The European Commission began legal proceedings against the British Government yesterday over its failure to protect the privacy of internet users. Many in the UK object to the EU on the grounds that it is “invasive” and a threat to British sovereignty and the so-called British way of life. Yet here is an example of the EU acting to uphold the civil liberties of British citizens in place of a government seemingly incapable of doing so.

The case concerns the apparent failure by the British Government to prohibit the unsolicited interception and surveillence of internet users’ communications, as required by the EU’s Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications.  Specifically the case focuses on BT’s use of software provided by the advertisement serving company Phorm, which monitors the browsing habits of internet users to deliver individually targeted advertising.

EU Telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding said, “We have been following the Phorm case for some time and have concluded that there are problems in the way the UK has implemented parts of EU rules on the confidentiality of communications.” Phorm insists that their technology is legal and complies with all data protection standards since the data is not stored, but deleted almost immediately and is not retrievable.

On 4 April 2008 the UK Information Commissioner’s Office issued a statement giving BT the green light to trial the technology so long as they had users’ prior consent. However, it appears that BT conducted a trial of the technology without informing users and the Government failed to prevent this from happening.

What is objectionable about this technology is not the purpose for which it is currently intended, but the ends to which it might subsequently be utilised. It is to the potentially lasting misfortune of the British public that they have a government that appears unable to comprehend this threat.

We have been here before. From ID cards to anti-terrorism legislation, the mantra of the current administration has been that strict safeguards are or will be in place, and in the case of crime-prevention powers, only wrongdoers need be worried. Yet already, the fallacy of such assurances has begun to emerge. In October 2008, the British Government used powers granted by the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act to freeze £4 billion worth of British financial assets in the failed Icelandic bank Landsbanki. Hardly the use for which such powers were intended. Likewise, it was also revealed at the end of last year that half of UK local councils were using anti-terror legislation to spy on individuals suspected of committing “bin crimes“. What is to say that technology originally intended to improve targeted advertising might not subsequently be modified to fulfil more pernicious ends?

It must be hoped that British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith - hitherto one of the greatest proponents of such anti-privacy technology - might have modified her views in the wake of a spate of scandals that should have brought home to her the dangers of putting private information in the hands of those who wish to use it to cause harm.

The EU is right to have started legal proceedings over the UK’s failure to enforce the regulations governing the use of technology such as that created by Phorm. No one is accusing Phorm, BT, or the British Government for that matter, of wanting to use this advertising targeting technology to undermine civil liberties. But that does not mean this technology should not be stopped, for the destruction of civil liberties in the UK will not happen but by degrees.

Tags: civil liberties, Europe, UK

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 15th, 2009 at 1:25 pm and is filed under Europe. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.