Jump to content

Bulk personal datasets: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Bender the Bot (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,008,858 edits
m →‎Controversy: clean up; http→https for The Guardian using AWB
Rescuing 2 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v1.5beta)
Line 6: Line 6:


== Controversy ==
== Controversy ==
The judicial body which oversees the intelligence services in the United Kingdom, the [[Investigatory Powers Tribunal]], ruled that the legislative framework in the United Kingdom does not permit mass surveillance and that while GCHQ collects and analyses data in bulk, it does not practice mass surveillance.<ref name="BBC141206">{{cite news |title=GCHQ does not breach human rights, judges rule |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30345801 |accessdate=6 December 2014 |work=[[BBC News Online]] |date=5 December 2014 }}</ref><ref name="GCHQ20141205">{{cite web |title=IPT rejects assertions of mass surveillance |url=http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press_and_media/news_and_features/Pages/IPT-rejects-assertions-of-mass-surveillance.aspx |publisher=[[Government Communications Headquarters|GCHQ]] |accessdate=7 February 2015 |date=5 December 2014 }}</ref><ref name="IPTList">{{cite web |title=List of judgments |url=http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=8 |publisher=Investigatory Powers Tribunal |accessdate=7 February 2015 |date=5 December 2014 |quote=Quote: # A declaration that the regime governing the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK which have been obtained by US authorities pursuant to [[PRISM (surveillance program)|Prism]] and/or [[UPSTREAM|Upstream]] does not contravene Articles 8 or 10 [[European Convention on Human Rights|ECHR]]. # A declaration that the regime in respect of interception under ss8(4), 15 and 16 of the [[Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000]] does not contravene Articles 8 or 10 ECHR and does not give rise to unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 14, read together with Articles 8 and/or 10 of the ECHR. }}</ref> A special report published by the [[Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament]] also came to this view, although it found past shortcomings in oversight and said the legal framework should be simplified to improve transparency.<ref name="BBC20150314">{{cite web |title=UK surveillance 'lacks transparency', ISC report says |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31845338 |work=[[BBC News Online]] |accessdate=14 March 2015 |date=12 March 2015 }}</ref><ref name="ISC2015March">{{cite web|title=Privacy and Security: A modern and transparent legal framework |url=http://isc.independent.gov.uk/news-archive/12march2015 |publisher=[[Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament]] |accessdate=14 March 2015 |date=12 March 2015 }}</ref><ref name="Guardian20150314">{{cite news |title=Intelligence and security committee report: the key findings |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/intelligence-security-committee-report-key-findings |accessdate=14 March 2015 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=12 March 2015 }}</ref> This view is supported by independent reports from the [[Interception of Communications Commissioner]].<ref name="ICC 2014">{{cite web |title=Statement by the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office (IOCCO) on the publication of the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Report 2014 |url=http://www.iocco-uk.info/docs/2015%20Press%20Release%20Final.pdf |publisher=Interception of Communications Commissioner |accessdate=14 March 2015 |date=12 March 2015 |format=PDF}}</ref><ref name="ICC March 2015">{{cite web |title=Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner |url=http://www.iocco-uk.info/docs/IOCCO%20Report%20March%202015%20(Web).pdf |publisher=Interception of Communications Commissioner |accessdate=14 March 2015 |date=March 2015 }}</ref> However, notable campaign groups and broadsheet newspapers continue to express strong views to the contrary,<ref>{{cite news |title=UK surveillance laws need total overhaul, says landmark report |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/12/uk-surveillance-laws-need-total-overhaul-says-landmark-report-edward-snowden |accessdate=14 March 2015 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=12 March 2015 }}</ref> while others have criticised these viewpoints in turn.<ref name="Times20150313a">{{cite news |title=Terrorism is price worth paying, says liberty lobby |url=http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article4380662.ece |accessdate=14 March 2015 |work=[[The Times]] |date=13 March 2015 }}</ref><ref name="Times20150313b">{{cite web |title=GCHQ doesn’t need any lectures from Liberty |url=http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article4380539.ece |work=[[The Times]] |accessdate=14 March 2015 |date=13 March 2015 }}</ref>
The judicial body which oversees the intelligence services in the United Kingdom, the [[Investigatory Powers Tribunal]], ruled that the legislative framework in the United Kingdom does not permit mass surveillance and that while GCHQ collects and analyses data in bulk, it does not practice mass surveillance.<ref name="BBC141206">{{cite news |title=GCHQ does not breach human rights, judges rule |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30345801 |accessdate=6 December 2014 |work=[[BBC News Online]] |date=5 December 2014 }}</ref><ref name="GCHQ20141205">{{cite web |title=IPT rejects assertions of mass surveillance |url=http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press_and_media/news_and_features/Pages/IPT-rejects-assertions-of-mass-surveillance.aspx |publisher=[[Government Communications Headquarters|GCHQ]] |accessdate=7 February 2015 |date=5 December 2014 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150206232713/http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press_and_media/news_and_features/Pages/IPT-rejects-assertions-of-mass-surveillance.aspx |archivedate=6 February 2015 |df= }}</ref><ref name="IPTList">{{cite web |title=List of judgments |url=http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=8 |publisher=Investigatory Powers Tribunal |accessdate=7 February 2015 |date=5 December 2014 |quote=Quote: # A declaration that the regime governing the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK which have been obtained by US authorities pursuant to [[PRISM (surveillance program)|Prism]] and/or [[UPSTREAM|Upstream]] does not contravene Articles 8 or 10 [[European Convention on Human Rights|ECHR]]. # A declaration that the regime in respect of interception under ss8(4), 15 and 16 of the [[Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000]] does not contravene Articles 8 or 10 ECHR and does not give rise to unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 14, read together with Articles 8 and/or 10 of the ECHR. |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150206211011/http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=8 |archivedate=6 February 2015 |df= }}</ref> A special report published by the [[Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament]] also came to this view, although it found past shortcomings in oversight and said the legal framework should be simplified to improve transparency.<ref name="BBC20150314">{{cite web |title=UK surveillance 'lacks transparency', ISC report says |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31845338 |work=[[BBC News Online]] |accessdate=14 March 2015 |date=12 March 2015 }}</ref><ref name="ISC2015March">{{cite web|title=Privacy and Security: A modern and transparent legal framework |url=http://isc.independent.gov.uk/news-archive/12march2015 |publisher=[[Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament]] |accessdate=14 March 2015 |date=12 March 2015 }}</ref><ref name="Guardian20150314">{{cite news |title=Intelligence and security committee report: the key findings |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/intelligence-security-committee-report-key-findings |accessdate=14 March 2015 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=12 March 2015 }}</ref> This view is supported by independent reports from the [[Interception of Communications Commissioner]].<ref name="ICC 2014">{{cite web |title=Statement by the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office (IOCCO) on the publication of the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Report 2014 |url=http://www.iocco-uk.info/docs/2015%20Press%20Release%20Final.pdf |publisher=Interception of Communications Commissioner |accessdate=14 March 2015 |date=12 March 2015 |format=PDF}}</ref><ref name="ICC March 2015">{{cite web |title=Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner |url=http://www.iocco-uk.info/docs/IOCCO%20Report%20March%202015%20(Web).pdf |publisher=Interception of Communications Commissioner |accessdate=14 March 2015 |date=March 2015 }}</ref> However, notable campaign groups and broadsheet newspapers continue to express strong views to the contrary,<ref>{{cite news |title=UK surveillance laws need total overhaul, says landmark report |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/12/uk-surveillance-laws-need-total-overhaul-says-landmark-report-edward-snowden |accessdate=14 March 2015 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=12 March 2015 }}</ref> while others have criticised these viewpoints in turn.<ref name="Times20150313a">{{cite news |title=Terrorism is price worth paying, says liberty lobby |url=http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article4380662.ece |accessdate=14 March 2015 |work=[[The Times]] |date=13 March 2015 }}</ref><ref name="Times20150313b">{{cite web |title=GCHQ doesn’t need any lectures from Liberty |url=http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article4380539.ece |work=[[The Times]] |accessdate=14 March 2015 |date=13 March 2015 }}</ref>


== References ==
== References ==

Revision as of 11:21, 27 July 2017

"Bulk personal datasets" is the UK government's euphemism for datasets containing personally identifiable information on a large number of individuals, as part of mass surveillance in the United Kingdom and on citizens around the world.

The term was first used publicly in March 2015 by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, and is subject to significant controversy.

Other UK Government departments have programmes utilising bulk personal datasets, one of which is the care.data programme in the Department of Health and National Health Service. In health, bulk personal datasets are created as a by-product of providing direct care.

Controversy

The judicial body which oversees the intelligence services in the United Kingdom, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, ruled that the legislative framework in the United Kingdom does not permit mass surveillance and that while GCHQ collects and analyses data in bulk, it does not practice mass surveillance.[1][2][3] A special report published by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament also came to this view, although it found past shortcomings in oversight and said the legal framework should be simplified to improve transparency.[4][5][6] This view is supported by independent reports from the Interception of Communications Commissioner.[7][8] However, notable campaign groups and broadsheet newspapers continue to express strong views to the contrary,[9] while others have criticised these viewpoints in turn.[10][11]

References

  1. ^ "GCHQ does not breach human rights, judges rule". BBC News Online. 5 December 2014. Retrieved 6 December 2014.
  2. ^ "IPT rejects assertions of mass surveillance". GCHQ. 5 December 2014. Archived from the original on 6 February 2015. Retrieved 7 February 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ "List of judgments". Investigatory Powers Tribunal. 5 December 2014. Archived from the original on 6 February 2015. Retrieved 7 February 2015. Quote: # A declaration that the regime governing the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK which have been obtained by US authorities pursuant to Prism and/or Upstream does not contravene Articles 8 or 10 ECHR. # A declaration that the regime in respect of interception under ss8(4), 15 and 16 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 does not contravene Articles 8 or 10 ECHR and does not give rise to unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 14, read together with Articles 8 and/or 10 of the ECHR. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ "UK surveillance 'lacks transparency', ISC report says". BBC News Online. 12 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
  5. ^ "Privacy and Security: A modern and transparent legal framework". Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. 12 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
  6. ^ "Intelligence and security committee report: the key findings". The Guardian. 12 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
  7. ^ "Statement by the Interception of Communications Commissioner's Office (IOCCO) on the publication of the Interception of Communications Commissioner's Report 2014" (PDF). Interception of Communications Commissioner. 12 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
  8. ^ "Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner" (PDF). Interception of Communications Commissioner. March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
  9. ^ "UK surveillance laws need total overhaul, says landmark report". The Guardian. 12 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
  10. ^ "Terrorism is price worth paying, says liberty lobby". The Times. 13 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
  11. ^ "GCHQ doesn't need any lectures from Liberty". The Times. 13 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
Flag of United KingdomJustice icon

This article relating to law in the United Kingdom, or its constituent jurisdictions, is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Stub icon

This human rights-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Stub icon

This database-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulk_personal_datasets&oldid=792585372"