Anti-terrorism powers not restricted to terrorists

Data ostensibly collected by ISPs and telcos under emergency anti-terrorism legislation can be used by the police to assist them in investigations unrelated to terrorism - something which flies in the face of earlier statements made by Home Secretary David Blunkett.

The Home Office now denies it ever said the data would only be used to assist anti-terrorist investigations in the wake of 11 September, but in an article for left wing weekly magazine the Tribune on 26 October, Home Secretary David Blunkett made just such an assurance.

In that article, Blunkett said a change in the law was required "strictly in the case of a criminal investigation against suspected terrorists. That is why we are working with companies on a code of practice with the result they will keep billing records for longer than at present, to allow access in relation to anti-terrorist activity."

However, the Home Office now admits the data will in fact be used for a whole variety of investigations, as regulated by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIP).

RIP currently allows the government access to any private data held by ISPs relating to minor crimes, tax collection and public health and safety, but significantly the law does not force ISPs to store that data in the first place.

However, the new anti-terror legislation will give police the power to request ISPs store information. Once the data has been stored, it is open to the full range of RIP powers.

Privacy groups are alarmed by the new measures, which they describe as "Draconian". Caspar Bowden, from internet think tank the Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR), criticised the government for backtracking.

"David Blunkett's private office evidently believes the internet community is too stupid to notice them telling a direct untruth," he said.

The Home Office said today it had always been clear the data could be used for a variety of purposes as defined by RIP. It said the article in the Tribune represented an "abridged" representation of a complex issue, thus it could not explain the detail of how the law would work.