a minimal effect on congestion it is unlikely to have much effect on the environment as people will still drive as there are no viable alternatives. Helping the environmentshould be the ultimate goal of any such scheme IMO.