This consultation considers the collection and use of 'communications data', an important technical capability that is used to protect the public against terrorism, serious crime, illegal drugs and to protect the vulnerable in society. This capability is declining, however, in the face of the rapidly changing communications industry.  SAMM and other agencies were asked to attend the Home Office for a meeting about this and to comment on the paper.

Communications data is information about a communication and does not include the content of such communications. The police, Serious Organised Crime Agency, HM Revenue & Customs and the intelligence services (and other public authorities in limited areas) can acquire communications data from communications service providers. Communications data is used extensively as evidence in courts. Access to this data is strictly controlled, as the right to privacy must be maintained.

Technical changes in the communications industry means companies will offer more communications services, for voice, data and media, including: TV; social networking; music; video messaging; games; text; email; and internet browsing. These changes will impact on the current capability of access and use of communications data so action must be taken to maintain the existing capability.

The Government does not plan for a centralised database for storing all communications data. Instead legislation will ensure that the data required is collected and retained by the communications service providers, including data from UK communications service providers and additional data relating to services provided from overseas providers (third party data).

Responsibility for collecting third party data would fall on those communications providers, such as the fixed line, mobile and WiFi operators who own the network infrastructure. The problem of fragmentation would hinder investigating authorities though, so a further step requiring service providers to process the third party data and match it with their own business data where it has elements in common is proposed.

What does all this mean for us?  Well, currently mobile phone companies collect information about calls.  In time, because of changes in technology, they will use the internet to send calls – voice over internet protocol (VOIP).  (For those of you who use the internet to make calls, this is what Skype uses.) Because of this, they will not need to monitor what calls are made from one position to another.  This information is crucial to murder investigation teams. 

For example – as quoted in the document:

Data from the phones of the two girls murdered in Soham showed that they had been in or close to the house of Ian Huntley.  Maxime Carr’s phone showed that she had been in Grimsby and therefore could not have been with Huntley at the time of the murders.

The case of an 11 year old boy in Liverpool who was murdered in 2007 used communications data to attribute phones to each of the offenders, demonstrate association at key times and place individuals at specific locations and was therefore essential in bringing the perpetrators to justice.

The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) reported in 2007 that interceptions and communications data contributed to 151 firearms taken off the streets.  Their director states that: “using communications data and intercept intelligence are key factors in over 95% of the most significant investigations directed at SOCA groups assessed as causing the most harm in the UK.”

The data that companies keep is essential information that is used in many ways: investigations into terrorism, drug crime, protecting vulnerable children, kidnap and coastguard rescue.

Currently, the law only allows data to be used to show where a phone is at the time of use and the duration of the call, the content of a call cannot be used.  There are strict regulations concerning the accessing of that data.  The consultation document proposes no change to this.  What it seeks to do is require companies to keep information when technology changes and the companies will no longer find it advantageous to continue to store this information.

The keeping of data is a sensitive issue and a balance must be struck between maximising public protection and minimising intrusion into privacy.  There will be people and organisations who consider that storing the information is a violation of our human rights. There are several options open to government:

1.    Create a centralised database to store all communication data – the government has no plans for this.

2.    Do nothing. Failure to take action will lead to a diminishing capability to continue to use communications data.  This would lead to much more intrusive surveillance of a much larger number of people than is presently the case, which is more high risk and therefore less secure for the public and the investing agencies.

3.    A middle way.  Communications data would continue to be held by different communications providers and subject to the same rigorous safeguards that are now in place

SAMM agrees that communications data is vital for law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies and emergency services in tackling serious crime, preventing terrorism and protecting the public.  It is right that government maintains its capability by responding to the new communications environment. We fully support the Government’s approach to maintaining its capabilities by taking the middle way and understand that the safe guards outlined in the consultation document are sufficient for the future.  We also expect government to continue to adapt to the rapidly changing technological environment.