(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)
The report Surveillance: Citizens and the State recently issued by the House of Lords Constitution Committee supports privacy and considers executive and legal limits must be imposed to surveillance and data collection.
The report is a positive step in the promotion of individual freedom and liberty and offers some recommendations in this direction.
One of the recommendations, following a suggestion from the UK Computing Research Committee's, is that the encryption of personal data should be mandatory in some circumstances and that the Government should introduce appropriate regulations in this sense. "We believe that encryption has a vital role to play in ensuring the security of data, and that the Government should insist upon its use as appropriate throughout the public and private sectors," says the report.
It also mentions that with the large majority of data loss cases occurred in UK there had been no reference to data encryption which would have diminished the potential impact of the losses. Even in cases when the data were encrypted, unfortunately the password was attached to the storage device or even lost.
Encryption company PGP Corporation also believes "More needs to be done to educate staff on the importance of safeguarding information." According to a research conducted by privacy research firm the Ponemon Institute on behalf of PGP, the average cost of a single lost record is almost 70 euro. Phil Dunkelberger, chief executive of PGP stated that "organisations are taking desperate measures to preserve their reputation and retain customers; this study shows they simply cannot afford to lose out to competitors as a result of poor data security."
The Constitution Committee also recommended in its report that the data controllers should be fined for "deliberately or recklessly breaching the data protection principles".
A very important recommendation is that DNA profiles of non-convicted people should not be retained in the National DNA Database (NDNAD). "We expect the Government to comply fully, and as soon as possible, with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, and to ensure that the DNA profiles of people arrested for, or charged with, a recordable offence but not subsequently convicted are not retained on the NDNAD for an unlimited period of time."
The Committee believes that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) should be clarified recommending the Government to introduce "a system of judicial oversight for surveillance carried out by public authorities, and that individuals who have been made the subject of surveillance be informed of that surveillance, when completed, where no investigation might be prejudiced as a result. We recommend that compensation should be available to those subject to unlawful surveillance by the police, intelligence services, or other public bodies acting under the powers conferred by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000."
The report also recommends that the Government consultation on proposed changes for RIPA 2000 should "consider whether local authorities, rather than the police, are the appropriate bodies to exercise such powers" having in view that there have been cases when local authorities misused the surveillance powers granted in RIPA. "These cases demonstrate that the regulatory controls introduced at the time are insufficient." If the local authorities are found to be the right bodies to exercise the powers given by RIPA, the report recommends that these " Government take steps to ensure that these powers are only exercised where strictly necessary, and in an appropriate and proportionate manner."
The report also acknowledges the necessity of an independent review of the CCTV benefits and effectiveness in stopping, detecting and investigating crime and calls for a legally binding code of practise in using CCTV by private and public bodies. "The government has been clear that where surveillance or data collection will impact on privacy they should only be used where it is necessary and proportionate. The key is to strike the right balance between privacy, protection and sharing of personal data," says the report.
The general message of the report is that the UK society witnesses a very high level of surveillance affecting privacy and private life. "The expansion in the use of surveillance represents one of the most significant changes in the life of the nation since the end of the Second World War. Mass surveillance has the potential to erode privacy. As privacy is an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom, its erosion weakens the constitutional foundations on which democracy and good governance have traditionally been based in this country."
Following this report, the Government is to provide a written response within the next two months. Further on a debate will be scheduled in the House.
Lords Constitution Committee report on surveillance and privacy (6.02.2009)
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2009/02/06/lords-constitution-committee...
Constitution Committee - Second Report
Surveillance: Citizens and the State (21.01.2009)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldconst/18/...
Lords say surveillance society erodes foundations of UK (6.02.2009)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/06/lords_reject_government_dat
Data breach costs rise to £60 per record, say researchers (5.02.2009)
http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=9773