Hello there,
Simon is very much away from his computer this weekend. However, he has left me, a kind of robot facsimile, to tell you about Digital Rights Ireland’s drive to raise some funds to do good things.

Our suggested subscription rate is €10 per month. That is the cost of 2 pints. If we get 100 members willing to pledge that much to us, we will have a solid income base to work from.

We also have a concession membership of €5 a month. We aren’t going to be checking IDs or anything like that – if you don’t think you can afford to forgo both pints every month, then we’ll happily spare you the effort of drinking one of them.

Honestly, this is a good idea. And the pints you’ll be foregoing are probably the ones at the end of the night that make you get sick. You’ll be doing yourself a favour by using the cash for this instead.

Here’s the link to the Bung-Them-Cash page.
And they’ll have a standing order form you can print out soon too if you don’t know anything about PayPal or don’t have a Laser or Credit Card or just usually rely on Barry the Pub to look after your wages for you on tick, so I’ll get Simon to nag you about it then too. When he gets back.

Which may be quite some time.

A little while ago, I said that if the Irish Times wasn’t going to ask follow up questions on the announced-over-Christmas plan to bring in an Automatic Number Plate Recognition system for use by the Gardai, then tiresome obsessives would have to do it for them.

Sure enough, here are the questions put down by the Labour Party on the topic, along with the Minister’s answer.

20. Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the status of the proposed new automatic number plate recognition system reported in a newspaper (details supplied) of 31 December 2005;
the consultations which will be carried out before a decision will be made on its introduction or if a decision has already been made;
the consultations which were carried out before the decision was taken;
if the Data Protection Commissioner has been consulted on this plan; if not, the reason for such a failure to consult;
if there have been discussions within either his Department or the Garda Síochána to connect this system to closed circuit televisions other than those in police vehicles;
if it has been proposed, discussed or considered to have the time and location details of all number plates recognised by the system stored in a database;
if it has been so proposed, discussed or considered; the length of time it has been discussed, proposed or considered that these details should be retained;
if the system as currently proposed will include an audit trail recording which looked up which number plate and when;
if the system as currently proposed is subject to independent auditing on a systematic and regular basis;
his views on whether the system as currently proposed will be in contravention with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in its Report on Privacy, Surveillance and the Interception of Communication; if so, the reason he believes this is necessary; if not, the reason for same;
if he proposes bringing enabling legislation before the Houses of the Oireachtas to ground this project in law and allow for a full debate on its cost, resource and privacy implications; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3498/06]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell): I am informed by the Garda authorities that they are currently carrying out an impact assessment in respect of the use of an automatic number plate recognition system by the Garda Síochána. This assessment includes the nature of the impact on current information technology systems within the force. I understand that a number of police services in Europe have already introduced automatic number plate recognition systems as an enhancement to basic in-car camera systems.

I can assure the Deputy that all relevant legislation, including data protection legislation, will be complied with in the event of a decision being made to acquire any such system.

I am further informed that consideration is not being given to connecting any such system to closed circuit television in non-police vehicles, nor has there been any consideration of whether to have the time and location details of all number plates recognised by the system stored in a database. It is envisaged that any such system would include an electronic audit trail recording the specific number plates identified through the system.

As part of their consideration of whether to procure such a system, I am informed by the Garda authorities that they will also consider the question of consultation with a range of interested parties and how such consultations would take place. Any proposal to procure such a system, when actually made by the Garda authorities, will be considered by my Department.

Simon’s notes: The Minister doesn’t quite answer what he was asked here. “consideration is not being given to connecting any such system to closed circuit television in non-police vehicles” leaves room for consideration to have been given to connecting it to CCTV systems that aren’t in vehicles i.e almost all of them.

The Minister has said that “he has been informed” that no consideration has been given to whether to have all number plates recognised by the system logged for their time and date. I think this is the primary question surrounding this scheme, and ought to be the main focus of further inquiries.

As the Garda authorities are now considering having a process of consultation (note the lack of any commitment this warm sounding phrase actually contains) with a range of interested parties (possibly, until now, all of the buy-my-lubberly-ANPR-system kind) I think that this would seem like an excellent moment for Digital Rights Ireland to get in contact with the Gardai to alert them that they are also looking to help them with their weighty considerations.

Update: I see that DRI have come back with a fuller analysis of the Minister’s answer, incorporating some of the points I made above. They also say that they have written to the Gardai, seeking to be involved in consultations, and to the Data Protection Commissioner. They’re also going to pursue the matter further by writing to the Minister directly regarding his ignoring the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations.

I see the Minister has said formally what alert readers will know already- that he intends to implement the Law Reform Commission’s recommendation to introduce a DNA database, but that he won’t be implementing their safeguards to protect citizen’s privacy.

From the Comments to Liz McManus Blog

[To preface my comments, I’m the Mayor of Letterkenny and have been blogging actively since June ‘05]

On my website, I try to include everything I can that is of relevance in the post. It’s vital; people don’t like following links.

I’d also consider it important to try to keep the information together. Most people who visit my website are looking for a specific issue (eg planning, housing, the Fleadh Cheoil) and are coming in through Google. It’s much better to include all the relevant information possible on the one post.

The blog has been a great resource, and I hope it will continue to be. It’s just a pity I don’t stand in James’ consituency of Limerick West!

By Damien Blake on 01.09.06 5:04 pm e

I had a look at Damien’s website there, and it is a very useful resource. I think it could serve very well as a model for other local representatives who were willing to find the information their voters wanted and put it in an easy to use format.

Damien, I notice that you announce that Letterkenny will be getting CCTV shortly. Do you know, or are you in a position to find out, whether this will be tied in to the mooted Garda Automatic Number Plate Recognition scheme? see my post here for more details.

By Simon on 01.10.06 9:42 am e

Simon,

This CCTV system is going to be a self-contained, stand alone system, run by the local authority (funded under the current “Community Based� funding round).

The system will be run with Letterkenny Town Council as “Data Monitor�. We’ll be in charge of the operation and maintenance of the system, but more importantly the elected members will be in charge of all the policy surrounding the system. It is intended to be a system to help the Gardai, but all requests to access the system will have to be made in line with the policy we set out.

If the policy needs changed, the elected (publicily accountable) members will be able to change it. That’s not possible with many other systems.

I am aware of the numerous issues regarding the Civil Liberties concerns with CCTV systems. I also believe there’s a balance to be struck, and I hope we can do that here in Letterkenny.

Thanks for your kind words on my site.

Damien

By Damien Blake on 01.10.06 10:55 pm e

Thanks for that Damien, its good of you to come back on the question.

To clarify- when you say that the elected members will be responsible for policy as to how the cameras are used, would that policy include co-operating with a traffic monitoring database, if the Gardai requested it? And would you have the right to opt-in or out as you saw fit?

By Simon on 01.11.06 11:28 am e

There’s been no approach as yet to the council regarding any connections with any other systems. The Gardai (locally) have helped in our application, but have not been leading it in any specific direction, nor have they made any requests or recommendations regarding technology.

The Council has been slow to support the system so far, that is to say they’ve cautiously supported it. The policy regarding who gets to access the system still has to be finalised; we’re probably a year away from seeing the cameras in place.

I don’t believe the council would support connecting our cameras to any wider system of any sort, particularly one as long-lasting as the Number Plate recognition system mentioned in the article you quote above.

By Damien Blake on 01.11.06 5:43 pm

There was some discussion of my previous post on Proinsias De Rossa’s vote, making him the only Irish MEP to vote in favour of the Data Retention Directive passed in December of last year. (More comments here and here)

I posted his statement following the vote.

Now I thought I’d post his response to my email, which landed with me today. And under that you can read what he said before the European Election. (cf The Sunday Business Post)

Dear Simon,

Thank you for your recent emails on the issue of Data Retention.

Proinsias De Rossa supported the compromise agreed between the EP and the Council at the December EP Plenary Session which included important amendments of the Commission’s September 2005 proposal (see Socialist Group statement below) negotiated chiefly but not exclusively by the Socialist Group. This compromise proposal is clearly preferable to the alternative proposal put forward by the Governments of Ireland, Britain, France and Sweden in April 2004, based on on the so-called “third pillar” EU treaty provisions which leave the final decision entirely in the hands of national governments, no judicial oversight by the European Court of Justice and no democratic input by MEPs. On 27 September 2005, the EP had unanimously called for the rejection of this proposal, though the final decision is with national Ministers.

Proinsias De Rossa particularly welcomed the fact that the compromise measure is to be assessed three years after it comes into effect, with the full involvement of the European Parliament.

Proinsias received no letters or emails making the case against the four-country counter proposal issued in April 2004, only against the proposal which the Socialist Group had succeeded in sigificantly amending.

Further details on the compromise proposal are at http://www.europarl.eu.int/oeil/file.jsp?id=5275032.

The EP’s Press Service account of the vote is at:
here

Further details on the alternative four country proposal are at http://www.europarl.eu.int/oeil/file.jsp?id=5215602

Please do not hesitate to contact us further on this matter.

Best wishes,

xxx xxx

On behalf of Proinsias De Rossa MEP

Statement by Socialist Group, 15 December 2005

A European Parliament vote on retention of phone call and other communication records in the fight against terrorism and serious crime was today welcomed as a “well-balanced protection for citizens”.

Socialist spokeswoman on civil liberties, Martine Roure, said: “We urgently need a stricter policy to protect people’s private lives. This data is already being stored and used by the authorities. I welcome the compromise agreed on today.”

The new EU rules allow retention of data on phone calls, including the identities of people involved, their physical locations and the length of calls ? but not the content. Landline and mobile calls are covered along with Internet phone calls, e-mail and SMS.

Safeguards won by the Socialist Group include:

• LIMITING retention of phone call data to inquiries into serious crime, in order to ensure proportionality;
• INTRODUCING severe penal sanctions for abuse of personal information;
• EVALUATING the measures three years after they take effect, with full involvement of the European Parliament; and
• INCLUDING data about location at the beginning of calls in order to prevent the profiling of people’s movements.

Said Ms Roure: “This agreement is a victory for the European Parliament. We successfully opposed the intention of member states to prevent any democratic debate on this question.”

Asked before the European Election “What are your views on data privacy, and what will you do as an MEP on this issue?” Mr. De Rossa replied as follows:

The protection of personal data is a fundamental right guaranteed by EU law, based onthe principle that everyone must be able to decide whether and how personal data concerning them can be collected and used. The protection of personal data must not be considered a barrier to the fight against terrorism, crime or organised crime, but a key element to preserve our fundamental values.

(from the Sunday Business Post)

I noticed a new blog appear on Planet of the Blogs today- Liz McManus, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.
She’s clearly writing it herself.

I’m in favour of Ms. McManus, as she appeared to wish my Grandmother a happy birthday a few years ago at her house party. And now I’m glad to see that she’s writing in a place that potential voters (both for herself personally, and the Labour Party) can read her stuff. More politicians ought to be at this. (And the Labour Party in particular, given that at the next election they won’t have a single TD under 50.)

She mentioned that she’s regularly directing people to read policy papers on the Labour Party site, and would like feedback on them. In all honesty, that’s not really going to happen very often. Policy papers are dense, turgid things. And even when they aren’t, they sound like they’re going to be.

A better way to engage people’s imagination would be to give them a brief description on the blog of the policy- the kind you might give to a person you met in the pub. Then put in the link, so people whose interest has been piqued might be tempted to read more.

Though, in fairness, the labour.ie site is inponderably dull. If the policy papers are anything like the ones I tried to wade through a while back, there is a chance that interest might be rewarded only by a boredom induced coma.

If I were Gareth Stack, of the Pod-and-videocast Technolotics, I would contact Bernie Goldbach and ask him if he knew any way of getting a 2-5 min segment from Digital Rights Ireland for his show.

I would also read the Digital Rights Ireland pamphlet on Libel Laws in Ireland. And give a copy to his other contributors.

The sleepy days between Christmas and New Year are traditionally a time to release news you don’t want anyone to ask questions about. This year two stories found their way into the public domain which, now that we’re all trying to shake off the coma of Roses and tinsel, deserve a closer look.

First, we have Conor Lally’s story on the front page of the Irish Times that there will be a “€6 million Garda camera and computer system� introduced ‘in the coming months’.

Well, it will and it won’t. The last paragraph, slightly less gung-ho, tells us that the proposal (read: request) to buy the system is with Garda management, whose decisions the author feels are sufficiently predictable to allow him to expect the plan to be approved and rolled out in a matter of months. We even get an insight into the justification used- it will “result in increased revenue in additional traffic fines�.

Let’s leave aside the question of the sorry Garda history of introducing computer systems, and in particular the Pulse system this is touted as linking up with. There’s a whole other story there as to the credibility of the price tag and the timescale for implementation that we’ll leave to another day.

What’s interesting about the Irish Times story is the questions it doesn’t ask. This Automatic Number Plate Recognition system hasn’t just been dreamt up in Harcourt St. It follows hot on the heels of the announcement of a seemingly identical system in the UK.

Reported on the 22nd December 2005 in the London Independent, the British are less reticent about the extra abilities this Automatic Number Plate Recognition will give the police, and what they intend to do with it. While the Irish Times might have left you with the impression that they’ll just be on the lookout for NCT dodgers and car thieves the Independent seems to have a fuller picture of the planned uses.

Here is the big picture:

“Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years… These will include time, date and precise location, with camera sites monitored by global positioning satellites.�

And unlike the unthreatening Irish suggestion of just sticking cameras in the front and back of Garda cars, the UK have pointed out that they will also be linking the thousands of public and private CCTV cameras in towns, supermarkets, petrol stations and on the roads into the system.

“’What the data centre should be able to tell you is where a vehicle was in the past and where it is now, whether it was or wasn’t at a particular location, and the routes taken to and from those crime scenes.’ says Mr Whiteley, Chief Constable of Hertfordshire and chairman of the Acpo steering committee on automatic number plate recognition (ANPR).â€?

The UK police force is more honest about its intentions, at least. After all, if the plan is to track every citizen as they go about their business and record their movements by way of CCTV and then store that information for years it will only work properly if the surveillance is ubiquitous.

If this is the intention of the Garda Síochána also, it is a major infringement of the public’s right to privacy. In the UK, the police compared the utility of this database to the introduction of DNA fingerprinting. I think that’s a useful analogy.

The Irish Law Reform Commission, chaired by The Hon Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness, of the Supreme Court, recently published a report on building a DNA database for police purposes. They specifically rejected collecting a comprehensive database on citizen’s DNA as being an unacceptable intrusion into the innocent citizen’s privacy. Indeed, so serious did they consider the potential for breaching the European Convention on Human Rights involved in disproportionate action being taken to breach privacy and bodily integrity rights that the Commission agreed “with the views widely expressed that forensic profiling should primarily be confined to serious offences.�

In addition, the Commission decided that those not convicted of a crime, but whose DNA was taken as part of a criminal investigation, should have their DNA removed from the database after a set number of months. This is a reflection of the Commission’s concerns in relation to the likelihood that holding a DNA sample of an innocent citizen would be at odds with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing privacy.

With that helpful analogy in mind I don’t see that it would be a stretch of the imagination that the Constitutionality of holding a database on the movements of all citizens, regardless of whether they have been convicted of a crime is suspect. In addition, its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, which we have incorporated directly into Irish Law in the Human Rights Act 2000 would be decidedly questionable.

For this kind of plan to slide by with a generally unquestioning Christmas press release from the Gardaí won’t do. With luck, Conor Lally will have a follow up story in the coming days. If not, it may be up to tiresome obsessives to try to ask these questions.

As before, my thanks to The Dossing Times for permission to reprint the below.

Thank you for your email regarding the voting on the ALVARO Report on Data Retention.

As you may be aware the two largest political groups in the Parliament, the EPP and PSE, agreed a deal on a compromise package of amendments which forced the Rapporteur, Mr Alvaro to withdraw his name from the report.

The main points with regard to the amendments which were adopted relate to the type of data to be retained and this will not include the content of the data, also that the data will only be provided to competent national authorities as laid down by national legislation, and the crimes for which data is to be sought must be defined by member states in their national legislation also.

Yours is one of the many letters I have received on this matter and I should point out that the law at present on Data Retention in Ireland is not affected or impacted by this legislation.

You may also know that my colleagues and I abstained on the final vote as we believe that the issue should have been dealt with on the third pillar and not the first pillar which is also the position of the Irish government, however, this was a minority viewpoint.

Regarding your second point, there has been no case taken to the European Court of Human Rights regarding this directive, and indeed the Irish legislation which was passed this year wasn’t challenged in the Irish Courts either on the question of contravention of human rights.

Thank you for taking the time to write to me.

Kind regards
Is mise le meas

Brian Crowley M.E.P.
President U.E.N. Group
Leader F.F. Group in Europe

Not for the first time, I believe that Mr. Crowley is somewhat misleading in his communication to a constituent.
“I should point out that the law at present on Data Retention in Ireland is not affected or impacted by this legislation” does not reflect the full effect of a Directive. While no Directive comes into force immediately, an uninformed reader might take from this that it has no effect on Irish law at all. In fact, a Directive places a legal obligation on the government to bring in legislation to implement its terms. There is a time limit (which may be months or years), after which, if the legislation has not been brought in and where certain conditions are met, the Directive becomes directly effective in Irish courts.

I haven’t seen this anywhere else and a number of the comments in the earlier post voiced a specific disappointment with Proinsias De Rossa’s decision, alone amongst Irish MEPs, to vote in favour of the Data Retention Directive.

So in the interests of fairness, I reproduce below his statement on the matter.

Statement by PROINSIAS DE ROSSA, MEP
Labour Party MEP for Dublin

14 December 2005

McDowell should now adopt European Parliament’s Data Retention legislation

Speaking in Strasbourg as the European Parliament adopted proposals on Data Retention Proinsias De Rossa, Labour MEP for Dublin, said: “I welcome the European Parliament decision today to approve a proposal for a directive on data retention, heavily amended in the interests of citizens’ security and their rights to privacy. We urgently need a stricter policy to protect people’s private lives as the data concerned is already being stored and used by the authorities. The agreement reached in the European Parliament today represents a victory particularly as we successfully opposed the intention of member states to prevent any democratic debate on this question.

“Given our experience in Ireland, North & South, with paramilitary violence and organised criminal gangs we need the protection which mobile phone data retention has already provided. For example, some of the perpetrators of the Omagh bombing could not have been identified without that facility.

“What is necessary, and what the European Parliament today achieved through its amendments to the proposed directive, is a balance between citizens’ need for safety and their right to privacy.

“This legislation will be reviewed, and possibly improved, by the European Parliament in 3 years time in the light of political developments and experience of the measure. Political pressure must now be exerted on Minister McDowell to opt fully into this directive, which provides for a shorter period of retention than is provided for in current Irish Law.

He also adds, for the benefit of Editors;

The new EU rules allow retention of data on phone calls, including the identities of people involved, their physical locations and the length of calls – but not the content. Landline and mobile calls are covered along with Internet phone calls, e-mail and SMS.

Safeguards won by the Socialist Group include:
*Limiting retention of phone call data to inquiries into serious crime, in order to ensure proportionality;
*Introducing severe penal sanctions for abuse of personal information;
*Evaluating the measures three years after they take effect, with full involvement of the European Parliament;
*Including data about location at the beginning of calls in order to prevent the profiling of people’s movements.

Mr De Rossa followed the Socialist Party line on this issue, and says that the party was advised by Martine Roure MEP from the French Socialist Party. Ms. Roure was the Socialist Grouping’s Shadow Rapporteur in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

(Attentive readers, our favourite kind here, will recall that it was this Committee’s agreed text which was shunted aside by the deal between the European Socialists (PES) and the European People’s Party (EPP) and the Council of Ministers.)

Ms. Roure advised the members of the PES “that the amended package represented a genuine improvement on the original proposal – and the best compromise position available given the political makeup of the European Parliament.” Mr. De Rossa clearly accepted this advice. Though given the opacity of the language with which he describes it, perhaps something was lost in translation. After all, it does seem a slightly circular argument of Ms Roure’s to suggest that the PES has to vote for the proposal because a majority of parties, including the PES, support it.

And the particularly cynical might point out that the reference to improvements from the original proposal neatly sidesteps the significant backwards step the final PES-supported version represented from the text agreed by the Committee of which Ms. Roure is a member.

But there you all are. Does it answer your questions? Specifically, what do you think of the list of safeguards the Socialist Party say they won?

I’d still wonder was the deal with the PES influenced by the fact that the Labour Party in the UK were the principal proponents of Data Retention.

I’d next wonder what kind of a reputation Martine Roure MEP has on matters like this? Any Francophone readers able to help us out?