UK surveillance “worse than 1984,” says new UN privacy chief
World needs a “Geneva convention” for the Internet to safeguard personal data.
Aug 25, 2015
by Glyn Moody
The newly appointed UN special rapporteur on privacy, Joseph Cannataci, has called the UK’s oversight of surveillance “a rather bad joke at its citizens’ expense,” and said that the situation regarding privacy is “worse” than anything George Orwell imagined in his novel 1984. Speaking to The Guardian, Cannataci said: “at least Winston [a character in Orwell’s 1984] was able to go out in the countryside and go under a tree and expect there wouldn’t be any screen, as it was called. Whereas today there are many parts of the English countryside where there are more cameras than George Orwell could ever have imagined. So the situation in some cases is far worse already.”
Cannataci is also concerned about the routine surveillance carried out by Internet companies as a key part of their business model. “They just went out and created a model where people’s data has become the new currency,” he said. “And unfortunately, the vast bulk of people sign their rights away without knowing or thinking too much about it.”
The mandate of the new post of UN special rapporteur on privacy is broad. Cannataci, who is a professor of law at the University of Malta, and uses neither Facebook nor Twitter, is empowered to review government policies on digital surveillance and the collection of personal data, and to identify activities that harm privacy protection without any compelling justification. He can also give his views on how the private sector should be addressing its human rights responsibilities in this field.
There are four main tasks he has set himself: drawing up a universal law on surveillance; tackling the business models of the big Internet companies; defining what “privacy” exactly entails; and raising awareness of these issues among the public. The Guardian quotes him as saying the world “needs a ‘Geneva convention for the internet” to safeguard data and combat the threat of massive clandestine digital surveillance.” Cannataci recognises that he will be unable to achieve this within his three-year mandate, or even if it is renewed, but believes that it is important to take a long-term view.
He acknowledges that Edward Snowden will be looked upon as “a traitor by some and a hero by others,” but says that his leaks were “very important” because they confirmed what many working in the fields of privacy and data protection had believed to be the case. Snowden’s revelations also demonstrated “the extent to which [government surveillance] has gone out of control,” something many hope Cannataci will try to address in his new role. Cannataci was chosen for the role after the first-ranked candidate, the Estonian Katrin Nyman-Metcalf, was blocked on the grounds that “she would not be a strong enough critic of US surveillance.”
David Cameron: If government can’t snoop on it, you shouldn’t be allowed to use it
January 13, 2015
By David Goldman @DavidGoldmanCNN
British Prime Minister David Cameron called for a ban on messaging services that the government can’t snoop on.
“Are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read?” Cameron said Monday. “My answer to that question is: ‘No, we must not.'”
Apps such as Apple (AAPL, Tech30) iMessage, Microsoft (MSFT, Tech30) Skype,Facebook’s (FB, Tech30) WhatsApp, Google (GOOGL, Tech30) Hangouts and Snapchat encrypt customers’ communications. That means in many circumstances, law enforcement cannot access people’s messaging data — even with a warrant or a subpoena.
Cameron is running for reelection in May. If elected, Cameron said his parliament would draft a new law that would require Internet service providers and wireless companies to provide the government with more information about what their customers do online. If they refuse, those services would be outlawed.
At a speech in Nottingham, Cameron said he believes the U.K. government must have “the right legal framework to enable us to intercept the communications of potential terrorists.”
He noted that the government already has access to telephone data, including where and a call takes place. But Cameron said the British government lacks the ability to trace communications “when people use more modern methods through the internet.”
Cameron said the new legislation will come in the name of security. In light of the terror attacks on Paris, he said the new legislation is appropriate.
“The Paris attacks demonstrated the scale of the threat and the fact we need robust powers to keep our people safe,” Cameron said. “If I am prime minister, I will make sure … we do not allow terrorists safe space to communicate with each other.”
Governments and Internet companies have been sparring over customer data for years, but it’s typically totalitarian governments that ban companies that refuse to fork over customer communications. In 2010, India said it would block BlackBerry (BBRY, Tech30) services unless the company made customers’ messages available to the government. BlackBerry settled the dispute by agreeing to give the Indian government access to “lawful access to secure data.” China, Saudi Arabia and other countries have also made similar demands on messaging services.
Still, the debate has extended to western countries as well, as criminals increasingly use encrypted communications services to communicate with one another.
Other European governments in addition to the U.K. are also calling on Internet service providers and companies that operate online to provide more information about their customers. And Apple and Google’s decisions to encrypt customers’ cell phones have angered U.S. law enforcement as well.
