• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
RETENTION OF COMMUNICATIONS DATADevelopments in the Online Space
Regulations have been introduced which require certain public communications providers (read ISPs, mobilephone providers, VOIP operators…and, potentially, social networking sites such as Twitter) to retain certain dataabout the communications made over their networks (and the people making those communications) for 12months. This move may be seen by some as a threat to privacy as well as an extra compliance burden for theaffected service providers. Others would counter that it is a welcome and necessary weapon in the fight againstterrorism and other serious crime which can be incited, orchestrated or even conducted online, such as childabuse.Landline and mobile phone providers have been required to retain certain communications data (e.g. time/lengthof call, name/address of caller) since2007. TheData Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009“New Regulations”) came into force on 6th April, implementing the correspondingEU Directiveinto UK law. These NewRegulations replace the 2007 Regulations, which referred only to telephone services and expressly excludedinternet services. The New Regulations capture communications made by internet, email and internet telephony(such as VOIP and efax), and require certain providers of these services to retain communications data for ayear. This ‘communications data’ relates to the who/when/where of a communication (but not the content) andranges from log on/call times and durations to the names and addresses of people sending and receivingcommunications.Only public communications providers who are notified by the Secretary of State are required to comply with theNew Regulations. These will be companies who make available “electronic communications services” to membersof the public by providing an “electronic communications network”, defined in theCommunications Act 2003as “a transmission system for the conveyance, by the use of electrical, magnetic or electro-magnetic energy, of signals of any description; and (b) such of the [apparatus comprised in the system and/or used for the switchingor routing of the signals; and software and stored data] as are used, by the person providing the system and inassociation with it, for the conveyance of the signals.” It remains to be seen which companies will receivenotification under the New Regulations from the Secretary of State, but ISPs (e.g. BT Internet) will certainly benotified, as will mobile phone providers (if they haven't already, e.g. O2) and VOIP operators (e.g. Skype). It willbe interesting to see whether the Government will extend such notification to search engines and websiteoperators – particularly social networking sites, where mass communication is key with the crowds twittering,posting and poking.
 Advantages of the New Regulations
The Home Office points out in its Explanatory Memorandum that communications data has proved valuable forlaw enforcement purposes over many years, in detecting crimes, investigating suspects and prosecutingoffenders. Although many communications providers retain such information in any event, they delete it as soonas their business purposes have been met (whether because of data protection legislation or the costs of storage). The Home Office argues that long running investigations, which may require communications datasome time after a crime has been detected, tend to relate to the most serious crimes and as such there is astrong public interest in obliging relevant companies to preserve such evidence.If every email, IM, tweet and post is logged along with the sender’s name, address and geographical location atthe time, then law enforcers will find it easier to verify alibis, trace contacts and track movements. Criminals willbe unable to rely on the perceived anonymity of the Web to disguise their activities. The New Regulations send aclear message that people cannot hide behind online personalities to conduct criminal behaviour.
 
 Page 219 June 2009
Disadvantages of the New Regulations
However, despite the stated benefits of the New Regulations as a crime fighting tool, legitimate data protectionconcerns have been raised by privacy groups, who object to being monitored and criticise the measure as a steptowards a ‘Big Brother’ state. As the Government has not had a good track record recently with safeguardingdata, concerns over the generation and retention of increasing amounts of data is perhaps justified.Perhaps the biggest concern is the fact that the New Regulations do not limit the disclosure and use of the datato investigation of the serious crimes on the basis of which the New Regulations are justified. The NewRegulations blandly state that “Access to data retained in accordance with these New Regulations may beobtained only (a) in specific cases, and (b) in circumstances in which disclosure of the data is permitted orrequired by law.” It is not difficult to envisage courts interpreting this provision widely and ordering disclosure incivil cases where this information would be useful – for example, defamation claims (to discover the details of abig-mouth blogger), divorce cases (to check a cheating spouse’s phone calls), and employment tribunals (toascertain a sick employee’s whereabouts). As in the ‘Owlstalk’ case, which we havepreviously blogged about,Norwich Pharmacal orders can be made to disclose the contact details of libellous online commentators. We maysee increasing similar instances of this as more companies are required to hold more data for longer. In order fordisclosure of an individual’s details under a Norwich Pharmacal order, the following 3 conditions must be met:1.
 
a wrong must have been arguably carried out;2.
 
the order must be necessary in order to enable the claimant to bring an action against the wrongdoer;and3.
 
the intermediary against whom the order is sought must (a) have facilitated the wrongdoing; and (b) belikely to be able to provide the necessary information about the wrongdoer.Indeed, if the New Regulations are extended so that online hosts of the defamatory forums are required to keepthe communications data relating to their users for a year, the third test will become more likely to be satisfied.We should not forget that the New Regulations will impose an additional compliance burden on the notifiedpublic communications providers. The extent to which this is an issue depends on the amount of companiesnotified under the New Regulations and the additional measures they will have to take to understand andimplement their obligations under the New Regulations. The New Regulations have gone some way to addressingthis by stating that the Secretary of State “may reimburse any expenses incurred by a public communicationsprovider in complying with the provisions of these New Regulations.” However, this subsidy ultimately comesfrom credit-crunched UK taxpayers, who may query the efficacy and efficiency of setting up the systems requiredto implement the New Regulations.
 Yasmin JoomratyLaurence Kaye Solicitors
© Laurence Kaye 2009T: 01923 352 117E:laurie@laurencekaye.com www.laurencekaye.com http://laurencekaye.typepad.com/ 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...